{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1726","title":"Court filings concerning LRSD motion for protective order and for preliminary hearing, and PCSDD Baker recruitment plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-08-15/2001-08-31"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Parents' and teachers' associations","School management and organization","School discipline","School administrators","School employees","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning LRSD motion for protective order and for preliminary hearing, and PCSDD Baker recruitment plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1726"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["83 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, plaintiff's motion for protective order and for preliminary hearing; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion for protective order and for emergency hearing; District Court, order; District Court, consolidated response to motion for preliminary injunction and corrected motion for relief from orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001; District Court, plaintiff's motion for comtempt; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion for contempt; District Court, order; District Court, supplement to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSDD) Baker recruitment plan; District Court, plaintiff's motion for contempt; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, response to Joshua's motion for extension of time; District Court, three orders; District Court, motion for enlargement of time  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    RECEIVED AUG 1 7 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL PLAINTIFF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL ,.. .. ._!!\\THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTNE ORDER AND FOR EMERGENCY HEARING Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing states: 1. LRSD seeks a protective order to prevent unduly burdensome and harassing - discovery being conducted by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") via the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (\"FOIA\"), Ark. Code Ann.  25-19-101 through 25-19-110. 2. On August 13, 2001, Joshua submitted the FOIA request attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Items one and two of the request seek all correspondence and e-mail between each LRSD principal and other District personnel for over three years. LRSD seeks a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) requiring Joshua to more narrowly tailor the request and/or .. granting LRSD 60 days to respond to the request and requiring Joshua to conduct future discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Joshua's use of the FOIA to conduct discovery is intended to annoy, oppress and unduly burden LRSD. First, the request is over broad. Joshua made no effort to limit its request to the issues currently before this Court. Second, the request is unreasonably cumulative. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(i). This request is one in a long-line ofFOIA requests by Joshua. In response to a prior request, LRSD provided Joshua access to all of the e-mails of each associate superintendent. These would have included any e-mails with principals. Finally, the burden and expense of complying with Joshua's request outweighs any likely benefit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. i6(b )(2)(iii). The documents sought by Joshua may contain personal information about students. The FOIA requires LRSD to redact this information. See 2001 Ark. Acts 1653. It will take a substantial amount oftime and resources to review over three years worth of correspondence and e-mails and make the necessary redactions. Principals need to be preparing for the start of school on August 20, 2001. It will be impossible for them to comply with Joshua's FOIA request and also adequately prepare for the start of school. 4. LRSD has attempted to confer with Joshua, but Joshua refused to narrow the ~  -.r-eqnest or allow LRSD the time needed to respond. 5. LRSD's memorandum brief in support of this Motion is hereby incorporated by reference. As discussed therein, this Court has discretion to enjoin Joshua's use of the FOIA to conduct discovery. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a protective order requiring Joshua to more narrowly tailor its August 13, 2001, FOIA request and/or granting LRSD 60 days to respond to the request; for an order requiring Joshua to conduct future discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; for an emergency hearing on this Motion; and for all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37. 1 B: John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE   I certify ~ copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by fax and mail on August~ 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol . Little Rock, AR 72201 ~  -Mr:steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-73 88 - Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ John C. Fendley, Jr. 3 08/ 13/2001 15:59 501-324-2213 SQ-IDOL SERVICES PAGE 03   - JOHll W. W.Al.XU SH.AWN OJIILl)S JoHN W. WALJaR, P.A. moJQmArL4w l72S~AT Lrrn-l Rocm, A8JwGAs 722()6 TILZ:fflon (SOl) \u00267+8758 FAX (!501) 874-4l87 August 13, 2001 r  Dur Principal: -- Please provide punu~t to the Arkansas Freedom oflnfurmation A.a:  i. I 1) ali errcspond~ that yo-1.1 have .na~ in \\\\'if.ti other Little Rock S~l ~ strict P6onn.l fot 0\\4 ~riC)d baitfflll'la Math l. 1~8 ano en(!in~ J,.m\" 30, 2\u003cj(l1 ; , t I fol' th pen~ bta,nnin; M~c:h 1, 1998 .na .adina Jw,o )0, :2001; f 2) Qll ._~, that yo~ ha.Vt .r,;agci in wiih ocbr Li\"W llock Sclaool Di~J- '10,mel. 3) copies of all plAni that your \u0026chool dC!Veloped reaarding the following r.~bj i: a) discipline ;- b) gradea e) transportation d) flXtneurricular acti\"vjtie., j e) remediation of achievemanl activities ;: 1 f) participation in gifted and talented~ honors and advanced placc:inent i g} participation in spoc:ial education : , .  . I 4) ail wrltina, which rdlect the followin\u0026: . ! ) evaluario,u of pro,rama. policie, and proccdur11 that you imp .. ~ ! duriA\u0026 each of the last tbr\" yoan ,. b) appraiaaJa ofpro,rama, policies and.procedures that you impl~t. duri.q *b  of the last three years = .. c) assessments of pr~. policies ap4.:p;OGedures that you im.r,jem. j d during each oftbe last three years; and   . ::_ . i .  5) al.I rcporta resardina the success or fiilure : ~ propm. policy aodf ir  . ire that you nave under1aken in your ;school during eaeh of the past three rear whij e you h\u0026ve rec;ommsodod changes (regarding the proaram. Policy or prooedllf to !bl admi.Disu1tion io writin1, ' : .. I ~ l  ~ PLAINTIFF'S t axrmn 08/13/2001 15:59 501-324-221:3 SCHOOL SERVICES rt !i r-   y 011 may gpw witJl M~. ~Pfl!10!f HI my offica f'lRA!'dmJ tt\\A 4AM W tiftt  review and inspect the requested information. JWW:j\u0026 I I I I ! ; . j ' PAGE 04 11/17/95 14:52 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, \u0026 JENN I NGS  NO. 1.54 Hal6~/l:l1Qb ALio-:30-84 TUE 15:45 US DISTRICT CLERK FAX NO, 15019724812 P. 02 IN THB tiam A'l'BS DISTRICT cou.:'dr.JJrlC~~ DSTDN STRICT 01 AJlKAN .RNDlffllCf AAIWIIU JONISBOI.O DIVISION AUG 3 O 1994 ~~ DR  .JOHN KANGIDI, PLAIMTI1? ARKANSAS ITA'l'B UNlVIRSITY, B'l' AL, , DIJ'DDANTS MIM9BAttRPI MP 9BPIB In this action bro~9ht puruant to ,3 u.s.c. I 1913, th Defendant have aouqht a protactivo order (docket entry 3) which would _prohibit discovery ot attorney-clian~ communicationa batvean the Defendant and their lavyera and would protect attorney worlc product from dJ.acloure. Th latter would include lawyer to lawyer co1111unioat1ona aad tor th pupoae of preparin9 and detendinq the 1ntant l1t19ation. Plaintiff taadtaetly re1ita th entry ot ucb a protect! va order, pointing to th Arkanaa Freedom ot Intonation Aot, Ark. Code Ann. S as-19-101 at sag. (Supp. 1993), th Defendant' tatu aa ~c of  public 1ftat1tution, and the tact that th Detanclanta have baan auecl in their official aa well  individual capaoitiaa, and a body of Arkansas c law addra11inq the POIA and the aubjeot ot Defendant' propoaed order. 1 = PLAINTIFF'S l 9i'Bl1 t l/l?/95 14:52 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, \u0026 JENN I NGS I N0.134 P003/006 AUG-30-94 TUE 15:46 us TSTRJCT CLERK I FAX NO, 15019724612 P.03 e Initially, it auat be detarttlna4 which rul of law the court ahould apply. Thi caae, brol.!4ht in Federal Ditriot Co~ by a former State univer itr ~reaident over his treatment by the Board of Truateea ot ,.id intitution, i  tor rdr ot righta protected ~Y the law and eontitution ot th united stat In a auit ~roupt in federal court purauant to 42 u.s.c. I 1913, federal law control CZUNtion ,,--- ot priv1le9e. 1SglHn1 Ye Powtll, 773 ,.2c1 191, 1.1, (8th C:iJ:. 1911), cart. denied, 475 u.s. 1119 (1ta6); Youn!Jblood y. Qataa. 112 7.R.D. 342 (C.D. c.1. 1915). 'l'hia 1  true even where a pendnt or auppl ... ntal jurisdiction claim 11 joined with a federal claia. BIDIID Ye Alln IMPEial Hpapi\\al. 141 P.R..D. 115 (S.D. Iowa 1193). Work product protection - cautiona are detanined by looking to federal law, even in d1vrity ca Attbert; v, Cbis1aA i u,w, Tranap, Ce,, 121 P.R.D. 569 (D.s.o. 1989); Harpar Ye Auto oVDVI +DI, Co,, 138 r.R.D. ,ss (S.D. Ind. 1991), Tli attorney-oUent privilaqa i an indipnble tool of juatioa, and i 919011nded in th tederal 00111110n law. It ori9in8 ;o baclc_well before .th 1700' 8t4ient aurnr, Inc. Y, yarican A A11eei1tisn, 320 r.ad 314 (1th cir. 11,l). '?he benefit ot the privila,e, l:)otb to t.ha aainiat.rat1on o.t juatic and to the attorner.;client relationahip, are o \u0026oW\\da-nt a to need no recitation hare. It 1 tharatora held that tha aotion 1 GRAN'l'ID  ~ tho 001111\\Ulioationa between attorney and gliant that oomo under tho attornerclient  a l ,l / lt::35 14:~ Wl-\u003c:lrl, LlNu:x.T, ll. Jt::NN!~ fG-30-94 TUE 15:48  US DISTRICT CLERK . FAX J\"'IU ,, .L~ 15019724612 wv11e9e, See ,a\u002611,.-i.._..-._..,_,_....,.~.....,.,...._..._......_,.......,'-llilll,-\" r.~.D. ,st (D,C, Ill, 1975), Th motion 1 aleo GaAMTID  to into;-ation, letter, o~anda, and th lika .ganez-ated  lt.or~Y work product. HiglQaln y. Taylor, l2t U,S, 495, '7 +ct. 385 (1147) I bG E1atn1u1ar Tit;l c;e, v, 2111.. 101cb ~otxi 132 P,R.D. 301 (S,D. Pl\u0026, 1990), Th real ditticulty, ot course, co in determining whether a 9iven item tall within or without on ot th ~vo protected ~te9or1 Counl are called upon to u their sound jud;mant, and to conault the ColU't when and if bQno tide diput arbe in th cour ot cUsoovery abo~t 1tea that ara po ai~ly protected. A wo~d ut be qivn to th Arkansas authorit.ie that have touched on the iaeuea of privilege and work product in the context ot FOL\\ requeta. In Mc;C:ombJ:idga Yr Cit A( Little Jgck, 298 Ark. 21,, 766 s.w.ad 109 (1989), the Arkan suprue court hald that the Arkan rule of the attorneyclient privilet did not create an exemption to the Arkan rreedoa ot In(~raation Act. 'rhe ca heavily rlied on by Plaintiff, city q( f111ttayillt Yr Nmark, 304 A~k. 179, 801 s.w.ad 275 (ltta), held, ipt9r alia, that legal aemoranda prepared for tbe City tor li ti9ation purpo war not axeapt from tbe Arkan rraedoa ot Intomation Act. ~ttornay work product va thu dbcloaed .. 3 P. 04 : l 11/17/95 14:53 WRI(JiT, LlNU~~Y, ~ Jt::.NN!Nl\"l~ AUG-30-94 TUE 15:47 1u S D[STRICT CLERK NU  .L~ FAX NO, 15019724612 P.05 e Th court tinda 1aarJc and Mgcambri0;1 \" not bindin9 on thi Court and even 1~ the court aawnaa that they ara, the daoiaiona ~o not foracloaa thia _Court troa 1uinJ an order protecting attorney-oliant coDllllunicationa or attorney wor\u003ec product. (See Ark. Coda AM. I 25-ltlOS(b)(I), Which xempte tro th FOll dOOWNftta . which ar protaotecl fro dialoaure by order or rule ot court.) It i intueatinq to note that . ,.- Louiaiana' Public Raoorda Law apeai.riaally expt attorney work product rroa it tena, but not aaterial protected by the attorney-client privilege. sea 'tlllQP y. Lgui1iana Land 1 1Xpl;ratign. aos ,.supp. Ja5 cx.o. 1,a. ie9a). In axaminin; tha Arkan autboriti it i readily apparent that the tocu and concern of the Arkana Stata 9 oourt11 1a with the whole body or Arkan law, ancl the function of Arkan law in the attair ot Arkan oitiaen Thi Padaral cour~, while aituated within Arkan, must navarthel have  1 t prilaary concern th atf 1c1ent adaini tration ot juatio and the tair resolution ot federal olaiaa radreaaable by the parties liti;ant in federal oourt. Thu , taderal law and prooedura auat ba applied. I'l' IS, 'lHD.ll'OU, ORDDID that all papera, 111atarial, and other thing colleotad or praparact by th parti or their raprntativea in anticipation for trial, or otharwi1 within the cope ot the taderal work product: doctrine, and all private couunicationa of any kind between th defendant an4 their counl v1thin the 1 rec09ni1ad boundaries ot the 4 11/17/95 14:54 WRl.GHTf LlNJ.kit.Y; \u0026 . Jl:NNl~t:o NU  .1.~ . , -~.!JG-30-94 TUE 15:48 u~DISTRICT CLERK . FAX HO, 15018724812  . P. 06 91:ornayoliant privilege, an hereby ~rot,~tcad t~oa dicovery . . by tb oppoainq party or ralaa to any third pa~y, except by order ot thi court. 5 i : I e IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, ARKANSAS STATE OF ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF vs. CIVIL NO. 92-100 HABILITATION CENTER, INC. an Arkansas Corporation d/b/a MILLCREEK OF ARKANSAS; MILLCREEK MANAGEMENT, INC., a Mississippi Corporation; DR. JAMES O. STEPHENS, M.D., {in his individual capacity, and in his official capacities as President and Chairman of the Board of Habilitation Center, Inc., and Rehabilitation Centers, Inc. , and as Chairman of the Board of Millcreek Management, Inc.); JOSEPH L. STEPHENS, ( in his individual capacity, and in his official cap~6ities as Vice President of Habilitation Center, Inc., Rehabilitation Centers, Inc., and Millcreek Management, Inc.); BILL SIMMONS, (in his individual capacity, and in his official capacity as President of Millcreek Management, Inc.); and  WANDA MILES-BELL, (in her individual capacity and in her official capacities as Executive Director and General Manager of Millcreek of Arkansas and Vice President of Millcreek Management, Inc.); DEFENDANTS ORDER On this 31st day of January, 1995, there is presented to the Court the Motions for Protective Order filed on behalf of defendant Habilitation, Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. and William Sutton. The Attorney General ht:lving f;;lly :responded and the Court being sufficiently -advised, having heard arguments of counsel and having fully considered this matter IT IS NOW, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The office of the Attorney General served a request for records under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, Ark. Code Ann 25-19-101, et seq., (hereinafter FOIA) upon Mr. William Sutton, custodian of records at the law firm of Friday, Eldredge \u0026 hob'l.onl PLAINTIFPS EXHIBIT 3  Clark, attorneys for the defendant Habilitation Center, Inc. d/b/a Millcreek of Arkansas, seeking the law firm's files relating to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. (hereinafter Millcreek Schools) and Habili tation Center, Inc. (hereinafter Habili tat ion) . The requests specifically seek \"documents, notes, pleadings, memorandum [sic] _, work papers, attorney work papers including work product ,p_~epared, genarat~d or relai:ed -to any '.lark done by your finn for Habilitation centers, Inc. (sic] or Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, . ~- ;,. .. -=_:Inc. in State of Arkansas v. Habilitation Centers, Inc., [sic] CIV- 92-100 in Dallas County, Arkansas.\" The Attorney General served similar FOIA requests on Habilitation and Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. Jurisdiction and Venue The threshold issue for this Court's determination is whether the Court has jurisdiction to enter the protective orders sought. The plaintiff selected the Dallas County Circuit Court in which to bring the pending case pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-13-201 and venue was established in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. 16-106- . !.01 (d) . Juri.::;dicticn-in .this Court was t~en proper, ,and this CoU::r:t retains that jurisdiction and control over the case pursuant to the aforesaid statutes. Although the Freedom of Information Act establishes a separate authority under which information may be obtained under certain circumstances, there is no question but that a FOIA request to a law firm representing a defendant in a pending case within the jurisdiction of this Court is so intertwined with that pending case as to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court. 2   If the Attorney General makes a FOIA request of a totally separate ~ntity, that .separate entity would not be subject to the jurisdiction of this Court, and the Attorney General would be free to pursue its FOIA request in whatever jurisdiction may be permitted by law. The Attorney General has not named Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. as a party defendant. The Attorney General has made reference to  \"Millcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, a -'separate entity owned by defendant, Habilitation\" in .,_its first amended  complaint. The Court is convinced that Millcreek Schools of Arkansas and Millcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, both allegedly owned by Habilitation, should be considered to be the same entity as Habilitation d/b/a Millcreek of Arkansas, and accordingly Millcreek Schools of Arkansas is not truly a separate entity but rather it is an integral part of Habilitation. Therefore it, too, comes within the jurisdiction of this Court. In holding that this Court has jurisdiction and is the proper venue to resolve the issues relating to the FOIA, the Court acknowledges -that i-c is iriappr0pric:1.te for -che threat of pot:.ential enforcement in another forum to hang over the defendants as they prepare for trial, and it is in the interest of judicial economy to have this Court handle all issues relating to the matters at hand. Venue is proper only in the circuit court of the judicial district in which the entity is located when the defendant is an entity which is a private organization even though supported by public funds. Here, all the FOIA targets are such private --- 3 organizations resisting the turn over of information pursuant to the FOIA. The mere fact that the Attorney General itself is located in Pulaski County and is a state agency does not create venue in that county in these circumstances. Standing The defendants' attorneys seek a protective order in order to protect the attorney/client privilege being asserted on behalf of their clients which include the defendant Habilitation. . J ;. \"'  ..  =_.Habili tat ion has standing by virtue of being a party litigant in the case brought by the Attorney General . The law firm of Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark has standing to seek a protective order since it represents Habilitation. Habilitation is Not Subject to the FOIA. The major issue is whether Habilitation Center, Inc. is an entity subject to the FOIA. If it is, its attorney's files may be discoverable under FOIA. It is settled under Arkansas law that attorney work product and records are not per se exempt from FOIA disclosure under Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-105. See Scott v. Smith, 2-92 Ark. 174, 728 s. W. 2d 515 (1.987), Arkansas. Highway Department v. Hope Brick Works~ Inc., 294 Ark. 490, 744 S.W.2d 711 (1988) and City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, 304 Ark. 179, 801 S.W.2d 275 (1990). Although a court hearing a FOIA enforcement action may not issue a protective order under that section to protect information otherwise subject to disclosure, 1 nevertheless, the trial court is 1Ark. Newspaper, Inc. v. Patterson, 281 Ark. 213, 262 S.W.2d 826 (1994), City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, supra, at page 193. 4 able to create an exemption from the FOIA as authorized by Ark . . code Ann. 25-19-105 (b) (8) since the limitations on protective orders do not apply to trial courts. The threshold issue, however, is whether FOIA even applies in the situation before the Court. In order to make that determination, the Court must decide whether the materials sought by the Attorney General are public records within the meaning of the FOIA. 2 Habilitation is a privately owned for-profit entity receiving Medicaid funds; it is ;..  ___ not a government agency. Given the facts of this situation, it may be an \"other agency\" subject to the FOIA. because it is \"wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds.\" Courts have enforced FOIA requests to particular private entities when they are wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds. 3 This Court has also considered a number 2Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-103 (1) provides in pertinent part, \"Public records means writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes or data, compilations in any form required by law to be kept or otherwise kept and which constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions which are or should be carried out by a \"public official or an employee or government QJ;: any other agency wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending . public funds . . n  [emphasis supplied] 3See North Central Association of Colleges and Schools v. Trout Brothers, Inc., 261 Ark. 378, 548 S.W.2d 285 (1977); Arkansas Gazette Company v. Southern State College, 273 Ark. 248, 620 S.W.2d 258 (1981}, app. dismissed 455 U.S. 931 (1982}; and Rehab Hospital Services Corp. v. Delta Hills Health Systems Agency, Inc., 285 Ark. 397 687 S.W.2d 840 {1985). The first two of the cited cases indicate the factors that must be present before a private entity will be subject to the FOIA. First, there must be direct public funding. Secondly, there must be indirect public support. Third, there must be public concern with respect to the organization's activities. The primary source of funding being governmental and the serving of a public purpose may subject the private organization to the FOIA. Rehab Hospital Services Corp. supra. Recently the Arkansas Supreme Court has declared that public funds bohl- 5 ! . I i I ' I of Attorney General's opinions which are not binding as precedent,  ,- but which are instructive. The Attorney General has opined that \"when the activities of a private organization and the government become so intertwined, the private organization may well render itself part of the state for [FOIA] purposes.\" Ark. Op. No. 83- 163. In that opinion, the AG opined that the mere receipt of Medicare and Medicaid funds by a private nonprofit hospital or a for-profit investor owned facility would not trigger the FOIA. , -.-_More recently, the Attorney General has opined that the mere receipt of public funds is not in itself sufficient to bring a private organization within the FOIA; rather, the question is whether the private entity carries on public business or is otherwise intertwined with the activities of the government . Ark. Op. AG No. 94-131 (May 13, 1994), citing City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, supra, (1990) and Op. AG Nos. 91-131, 94-154 and 83-163. Here both Habilitation and Millcreek Schools do not conduct their activities with or for the benefit of or in the place of any public agency. Neither is established by law. Neither is any more . regulated -0r supervised than hospitals or nursing homes or schools. No governmenta1 authority is ~t Habili tat ion nor is any Habili tat ion employee located in any government office. Habilitation determines the programs for the children, not the State . include only direct public funding, not indirect support. Sebastian city Chapter of the A11lerican Red Cross v. Weatherford, 311 Ark. 656 (845) S.W.2d 641 (1993). 6 Habilitation and Millcreek are engaged in the private r endering of Medicaid and other Medicaid eligible services to private individuals. People performing these services are not public officials. Habilitation is providing Medicaid and other services pursuant to a standard form contract, not making public policy. Even though all or a substantial part of its income is derived from the government, it is being paid only for services and is not being subsidized as an extension of government. These facts do not lead to the conclusion that Habiliation and Millcreek are so connected or intertwined as to bring them within the purview of FOIA disclosure. After evaluating the facts and in light of precedent, the Court finds that Habilitation and Millcreek are not private entities subject to the FOIA. While the line limiting the reach of FOIA is not bright and while the FOIA is to be liberally construed for disclosure of records in the public domain, Ragland v. Yeargen, 288 Ark. 81, 702 S.W.2d 23 (1986), the facts in this case cannot justify a conclusion that \"public business\" was or is being conducted by Habili tation. The intent of the legislature was to expose the performance of public officials and of the decis1ons that are reached in public activity and in making public policy. While the public at large as electors do have an interest in how the Medicaid program is being conducted and should have access to all agency records relating thereto, including those supplied by Habilitation under its contract, they have no overriding interest in how a private service provider renders its services to private 7 individuals. There simply is no legal precedent or suggestion that  it was the intent of the legislature to subject the private activities and all licensed entities and individuals to public scrutiny under the FOIA. Thus it is the decision of this Court that Habilitation is not subject to the FOIA. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark is Not Subject to the FOIA Additionally, the Court also finds that Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark is not' subject to FOIA. It is an obviously private entity .--Eeceiving no obvious public funds, and its clients are not a public entity. The Court believes that the Attorney General's FOIA request to Habilitation and Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark is discovery abuse. Defendants and their counsel are entitled to protection to maintain the integrity of the discovery process set out in the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Unauthorized access to attorney/client or attorney/work product privileged material can deprive defendants of due process. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion for Protective Order to protect the FOIA requested material from Habili tat ion .should be and  hereby is granted. Additionally~ the protective order is extended to Millcreek of Arkansas, to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc., to Millcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, and to Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark as attorney to the extent of any mater~als in any way related to this litigation. The Attorney General may, if it so chooses, amend its complaint with respect to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. if it determines that amendment of the name of the defendant is appropriate. 8 Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-l0S(b) (8) Exemption The Court further finds that even were the defendant subject to the FOIA, the exemption provided in Ark. Code Ann. 25-19- 105 (b) (8) which expressly exempts \"documents which are protected from disclosure by orders or rules of court\" would apply in this case. As the Supreme Court stated in . City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, supra at 191: A triar' court has the inherent authority to protect the integrity of _the Court in actions pending before it and . ...- may issue appropriate protective orders that would provide FOIA exemption under 25-19-l0S(b) (8). This Court having underlying jurisdiction over the underlying litigation finds that a protective order should be issued to restrict disclosure of documents being sought pursuant to FOIA. If there is any subsequent review by any other circuit court considering related FOIA requests, this protective order is issued specifically within the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. 25-19- 105 (b) (8) to protect from the FOIA materials which otherwise might be disclosable. Id. Other Motions The defendants' Motion to Quash Notice of Depositions is governed by the Written Agreement of the Parties provided to the Court in their  joint Motion for Continuance. Accordingly, depositions of parties may begin again only as set out in the Agreement. The Attorney General's Motion to Strike Affidavits will be considered by the Court when it receives the plaintiff's Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendants' Reply to the 9  - Attorney General's Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, if  .any, will be due within ten business days thereafter. The Attorney General has filed a Motion for Default on Attorney General's Motion to Strike. That Motion is denied. Conclusion IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendants' Motion be and it hereby is granted. It is further ordered that a protective order be and hereby is issued over all materials sought by the Attorney ~--General under the FOIA unless they are otherwise discoverable or admissible into evidence. The Motion to Quash Notice of Depositions is hereby granted until otherwise provided in the agreement of the parties. The Motion for Default on the Attorney General's Motion to Strike is hereby denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1995. hobJ- ~ day of deJn ~ CAROL C Circuit/ DATE: ,)/t4/ f (\" 10 IN Tiffi UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURJ.4 IN TIIB EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANs~M PINE BLUFF DIVISION ROGER HEATHSCOTT vs. NO. 5:00-CV-00333-WRW UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. ORDER DEFENDANT For the reasons stated in a telephone conference yesterday, the plaintiff's motion (Doc.5) for a protective order is GRANTED. Accordingly, defendant must not compel the plaintiff to attend the physical examination scheduled for February 14, 2001 , with Dr. Baskin, M.D., and it must not compel the attendance of the plaintiff at the functional capacity examination scheduled for February I 9, 2001. Further, plaintiff must not be disciplined for failing to attend these examinations. I rely primarily upon Smith v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 878 F.Supp. 171 (D.Co. 1995) and Vicary v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 942 F.Supp. 1146 (N.D. Ohio 1996) which seem to be well reasoned. Unlike the plaintiffs in Calvert v. Trans World Airlines, 959 F.2d 698 (8th Cir. 1992), the plaintiff here unquestionably has a separate, independent cause of action under the Federal Employers Liability Act (\"FELA'') 45 U.S.C.  51 et seq. I believe discovery in the FELA action should proceed under the standard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that these rules are not trumped by the defendant's medical examination rules (via the Railway Labor Act 45 U. S.C.  151 et seq.) In fact, under the theory urged by defendant, a railroad could severally hamstring a FELA plaintiff with company regulations. Defendant contends that this order is in the nature of an order \"granting, continuing, modifying or dissolving [an] injunction\" which would be subject to an interlocutory appeal under l... PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT. I it ' . i 287 U.S.C.  1992. I do not know what authority I have to enhance defendant's right to an interlocutory appeal, but to the extent that I have such authority, I grant it in full. IT IS SO ORDERED this l!:!!4 of February, 2001 . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS OOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCK!T SHEET IN .COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(1) FACP oN 11/a, lo I av \u0026.bN I   RECEIVED AUG 1 7 2001  \"_ -- OFFICE OF DESEGREG.4TION MOMTORIN\u0026 IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL ,,,..p~ PLAINTIFF ,,. . . KA-THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR EMERGENCY HEARING LRSD s.eeks a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to prevent unduly burdensome and harassing discovery being conducted by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") via - the Arkansas Freedom oflnformation Act (\"FOIA\"), Ark. Code Ann.  25-19-101 through 25- 19-110. Rule 26(c) provides: Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending or "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1705","title":"Court filings concerning Baker recruitment plan, school resources study, orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001, and Joshua's objections to unitary status","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-08-06/2001-08-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School enrollment","School superintendents","Parents' and teachers' associations","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Baker recruitment plan, school resources study, orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001, and Joshua's objections to unitary status"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1705"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["18 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel for state defendants; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to Joshua intervenors' objections to Baker recruitment plan; District Court, notice of filing of school resources study; District Court, motion for relief from orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001, by defendant Gary Smith and for other appropriate and/or alternative relief; District Court, corrected motion for relief from orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001, by defendant Gary Smith, and for other appropriate and/or alternative relief; District Court, motion for preliminary injunction; District Court, memorandum in support of motion for preliminary injunction; District Court, plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and requests for production to the Joshua intervenors regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status; District Court, two orders  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  LAW OFFICES MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026 WOODYARD, P.L.L .C. TIMOTHY G. GAUGER DIRECT DIAL 501 - eBB- B843 e-mail tgeugeiOmwsgw.com M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings . 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P. 0 . Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Ann Marshall 42!5 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201- 3!52!5 TELEPHONE !501 -688-8800 FAX !501-688-8807 August 6, 2001 Sammye Taylor Mark Hagemeier RECEIVED AUG S ~ 2001 Clflllf  ,,  ...... ,, Arkansas Atomey General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 123 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. I, et al; No. 4: 82 CV 000866 SWW Counsel and Ms. Marshall: Enclosed for your files is a copy of the Motion To Withdraw As Counsel For State Defendants which I have filed today in the above-referenced matter. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026 WOODYARD, P.L.L.C . Counsel of Record and Ms. Ann Marshall August 6, 200 I Page2 TGG/jd Enclosure Very truly yours, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026 WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. ~a7/4~ By t,,:.J/ f/--; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV000866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR STATE DEFENDANTS  Timothy Gauger and Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard, PLLC hereby move the Court for an order pennitting them to withdraw as counsel of record for the State Defendants in the above-referenced case. The motion is made on the following grounds: 1. In February, 2001, the undersigned left his employment with the Office of the Attorney General. He has continued to assist in the representation of the State Defendants as outside counsel under contract with the Arkansas Attorney General's office. That contract has expired, and the undersigned is therefore no longer authorized to represent the State Defendants in this action. 2. The undersigned's withdrawal will not prejudice any party to this action. The State Defendants will continue to be represented by Chief Barrister Sammye Taylor and Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier of the Attorney General's office. WHEREFORE, Timothy Gauger and Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard, PLLC respectfully request that the Court enter an order permitting them to withdraw as counsel of record for the State Defendants. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026 WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3525 (501) 688-8800 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on August 6, 2001, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P. 0. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Sammye Taylor Mark Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S REPLY TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN RECEIVED ~UG '7 200\\ -=- PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS There are no geographical limits. but rather a discreet targeted area. Baker remains open, on a space available basis, to any African-American student from the LRSD who would like to attend and who is in good standing with the LRSD. The PCSSD has been criticized in the past for recruitment efforts which, its detractors asserted, lacked \"focus\". In contrast here, the PCSSD has identified a minority community proximate to Baker. Baker is the closest public school of any kind to Chenal Park. Because of the limited number of seats that can be made available at Baker, the PCSSD submits that it is not only reasonable but prudent for the PCSSD to designate Chenal Park as its principal recruiting target. 273080-v1 Except for the kindergarten classes to be added, there is little available space at Baker At Page 4 of its objection, Joshua asserts that: Joshua notes that the response of the defendant is from defendant's counsel; it is without affidavit support and the factual representations may not be subject to examination because they have been lawyer generated. PCSSD first notes that the statistical representations made by the PCSSD were supported by exhibits from both the LRSD and the Baker school itself. In contrast, Joshua asserts with absolutely no factual support the following at Page 3: d) The defendants allege that they have not admitted more minority students to Baker, despite the applications of minority students for Baker from Little Rock, because the PCSSD \"has not had room at Baker to accommodate all of [their] requests\". This proposition is factually incorrect on its face. See the ODM report on capacity. Baker does not now appear to be at or near capacity. Indeed, Baker has space to accommodate, without class additions 70 students. It could easily accommodate more than 40 black applicants in grades kindergarten through fifth with ease at one time. While Joshua vaguely refers to an undated and otherwise unidentified ODM report, the fact is, there is no such ODM report which reflects anything even approximating that which Joshua has asserted concerning room for 70 additional students. As the Court can see from a re-examination of Exhibit 1 to the PCSSD Baker Recruitment Plan dated July 13, 2001, with the exception of the fifth grade, a temporary anomaly, there are simply no seats at Baker before the addition of the proposed kindergarten classes. One simply cannot take the two former sixth grade class rooms and magically convert them to seats spread over K-5. The remaining \"math\" contained in subsection d) of Joshua's objection is equally - flawed and consistently obtuse. 273080-v1 2 Joshua spurned the PCSSD overtures to participate in the Baker planning process. On May 18, 2001, the PCSSD proposed the Court approval of the activities complex at Baker. In that submission, the PCSSD specifically proposed that it develop in conjunction with Joshua a specific recruiting plan for Baker. (Motion pp. 2-3) On the same day, counsel wrote Joshua regarding the Baker M to M issue (Exhibit \"A\"), stating in pertinent part that: I would hope that you could meet at least once with us, both so that we could have your input and so you can completely understand the logistics of this issue. I very much need to get it done next week. Please let me know when you could be available. Thereafter, events transpired which required the PCSSD to inform the Court that it appeared that Joshua's participation in such a plan would not be forthcoming at this time. With a copy to Joshua, we specifically informed the Court that: The Court will recall that we promised in our Baker motion field May 18, 2001, that we would consult with Joshua and furnish the Court with some particulars. While it appears that collaboration with Joshua on this issue is not going to occur at this time, nevertheless, we do wish to make a further filing and I wanted the Court to be aware that it should be imminent. (Exhibit \"B\", Emphasis Supplied) Thus, Joshua's current assertion that it was \"not consulted\" and should now be involved is simply false. IF THE COURT AND JOSHUA WISH FOR THE PCCSD TO STATE THE REAL REASON JOSHUA DECLINED TO PARTICIPATE, IT WILL BE OBLIGED TO HONOR SUCH A REQUEST. Conclusion The PCCSD Recruitment Plan is sound given the space limitations at Baker and the proximity of Chenal Park. Joshua's math and its mathematical assertions are not 273080-v1 3 only unsupported, they are simply not of this world. Joshua spurned the PCSSD's invitation to participate in this process and should not be heard to complain now. 273080-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By~4~ ~'-:--- ~.--samuei1ineslll(7606o) J 1/ Attorneys tgrPulaski County Special \\~strict ,J 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 6, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 273080-v1 5 ., EDWARD L. WRIGHT (100~1177) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1113-1081) ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR . JOHN G. LILE GORD_ O_ATHER.JR. TERRY HEWS DAVID ELL ROGER A. -...SGOW C. DOUGLAS BUfORO. JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M, SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L, LOWTHER. JR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDN ROGER D. ROWE JOHN D. DAVIS VIA FACSIMILE Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www .wlJ.com Of COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Wrller's Direct Dlal No. 501-212-1273 mJonesOwlJ.com May 18, 2001 JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY f . COX. JR. TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY. JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILIER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNlfER S. BROWN C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY\" M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. 1,lcKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE ROIERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHERTY. Ph.D. ' l.lolnHd lo pn,ctlce before ,,.. Unled Slater Pa/ent - T-Ollicw Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866SWW Dear John: I am writing you this letter in case we do not connect by telephone this afternoon. This morning Karl Brown and I spent a considerable period of time with Beverly Ruthven discussing the issue of space accommodations for additional M to M transfer students at Baker. While we made some progress in that regard, this is not as easy an issue as you might expect. This afternoon I am filing a barebones motion to get the issue of the proposed construction on the judicial table. In the motion I recite that we will be working on the issue of space and transfers and will supplement the motion with a specific plan as soon as possible. I would hope that you could meet at least once with us, both so that we could have your input and so you can completely understand the logistics of this issue. I very much need to get it done next week. Please let me know when you could be available. Thanks. Cordially yours, MSJ:ao A~INDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ~muel Jones, Ill cc: Mr. Karl Brown 255714-v1 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY DATE: May 18, 2001 TO: COMPANY: Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. Fax No. 374-4187 Message From: M. Samuel Jones Ill OUR FAX NO.: (501) 376-9442 TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 2 REMARKS: CONFIRMATION: ~By Regular Mail By Expedited Mail None Rush DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED: P001 MESSAGE CONFIRMATION REPORT 05/18/01 15: 39 ID:WRIGHT LINDSEY SESS. MODE DATE/TIME TIME DISTANT STATION ID PAGES DIAL RESULT 639 G3.S 05/18 15:38 00'55\" 5013744187 002/002 04 D K 6000 \\ ' \\ ... EDWARD L. WRIGHT (190,- 1977) RDBERT S. LINDSEY (11131111) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S, RATHER, JR. TERRY L, MATHEWS DAVIDII .-LL ROGER A. GOW C. DOUGL FORD, JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES II. SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 LEE J . MULDROW N.11 . NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLU L. SCHLUMBERGER WAL TEA E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOD!N ROGER 0. ROWE JOHN D. DAVIS WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www.wlJ.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY JAMES R, VAN DOVER II. TODO WOOD Writer's Direct Dial No . 501 -2121273 mJonuQwlJ.com June 6, 2001 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright 600 West Capitol, Suite 302 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR. TROY A. PRICE PATIUCIA SIEVERS HARl'IIS JAMES II. MOODY, JIil. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERl'IY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER HT\u0026Y MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI II. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY\" II. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS II. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W, DUKE ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHERTY, Ph.D. UcenMd lo pracllce - the lklled States Patent and Trademlrlr Offlce Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866SWW Dear Judge Wright: I am awaiting some student enrollment and gee code information from the Little Rock School District before I can finalize our proposed recruitment plan for Baker Elementary. The Court will recall that we promised in our Baker motion filed May 18, 2001, that we would consult with Joshua and furnish the Court with some particulars. While it appears that collaboration with Joshua on this issue is not going to occur at this time, nevertheless, we do wish to make a further filing and I wanted the Court to be aware that it should be imminent. Thank you very much. MSJ/ao cc: Ms. Ann Brown Marshall Mr. John W. Walker 259780-v1 Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Richard Roachell Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Stephen W. Jones Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY} JENNINGS LLP ----7 .7 7  ~ -j?~..__----- -\" .,,,...,...~\"\" A;/  t--' M_..- Samuel ~ones Ill I ... ~ / .,., i /.' (. / '--' \\. ____ .,,... RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION I\\UG 7100\\ tfil\\1e-i: -- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING OF SCHOOL RESOURCES STUDY Pursuant to Section \"J\" of the PCSSD Plan 2000, a School Resources Study was conducted under the auspices of a bi-racial committee of administrators, teachers and others. The roster of the committee is appended toward the end of the report. The report was completed in May 2001 and has now been approved by the School Board. Pursuant to page 6 of the narrative, the reader will note that the Study concluded there was no significant statistical difference between the racial composition of the District schools and the amount of resources allocated to a particular school. The Study in its entirety is appended to this filing as Exhibit \"A\". 273064-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By----:-:---:::,,-+:-~_..;a'.\".\"\"\":::-T\"~------ . 060) r Pula~County Special . rict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 6, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 273064-v1 2 RECEI\\IED AUG 1 0 2001 - OFFIC~OF DESEGREGATI~ MONITOAIN6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUJ.\u0026t EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSA~ ~Li=~) ,WESTERN DIVISION EASTElN 1\u0026ii~~'g '.{~~f~SAS AUG OB r31 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ~~:MES W. McCORMACK, t['~TIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 DEP CU,i;:'\u003c PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDERS ENTERED ON APRIL 27, 2000 AND MAY 9, 2001 BY DEFENDANT GARY SMITH, AND FOR OTHER APPROPRIATE AND/OR ALTERNATIVE RELIEF This motion is brought by the Joshua Intervenors against the Pulaski County Special School District Defendants (PCSSD) and especially against Defendant Gary Smith, Superintendent of Schools of PCS SD: The matter is of general public importance in that it affects African American students and their parents as a class. It involves implementation of the PCSSD Revised Desegregation Plan and the good faith of the defendants. The persons whose circumstances are being presented to the Court are referred to by fictitious names in order to avoid undue and inappropriate responses by persons related to the PCSSD to their having initiated this action and because of the ages and continuing enrollment in the PCSSD schools as small children. The parents of the minor children are referred to as \"Harold\" and \"Amanda X\". Their actual names will be presented to the Court and to the parties with a request that the actual names be sealed and kept out of the public domain. With this background, the Joshua Intervenors present the following set of facts upon which they seek for relief to be granted: -1- 1. Harold and Amanda X are the parents of Alisha X. Alisha X is a ten year old student who will be enrolled in PCS SD fifth grade elementary program during the 2001-2002 school year. Alisha X has a sister, Alisha Y, age four, who will be entering a four year old program in the PCS SD during the 2001-2002 school year. These parties are members of the certified class herein and they seek relief provided by the standing . Consent Decree or Court Order. 2. Dr. Gary Smith is the Superintendent of Schools of the PCSSD. Carl Brown is the Associate Superintendent of Schools for Desegregation for PCSSD, among other titles. Hazel W., also a fictitious name, was the Principal of Murrell Taylor Elementary School operated by PCSSD during the 1999-2000 school year. The actions which give rise to this motion began in April, 2000. 3. Prior to April, 2000, Harold and Amanda X were parents in good standing at Murrell Taylor Elementary School. Alisha X was enrolled as a student in the Gifted and Talented Program. Her grades, attendance and conduct were sterling. 4. In March, 2000, Alisha X took home a school communication informing the her parents that Alisha X was invited to participate in a Pre-teen America Scholarship Recognition Program. The program was limited to students in Gifted and Talented and was by invitation only. 5. On April 131\\ Harold and Amanda X went to Murrell Taylor PTA, in conformity with the letter notice to Alisha X. Harold X expressed his gratitude to the school for selecting Alisha X to participate in the program. He further stated that he could not believe that the opportunity was real, and requested the support of the PT A so that -2- Alisha's participation in the competitive activity could be facilitated. Hazel W ., the Principal, stood in response to Harold X's statement and said that the invitation was extended to Alisha X in error and that she was not eligible by school rules to participate in this competition. A further reason given for rejecting the application and request for PTA help by School Principal Hazel W. was that Harold and Amanda X were not members of the PT A. Hazel W. was mistaken. Harold and Amanda X were in fact dues paying members for 1999-2000 as well as for the preceding year. 7. On April 14, 2000, Harold X went to Principal Hazel W.'s office to discuss the matter with Hazel W. Hazel W. declined to respond to Harold X's visit. On or about April 18, 2000, Harold X received a letter purportedly from the PT A Executive Board of Murrell Taylor which stated: \"We apologize for any embarrassment that we may have caused you at the PTA meeting April 13, 2000. It was our clerical error and we are sorry.\" See Exhibit A hereto. 8. On April 18, 2000, Hazel W. wrote Harold and Amanda X a letter which is attached as Exhibit B regarding'what she referred to as a \"confrontation that took place in the hallway after the PTA meeting on April 13, 2000\". Hazel X went on to chastise Harold and Amanda X for a letter which they had written seeking financial support for their daughter to attend the \"2000 Pre-teen Arkansas Scholarship Program.\" She then indicated that Harold and Amanda X misrepresented to the public that Alisha X was the school representative in that program. Hazel W. went on to say: \"if this kind of conduct happens again, I want you to know that I will petition -3- Pupil Personnel to revoke the permit for [Alisha X] to attend school at Murrell Taylor Elementary.\" See Exhibit C. ',\" 9. On April 18, Amanda X went to Murrell Taylor in order to pick up Alisha X after school. Hazel W. called plaintiff into the principal' s office. At that meeting which Principal Hazel W. initiated, Hazel W. engaged Amanda X in conversation regarding a purported threat that Hazel W. said a parent had reported_to her that was made after the PTA, the night of the 13th of April. Hazel W. did not identify the parent who made the complaint or provide Amanda X with a written statement from the accusatory parent. Amanda X denied that she had threatened a parent and attempted to leave Hazel W.'s office. At that point, Hazel W. blocked the door. Amanda X sought to get around Hazel W. and in doing so opened the door and the door struck Hazel W. Hazel W. scratched plaintiff in the process as she sought to restrain Amanda X from leaving the office. Amanda X sustained other injuries as a result of her seeking to leave Hazel W. 's office. 10. AmandaX went to the Prosecuting Attorney's Office of Pulaski County on April 19, 2000 where she met \"'.'ith Deputy Prosecutor John Johnson. She informed Deputy Prosecutor Johnson of her treatment. Johnson took her statement verbally and told her that he would get back with her. On information and belief, Johnson then informed Hazel W. that Amanda X was seeking to file a criminal charge against Hazel W. Upon Johnson's representation, Hazel W. then initiated criminal charges against Amanda X three days later. As a consequence of those charges, Amanda X was arrested, handcuffed, taken to county jail, photographed and fingerprinted. She -4- 11. stayed in jail overnight and was released on her own recognizance the next day. Amanda X was pros.ecuted in Jacksonville Municipal Court and charged with battery, second degree, a misdemeanor. The Jacksonville Municipal Court, the Honorable Robert Batton, convicted Amanda X. 12. On April 25, 2000, Judge Batton entered a No Contact Order. See Exhibit D. On 13.  October 4, 2000, Judge Batton convicted plaintiff of Battery of Assault in the Second Degree. In the intervening time period minor Alisha X persisted despite Murrell Taylor's school officials' objections, won third place in the talent contest among 161 Gifted and Talented students from the State of Arkansas. No white Murrell Taylor student placed in the talent competition for the Pre-teen America Scholarship and Recognition Program. Amanda X appealed the decision to the Circuit Court to the Honorable John Langston and her conviction was upheld. That Court did not enter any Orders regarding plaintiff's ingress and egress to public schools in Pulaski County. The appeal abated the municipal court's jurisdiction. 14. Harold and Amanda X bring this action seeking vindication of their civil rights and of their rights under the Revised Desegregation Plan to be involved in the schools activities and lives of their school aged children. They have now have a four year old who will be entering the four year program at a PCSSD school. 15. Harold X appeared before the PCSSD School Board on or about June 12, 2001 in order to contest a restraining order upon Amanda X entered by Defendant Gary Smith, April 27, 2000 and another Order dated May 9, 2001 (see Exhibit E) which -5- restricted her access to and upon any PCS SD school property. The PCS SD Board did not consider the appeal. There is no other provision for appeal provided Harold and Amanda X and other parents from such Orders as those entered by Dr. Gary Smith. 16. The appearance of Harold X before the County Board of Education was pursuant to the Board policy which allowed public comment. The Board, pursuant to a policy drafted by Defendant Gary Smith, may not make responses to public comments. Only Smith may respond. Harold X's appearance was not really an appeal because the board was estopped by its own policy of hearing evidence regarding the matter. 17. Defendant Gary Smith delegated Carl Brown to respond to Harold X. Carl Brown, Desegregation Assistant Superintendent, informed Harold and Amanda X that he would seek to have minor Alisha X transferred into a school in the LRSD. Desegregation Superintendent Brown's view at the time was that such a transfer was not authorized by the transfer provision known as the majority to minority transfer between the LRSD and PCS SD. Under that agreement, however, African American PCSSD school children may not transfer to LRSD schools. 18. The foregoing acts developed because PCS SD School Officials sought to deny entry to a school recognition program to a black child. The only students who were invited by Murrell Taylor school officials to participate in the Pre-teen Recognition Program were white. The school had no standards for determining to whom to extend invitation regarding that honor. Murrell Taylor is a racially mixed school. It has many racial problems. School officials then sought to deter African American participation, on April 18, 2000 by threatening to \"revoke the permit for [Alisha X] -6- 19. to attend school at Murrell Taylor Elementary\". [Underlining added for emphasis] The Joshua Intervenors know of no law, regulation or board policy which allows a student's attendance at a particular school to be \"revoked\" because of a parent's conduct. Moreover, the Joshua Intervenors know of no white parents who have been threatened with punishment because they sought support of their child's participation ,  in a school related activity. Furthermore, the Joshua Intervenors believe and allege that the attendance of Alisha X in a PCSSD school is matter of right rather than privilege and that that right may not be revoked absent compelling circumstances, upon and after exhaustion of defined due process rules and regulations. There are no such rules or procedures of this kind in the PCSSD. There are other persons of African American ancestry who either have been, or, will be similarly affected by PCSSD school officials upon the advent of their seeking to avail themselves of rights, privileges and opportunities which are traditionally made available and limited in PCSSD to white children and their parents. 20. Amanda X's only adverse activity at this school was in trying to leave Hazel W. 's office on April 18, 2000, after being invited into, over the objection of Hazel W. As a consequence of trying to leave Hazel W.'s office, to which Amanda X had been invited, plaintiff was subjected to treatment grossly different from that of white parents. The treatment of Harold and Amanda X and their child, Alisha X, with respect to the Pre-teen Arkansas Scholarship and Recognition Program was racial. Their prosecution was racially motivated. It was initiated solely and simply because Harold and Amanda X sought to avail their minor African American child of an -7- 21. award and recognition which, unknown to this at the time, was not intended to be extended to African_American children, at least at Murrell Taylor Elementary SchooL By denying Amanda X access without threat of prosecution to PCS SD property, PCSSD officials deny Harold and Amanda X the equal right to participate in the school learning environment of their children. They also deny minors Alisha X, and Alisha Y, the four year old first year PCSSD student, the right to have their mother accompany them to and from school and to be available when emergencies arrive to provide care and comfort. School officials are effectively restrained from having any communication whatever with Amanda X The Gary Smith directives therefore tend to deny minor class member an opportunity to even attend schooL School officials have a practice of prosecuting African American students who are truant. Amanda X upon failure to secure attendance of minor Alisha X and Alisha Y is effectively being threatened with denial of truancy laws as welL 22. There is no legitimate public interest involved to support the administrative directives 23, from Defendant Gary Smith. The Order is void or voidable, as being in violation of the Desegregation Plan and of the Fourteenth Amendment and due process clauses. As long as this these Orders stand with respect to Amanda X, they will serve as a precedents for similar actions or exclusion regarding class members by Defendant Smith and his subordinates. Moreover, there is no way such Orders may be subjected to review before the PCSSD School Board. Due process is therefore absolutely lacking to a parent who is adversely affected by the Smith Orders herein. The parents in this case have exhausted whatever remedies which are provided by -8- PCSSD for administrative review of the Gary Smith Orders set forth herein have been unsuccessful. This action before this Court for declaratory, injunctive relief and other possibly relief including damages is the only available remedy that Harold and Amanda X have for being able to provide education to their children. Their children Alisha X and Alisha Y have no likelihood of being successful in school an "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1362","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-08-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School integration","School superintendents","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1362"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["89 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1328","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-08-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Court records","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1328"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["213 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1363","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-07-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","North Little Rock School District","School superintendents","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1363"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["57 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1325","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-07-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","North Little Rock School District","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School superintendents","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1325"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["166 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1373","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-07-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","School superintendents","School integration","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1373"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["282 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1716","title":"Court filings: District Court, motion for pre-trial order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for pretrial order; District Court, two orders; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) Baker (Elementary School) recruitment plan; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to the Baker recruitment plan; District Court, Joshua intervenors' objections to Baker recruitment plan; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, motion for pre-trial order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for pretrial order; District Court, two orders; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) Baker (Elementary School) recruitment plan; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to the Baker recruitment plan; District Court, Joshua intervenors' objections to Baker recruitment plan; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1716"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["4 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MOTION FOR PRE-TRIAL ORDER For its Motion, Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: RECEIVED .JlJL 1 o '7h01 _O.OUC f .. ... . , PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS 1. The Court directed counsel for the Joshua interveners on Friday not to directly contact LRSD employees concerning this case. On Saturday, counsel for the Joshua interveners called an LRSD employee at home to discuss the case. 2. The Court also directed the Joshua interveners to provide LRSD a witness list by Friday subject to revision of the witness list on Monday. Joshua provided a list on Friday afternoon which listed twenty-five people as witnesses, and additional seven people \"tentative witnesses\" and noted that Joshua also intended to call \"the monitor and associate monitors of the ODM\". Counsel for Joshua said by telephone and confirmed in a letter that Joshua's witnesses for Thursday and Friday would be five LRSD witnesses as well as Ann Marshall, Gene Jones and Horace Smith from the Office of Desegregation monitoring. LRSD confirmed in writing that the witnesses would be available and asked Joshua to provide the order of their expected testimony so that arrangements could be made to have them in Court at the appropriate time. 3. Counsel for Joshua also said by telephone and confirmed in writing that Dr. Lesley would not be needed as a witness until the August hearing dates. LRSD confirmed in writing that - Dr. Lesley will not be available until the August hearing dates. 4. On Monday afternoon, counsel for Joshua added ten names to his witness list bringing Joshua's total number of witnesses to forty-five. 5. Counsel for Joshua requested time to \"interview\" for LRSD witnesses on Monday evening or Tuesday. Joshua was informed that two of the witnesses were out of town and that the other two were busy preparing the hearing. 6. On June 10, 1998, LRSD and Joshua made the following agreement with respect to Joshua's participation in implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: For fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD will reimburse your firm up to $48,333 .33 per year for three years beginning July 1, 1998. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan contained a process by which Joshua could bring to the attention ofLRSD, and ultimately the Court, and problems with LRSD' s implementation of the plan. No such problems were brought to the Court's attention during the entire three-year period. LRSD filed an interim compliance report in March of2000 which showed that LRSD was in compliance with its obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Joshua filed no response or objection to the interim compliance report. LRSD' s final compliance report was filed on March 15, 2001 . Joshua was given until May 18, 2001 to file objections and a hearing was set for July 5 and 6, 2001. Joshua's deadline for filing objections was extended twice and the objections were filed on June 25, 2001. Within the past two weeks, Joshua has sent dozens of FOI requests seeking thousands of pages of documents many of which were previously provided to Joshua, many of which were produced by committees which contained Joshua representatives and all of which Joshua could easily have reviewed months ago in accordance with the LRSD's 2 agreement to reimburse Joshua's fees for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. During the last two weeks, Joshua representatives have also met personally and by telephone with the LRSD Administrators responsible for drafting the Compliance Report. 7. After the close of business on Monday evening, Joshua sent two faxes. The first added eleven names to Joshua's witness list, which now totals fifty-six. Joshua has apparently still not made a final determination about the exhibits to be presented at trial. The second fax purports to rescind Joshua's agreement that Dr. Leslie would not be called as a witness on Thursday or Friday. Apparently in retaliation for LRSD's inability to present witnesses for \"interviews\" at the last minute, counsel for Joshua threatened to subpoena Dr. Leslie to appear on Friday. This can only be because of counsel's knowledge that Dr. Leslie is willing to appear on Thursday but must attend a family reunion in Texas on Friday. 8. The Court expressed on Friday the hope and the expectation that counsel for the parties would be able to resolve any pre-trial issues. That has not happened. LRSD must now request that the Court limit Joshua's presentation on Thursday and Friday to the five LRSD witnesses originally requested as well as the representatives of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and that the Court require reasonable witness and exhibit lists and establish the parameters for any remaining discovery in this case, including the opportunity for LRSD to depose the witnesses from outside the district who were added last night to Joshua's witness list. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order limiting the presentation of witnesses on Thursday and Friday to those originally identified by Joshua, establishing deadlines for providing exhibit lists and reasonable witness lists, establishing a pre-trial process to determine the expected length of trial and providing reasonable limitations on the issues 3 to be presented at trial and on the length of the trial, and establishing a deadline for the completion of any remaining discovery. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christopher Heller, hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing pleading has been served upon: by mailing a copy of same by U. S. Postal Service on July 3, 2001. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 3rd day of July 3, 2001 : Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 5 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue  ock, AR 72201 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4: 82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. - KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PRETRIAL ORDER JUL 5 -1001 OfflCEOf DESEGREGAl\\ON MONUOUI PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Comes now the Joshua Intervenors, for their response to LRSD' s Motion for Pretrial Order, and state that Joshua is just in receipt ofLRSD's motion to limit evidence and to prevent a fair hearing. Since the court orders on Friday, June 29, 2001, the District has sought to obstruct and preclude the Joshua Intervenors from obtaining information and having access to witnesses. The District's counsel has made himself unavailable to be responsive to the reasonable requests of the Intervemors for information and access to personnel. This is the same vein in which LRSD's sought to lull Intervenors counsel's into the belief that counsel was preceding to undertake settlement negotiations in good faith. It is now evident that the settlement negotiations were delayed, and not otherwise conducted in good faith in an effort to prevent Intervemors' counsel from having access to information. The Motion for Pre-Trial Order is untimely and designed - further to interfere with Intervenors' counsel's ability to prepare for hearing set for Thursday. LRSD's motion is a motion for reconsideration of the court's ruling wherein the court required the LRSD to make its personnel reasonable accessibility to Joshua so that neither side would be subject to surprise during the trial. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the court reinforce its order requiring the LRSD to cooperate with the Joshua Intervenors, in the manner established during the years of this litigation so that the court can have the benefit of actual facts and evidence to enable the court to make her judgments herein. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) Sii:::t~~fe CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing response has been faxed to Mr. Chris Heller at 376-2147 and Ms. Ann Brown at 371-0100 and copies sent to other counsel ofrecord via United States mail, postage prepaid on this 3\" day of~ 'ti!; y('~ FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT .A.RKANSAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL O 9 2001 JA_MESJW.~\\CORMACK CLERK By. \\v ,~\\l [\\ C\\I\\ ~C\u003e D PCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JUL 11 2001 OffiCEOf DESE6REGATJON MONITORING 0 RD ER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS On July 5th and 6th , 2001 , a hearing was conducted pursuant to Little - Rock School District's request for the Court to declare it t o be in unitary status and Joshua's objections thereto. The evidence not being completed, the hearing with respect to the issues of achievement and discipline will continue on August 1, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., and proceed until noon on August 2, 2001. The deadline for the mutual exchange of witness and exhibit lists shall be no later than July 2 4, 2001.  Thereafter, the remainder of the hearing on the issues of achievement and discipline will continue on November 19th and 20th , 2001, at 9:00 a.m., if necessary. The parties are to exchange lists o f any additional witnesses or exhibits no later than November 1, 2001. A hearing on additional issues in this matter is hereby scheduled to begin on Monday, January 28, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., if necessary. For P. 1 :14 5 4 i,  - 2 - this hearing, witness and exhibit lists are to be exchanged no later than January 4, 2002. IT IS SO ORDERED this '11t\\_ day of~' 2001. S~B8u.~~ Chief United States District Judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULl;.58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 2:ID-0 J sv___.Ttr\"---t---- RECEIVED ttrric~ ..... VITI f: !.Jr COURT FILED \u00266REGATIOM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. DISTRICT COURT '=ASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL JUL 1 0 2001 JAMESJ. M~RMACK, CLERK By: \\ , -....U /\\ (\\/\\ fl..A DEP ~LEf$.-. vs. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER Pending before the Court is a motion for a pretrial order filed by Little Rock School District which appears to be moot at this time pursuant to the order entered this date setting forth deadlines for the mutual exchange of witness and exhibit lists prior to the hearings that currently are scheduled in this matter. The Clerk is directed to make the necessary docket entry removing said motion from the pending motions' report in this matter. Dated this 10~ day of July, 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE: 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 7--f0 - 0/ BY lJt:: SUS WEBERWRIGirr' Chief United States District Judge \"\"\" . t J4 5 5 I, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COlJNrv S~PE CIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN RECEIVED JUL 16 2001 OFFICE OF DESmREGATION MONITOill PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS There has been significant demand by LRSD minority students for seats at Baker Elementary over the past several years. Exhibit 1 is a copy of the most recent enrollment projection for Baker. The conversion of Baker to a middle school frees up the two sixth grade classrooms. The PCSSD proposes to add an additional kindergarten class for the 2001-2002 school year to be followed by the addition of yet another kindergarten class for the following school year. This would give Baker, in year 2, three first grade classes and three kindergarten classes. These classes would then be \"rolled up\" year by year until the first entering kindergarten class matriculated in the fifth grade and the process would then start over. The PCSSD believes that the emphasis upon recruiting at kindergarten over two years is the most practical approach it can take. It believes that attracting children at this level before they are settled into other schools is both rational and the most reasonable strategy to deploy. 249234-v1 Baker needs to recruit only about 22 additional minority children over two years to attain an enrollment that is safely 20% minority 1 . The PCS SD believes that this strategy, as outlined above, will accomplish this objective.2 The PCSSD believes that the construction of the new activities complex, approved by this Court, will facilitate and ---~!lhance it~ current recT~i!i!1] _effort_s. A~ a source for new students, the District's recruitment strategy will be narrowly focused as described below. Recruiting Target A new apartment complex for low income housing was completed recently at 15000 Chenal Parkway approximately one-half mile from Baker Elementary. The name of the complex is \"Chenal Park\". It is on the border of the PCSSD and LRSD. Chenal Park contains 176 two and three bedroom apartments for low income families. Information supplied by the LRSD reveals that the LRSD currently educates 48 elementary-aged minority students from Chenal Park of whom 40 are currently assigned to Terry with the remainder scattered among other schools, principally the stipulation magnet schools. (Exhibit 2). In the last two years, school-aged children from Chenal Park have applied to attend Baker under the assumption that its proximity to their homes meant it was their neighborhood school. Until now, the PCSSD has not had room at Baker to accommodate all of these requests. Because of Baker's proximity to Chenal Park, its reputation, the enhancements to the campus that the Court has approved and because of the prior interest expressed by - 1 This, of course, is a minimum goal. However, the PCSSD believes this to be a reasonable initial goal for this on-going effort. 2 Ideally, the PCSSD could commit the funds to add a class at each grade level. However, the recent millage defeat and the allegation made by some that Baker is an \"identifiably white\" school has dissuaded the District from this proposition. 249234-v1 2 some residents of Chenal Park, the PCSSD believes that this recruitment effort over a period of two years should bring Baker into compliance with its racial balance goals. The PCSSD has scheduled a \"registration carnival\" to be held at Baker on August 1, 2001. The publicity for this event has been targeted to Chenal Park. August 1st is the first day of PCSSD's three-day registration period. Thus, this timing will permit - - - - - -- --. -- - ---- - -- --- the PCSSD to prefer potential M to M students from Chenal Park before the PCSSD must commit any remaining seats to applicants from within its attendance zone. 249234-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By __:__...:;....,1 _ ___;;;_.....:..;1=-------M. A Sc 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 13, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway -- Little Rock, Arkansas 7220f --. -  Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 249234-v1 M.S~onesll 4 07 / 12/!ll f.Iru 15: 46 FAX -~141002 Memo . ... _ To: From: Date: Re: STUDENT REGISTRATION OFFICE Chris Heller  x/ /\\ J Julie Wiedo~er, Director of Student Reg-istrati~O v eJ unes~~ ~ Requ.~~~ for Student Information Pursuant to our telephone conversation yesterday, I have determined that there have been at least 40 Little Rock School District students who have applied through the M to M Transfer application for a school assignment at Baker Elementary School in the Pulaski County Special School District over the past four years and who have not been enrolled. The County's inability to place our M to M students at Baker has been related to a lack of scat capacity after they have placed the Baker zone students. Our data for the 2001-02 school year shows a total of27 Little Rock School District M to M students assigned to Baker, including no kindergartners and only two 1st graders. Pulaski County Special School District has requested the number of elementary students currently on our database living at the apartment complex at l.5000 Chenal Parkway. There are 48 black students and 12 non-black students and 40 of these students are attending Terry Elementary school, the attendance zone school for that area. The remaining 20 are attending Williams, Carver, Booker, King and Washington magnet schools, as well as McDermott, Fulbright and Dodd attendance zone schools. All of these schools are racially balanced. CC: Junious Babbs, Associate Supcdntendent for Administrative Services EXHIBIT I 501 SHERMAN STREET - LITTLE ROCK AR. 72202 - P.HONE: 32~2272 - FAX: 324-2281 - - - .. . al --.J '- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT I-'. ! w Enrollment ProiecUons - 2001-2002 Revised 05-21-01 i '-' Iv C1ass PRE-K KIND. FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH SIXTH TOTA\\. ELEMENTARY a:19 .a..l. . Capacity DLK WHT TOT BLK WJIT TOT BLK WlIT ror BLK WBT TOT BLK WOT TOT BLK \\VDT T\u003cJf fiLK WIIT 1'0T BLK WJIT ror BLK \" WBT ,,. TOT  ~LEMENTARY SCHOOLS CS) .C.D I-' .DIJNS 370 16 4 20 16 4 20 29 19 48 23 18 41 21 11 44 19 20 39 25 22 47 0 0 0 155 60% 104 40% 259 I-' illNOLDDR. 420 0 0 0 ts Gl 77 15 62 77 11 6S 76 I4 41 62 17 44 61 J-4 47 \" 0 0 0 86 21~ 328 1''il, -414 IAXER 330 0 0 0 6 34 40 6 34 40 7 37 44 7 41 4\u0026 2 46 48 10 30 -4(1 0 0 0 38 15~ 222 \u0026s'il, uo U1 al I-' IATBS 750 31 n 54 31 23 54 43 43 16 47 '7 94 48 3:5 83 51 46 97 12 S8 J'.lO 0 0 0 323 S4'1\u003e 27S 46~ S'JS I ~ IAYOUMETO \" 0 0 0 4 61 n 4 6B n 2 83 15 3 11 80 2 90 n 2 75 77 0 0 0 17 4'1, 461 96'11 478 \u003c.D al I :ATO 576 0 0 0 15 49 64 JS 49 64 10 68 78 16 46 62 20 59 79 16 54 70 0 0 0 92 2291- 325 78'1, 411 I-' w :LINTON 8l3 31 33 71 38 33 71 37 41 78 42 49 91 59 52 111 41 48 89 S9 52 lit 0 0 0 314 50% U1 308 50% 622 Iv '.:OLLl!GESTA 34-0 0 0 0 6 3 9 4 6 10 9 3 12 II 2 13 27 19 46 20 lO 50 0 0 0 77 SS% 63 45% 140 CRYSI\"ALIUL uo 29 24 53 29 24 53 46 54 JOO 53 49 102 41 47 9S ,1 49 96 54 52 ,~ 53 59 111 359 50% 3S\u0026 50% 717 DUPIIJ!R 465 0 0 0 13 39 52 13 39 .52 15 31 46 ll 34 47 20 49 69 12 37 49 0 0 0 86 17% 229 7311, 315 IJ..UUUS 525 0 0 (I 12 10 22 12 10 22 16 12 78 16 12 28 21 7 34 29 21 50 0 0 0 112 61~- 72 :w;i. 184 l'VILU .ELE.\"1 715 0 0 0 62 4, 111 62 49 Ill 45 SI ,6 j5 38 93 54 45 99 51 40 91 0 0 0 329 5$\\l, 272 45',/, 001 l.ANDllfARK 568 11 18 3S 11 u lS 24 26 50 25 26 SI 22 28 ,o 30 37 61 35 34 69 0 0 0 170 48111, 187 52% 3S7 111 LAWSON 325 0 9 40 49 9 40 49 3 32 JS 8 24 32 7 34 41 ' 11 36 0 0 0 45 19~ 197 81',\\ 242 ) C H JAKGROVJU 476 17 55 72 17 55 n 9 .(0 .(9 12 41 SJ 11 33 44 JO 33 43 14 41 55 14 37 51 104 24~ 335 76\\l- .. 439 --1 \u003c DAirnROOKB 500 0 0 0 II 27 38 11 27 38 18 33 51 21 )6 51 14 41 55 14 27 41 0 0 0 \u00269 32% 191 6S% 280 lJ C ~JNRFORIISf 556 0 16 44 w 16 4' 60 JO 5-2 62 13 31 so 10 73 83 II 53 M 21 65 116 91 21% 361 19% 6:5 lJ H r ~INJ!.WOOO 5l3 0 0 0 12 54 76 12 54 16 n 38 61 22 4\u0026 70 22 411 10 30 39 69 0 0 0 141 3J'ilo 211 67% 422 lf) lWBIN. ELEM. 459 0 s 39 47 ' 41 .:so ~ 39 48 14 43 S1 15 41 51 15 47 62 0 0 0 10 21')1, 251 78'i1, 321 111 ;o \u003c SCOTI 180 0 4 19 23 4 l9 2) 8 21 29 7 10 17 8 10 18 7 JI 18 0 0 0 38 30,t 90 7(111, 118 H () 111 SRl!Jl \\\\'0OD 460 0 )9 37 SC, 19 37 56 19 33 52 16 37 53 20 43 (i3 19 33 52 0 0 0 112 34'll\u003e 220 6~1' 3]2. SYL. IDLl.S El 456 0 11 38 s~ 18 38 56 11 33 44 21 19 so 22 45 67 25 46 71 0 0 0 11:5 339, 2:2.9 67'l 344 TAYLOR uo 0 21 3S 56 21 35 56 19 36 55 JO JI 61 30 36 66 22 32 54 0 0 0 143 4191, 205 59'1- 348 l'OLLl!SON 570 0 0 0 13 46 59 13 '6 S9 15 51 66 11 48 6.5 20 47 61 14 40 54 0 0 0 92 l!i'll, 278 7S'l, 310 T01\"AJ.11L~t. U81 141 157 .l415 421 150 tl72 461 921 1312 452 943 1400 519 853 nn 535 1011 1546 51JI 941 1527 88 161 l49 32Al~ 35~ S1149 65% ,e53 lJ l\u003e EXHIBIT G) 111 I I al Iv '- CS) Iv -- - --- UFILEO EASTElN '6\\i~~',g. COURT ARKANSAS JUL 2 6 2001 ~AMES W. McCORMACK IN THE UNJTED STATES DISTRICT cctDR1  CLEF~K EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERK WESTERN DMSION LITTLE'ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEIVED DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. JUL 2 7 2001 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORIN\u0026 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Baker Recruitment Plan, state: 1. Counsel is preparing in the instant case for a hearing scheduled for next week, August 1, 2001. 2. This request is not made for purposes of delay. 3. Undersigned counsel has been unsuccessful in contacting counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District to determine whether he has objections to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enters an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Baker Recruitment Plan up to and including July 30, 2001. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501):-J)3758  By ~ fi'Wdl~ John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing motion has been sent to all counsel of record on this 26th day ofJuly, 2001 via United States m , postage prepaid. fY, W'ttt\u0026~ RECEIVED AUG 1 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 3 0 2001 OfRCEOF QESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK WESTERN DMSION By: ' DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN The Court entered an order on June 5, 2001 where it approved defendant's motion for  permission to add an activities complex in Baker Interdistrict school. The Court noted that the defendants had asserted \"that the addition of an activities complex would enhance recruitment of minority students to Baker ... \" The Order was not a final one for purposes of appeal. Accordingly, the Court noted the Joshua Intervenors' objections in Footnote 2 of the Order and called attention to Section J of the plan by which the defendants are now reportedly operating their school. The Court did not address the Joshua question of the possibility that private donations may not be used to establish \"separate but unequal schools\". The Court required the Defendant PCSSD to file a report \"setting forth how it intends to improve racial balance at Baker and how it is going about meeting its obligation of Section J of Plan 2000. The Court further [ directed] the PCS SD to set forth target dates for the completion of these obligations. The defendants have now submitted their recruitment plan. The Joshua Intevenors observe that the Court required a report which set forth how the district intends to meet its obligation under Section J and directed a target date for completion of the obligation. The Joshua Intervenors do not believe that the defendants have complied with the -1- Court's requirements. The defendants propose the following: a) There will be no recruitment. This is so because enough Little Rock students who reside within the Chenal Park area have applied for entry to Baker but have not been admitted before now because Baker did not have sufficient space to accommodate b) c) d) e)  their requests. If PCS SD recruitment does occur, it will be at the kindergarten level only, and be spread over a two year period. It will involve only 22 Little Rock minority children, a number which will cause the Baker enrollment to eventually be 20% minority. It will not involve and be limited to those pupils who apply during recruitment of black students from the Little Rock District as a whole. It will involve the \"registration carnival\" targeted to occur on August 1st . The Joshua objections at the least are as follows pending a hearing: a) The defendants' response is totally insufficient in that it to meet the explicit orders of the Court. b) The defendants seek to limit the geographic area of Little Rock from which minority students may be selected or, may themselves make a choice of their own for school attendance. Joshua objects to transfers from the Little Rock School District of minority students being limited to the Chenal area or, for that matter to low income minority children. c) The purported recruitment plan imposes no affirmative obligations upon the -2- d) defendants, or for that matter the Little Rock School District, to recruit minority students to Baker, by number, method of recruitment, or by date of recruitment. The defendants allege that they have not admitted more minority students to Baker, despite the applications of minority students for Baker from Little Rock, because the PCSSD \"has not had room at Baker to accommodate all of [their] requests\". This  proposition is factually incorrect on its face. See the ODM report on capacity. Baker does not now appear to be at or near capacity. Indeed, Baker has space to accommodate, without class additions 70 students. It could easily accommodate more than 40 black applicants in grades kindergarten through fifth with ease at one time. Accommodation of only 40 black applicants, assuming that the defendants' projections are otherwise correct, would mean that Baker would experience a racial balance of74% white and 26% black for the next school year. The District's proposal to limit placement of black students in kindergarten classes is totally unreasonable and negative to desegregation objectives. Furthermore, the school district proposes to add two kindergarten and effectively an additional first grade class. This undoubtedly would result in between 60 and 75 additional students for a total enrollment 335 students with a net result of Baker's enrollment being only 17% - up from 15% - rather than 20%. Joshua submits that the Baker plan is simply a plan to further enrollment options for majority race students at Baker. Joshua further submits to obtain preliminary Court approval for expanding the basic enrollment capacity of Baker and to enlarge the Baker attendance zone in order to accommodate the increased demand being made by white pupils. -3- e) There is no justification submitted by PCS SD for disallowing primary grade minority students' attendance at Baker as proposed by the defendants. f) The defendants did not set forth as required target dates for the completion of its obligations. Specifically, the defendants did not consult the Joshua Intervenors nor did they otherwise meet the Court's expectations before they submitted their report. g)  The defendants' plan requires a minimal goal of 20% for an interdistrict school. The Joshua Intervenors further believe that they are entitled to have an evidentiary hearing before school for which they pray. At that time the defendants should be required to sufficiently . demonstrate the actions which it has taken in response to the Order of the Court. Joshua notes that the response of the defendant is from defendant's counsel; it is without affidavit support and the factual representations may not be subject to examination because they have been lawyer generated. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the defendants' \"Baker Recruitment Plan\" be disapproved, because it is not in compliance with the Court's Orders of June 5, 2001 ; that the defendants be directed not to accept any new white students for registration for Baker pending further Orders of the Court; that the defendants be required to develop and implement an effective recruitment plan which affords Little Rock School District minority students immediate transfer options and to assure that such persons electing to transfer will be treated on equally favorable terms as PCSSD Baker attendance zone white children; and that the Court schedule a hearing, before the beginning of school, so that the defendants may report upon the actual progress and results that the district has achieved. The Joshua Intervenors further requests that the defendants be specifically required to involve the Joshua Intervenors in all planning and implementation activities of the school district to the extent that same is required by the revised desegregation plan -4- approved by the Court, pendente lite. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) 74- 187 (Fax) J CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this M day of July, 2001. Mr.M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 -5- Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 \\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for July, 2001. RECEIVED JUL 3 0 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINQ Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 20 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on July 27, 2001, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 :TohnW. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway LittleRock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Timothy G. Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard 425 West Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 s'tepheri w. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 - -------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1346","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-06-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1346"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["247 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1708","title":"Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplement to motion to approve middle school implementation; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for additional time to respond to compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education, Secondary","Educational innovations","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplement to motion to approve middle school implementation; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for additional time to respond to compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1708"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["8 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION The PCSSD, for its supplement to motion, states: RECI\\VEO jU~ 4 10m --==-- PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Attached as Exhibit \"A\" is a timeline received today from the Little Rock School District setting forth its middle school activities. 2. While the Little Rock District began a pilot program that concluded in 1997, it is clear that the actual work of committees and others to plan and implement a district-wide implementation did not begin in earnest until January of 1998. 3. Thus, if one compares the activities of the LRSD and the PCSSD respecting district-wide implementation and activities undertaken with respect thereto, it - is apparent that the timelines, actions and other strategies are very similar. 4. Indeed, in the area of professional development and training, the timelines and activities are virtually identical. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD renews its requests that its motion to implement middle schools be approved as soon as possible. 258646-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 1, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 258646-v1 2 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 258646-v1 .am el Jones Ill ~  3 JUN-Oi-ot FRI t0:05 AM FAX NO, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MIDDLE SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE DATI: 1990- 1997 December, 1995 January, 1998 January. 1998 January, 1998 March, 1998 March, 1998 October, 1998 Fall, 1998 ACTIVITY Middle school concepts piloted within  junior high configuration at Pulaski Heights, Forest Heights, Cloverdale and Southwest Junior Highs with support of the New Futures/C~sey grant LRSD Strategic Plan approved by Boa.rd of Education: Strategic Plan Includes district wide middle schools Revised Desegregation and Education Plan includes establishment of a sched1.1le for the orderly conversion of some or all of Its junior high schools to middle schools arades 6-8 Completion of district wide plan for an orderlv transition to middle schools Initial meeting of the LRSD Middle School Steering Committee. Committee received the cha,ge and tasks of serving as the coordinating committee throughout the planning and initial implementation process and to make recommendations to the Superintendent regarding the development and lmplementatlon of the middle school transition. LRSD Middle School Program Mission Statement adopted by LRSO Board of Education Stl;lering committee eleven subcommittees receive charge and task\u0026 and becin work LRSD Middle School Program Standards adopted by the Board of Education Steering committee/sub-committee recommendations finalized; regular communication briefing\u0026 conducted throuahout communltv l;XHIBIT I A P. 02/03 JUN-01~01 FRi t0:05 AM FAX NO. P. 03/03 Winter, 1999 Phase One of professional development program initiated; continued communlcat!on updates Implementation of initial phase of approved recommendation5; steering committee submits final recommendations to Superintendent; completed staff assignments for middle schools and high schools; elementary, Junior highs and high schools complete clans for student transitions Spring, 1999 Finalize logistical plans; Phase Two of professional development program; continued communication updates; implemented Intermediate phase of oroarem recommendations Summer, 1999 Phase Three of professional development program; implement logistical plan; complete final phase of oroQram recommendations Fall, 1899 OoeninQ of LRSD middle schools -- ----- - - - - - - - - ------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUN O ~ 2001 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * Intervenors. * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RECEIVED JUN 8 2001 OfflCEOF IISBi\u0026IIIIIIJI Before the Court are the motion and supplements to the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for Court approval of a conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools for the 2001-02 school year. Also before the Court are the PCSSD's motion and supplement to the motion for approval of middle school construction modification. The Court held a hearing on the motions for approval of conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools on May 4, 2001. On May 21, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors and the Knight Intervenors, on behalf of the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff (\"PASS\"), filed objections to the middle school conversion. On May 29, 2001, the PCSSD filed its response to those objections. Upon review of the motions, objections, and response, as well as the evidence presented during the May 4, 2001 hearing, the Court determines that it will not prevent the PCSSD from proceeding with the conversion to -middle schools for the coming school year and grants the motions. 34 40 I. When the PCSSD initially filed its motion for approval of conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools, the Court had concerns about the degree of planning that the PCSSD invested in the conversion and about whether its desegregation obligations were being addressed. The submissions in support of the motions did not reflect a coherent plan of action and there was no indication that the PCSSD used desegregation and equity as a filter through which to plan and implement various aspects of the middle school concept, such as racial balance, student assignment, staffing, capacity, and student recruitment issues. Further, the PCSSD's filing did not reflect evidence that the Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services and the Director of Desegregation were significantly involved in the middle school planning or implementation process. In addition, there was no budget document that broke down all the costs of the middle school conversion, and there were no projections of enrollment and racial balance at Bates Elementary School nor recruitment plans for Bates in conjunction with the middle school conversion. The issues regarding Bates were specifically raised by the Court during the August 9, 2000 hearing on an administrative reorganization and a modification of the PCSSD's student assignment plan. At the hearing held on May 4, 2001, several parents testified as to their involvement in the conversion to middle schools. From their testimony, the Court concludes that parental involvement was minimal. Ms. Gloria Rousseau, Director of Secondary Education and Chairman of the Middle School Task Force, who took over in the middle of the conversion process after Dr. James Fox, an assistant superintendent, became ill and subsequently resigned, testified regarding her efforts to involve parents and teachers in the process. She testified that the PCSSD had no 2 written comprehensive district-wide plan for conversion to middle schools nor did the District have an overall plan addressing the effects conversion would have on desegregation. The Joshua lntervenors object to the conversion on the basis that the PCSSD has yet to comply with its desegregation commitments, has not considered the racial impact of the middle school conversion, has no written plans for conversion of the schools or a time table, has not involved the PCSSD's Office of Desegregation regarding desegregation impact, and has not collaborated with the other parties in the case regarding implementation or planning. The PACT and PASS contend that the PCSSD has failed to involve stakeholder groups in the planning process. They object to the conversion as well, asserting the lack of a district-wide comprehensive written plan, the lack of a staff development training program, the lack of space, and the lack of timely deployment of staff. All these shortcomings have resulted in confusion, - frustration, anxiety, and low teacher morale. In response to these objections, the PCSSD disputes the Joshua Intervenors' assertion that the District has not complied with its desegregation commitments and has not considered the racial impact of middle schools. The PCSSD reiterates that no student assignment zones will change, and that it will continue to apply the same rules regarding assignment and allocation of staff. Further, the PCSSD submits a Plan for Transition to Middle Schools as an exhibit to its response as well as consolidated timetables for all activities which have occurred and the few that are yet to occur. The PCSSD points out the testimony of Mr. Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services, who stated he is comfortable with the process and the activities which have occurred, and Ms. Rousseau's testimony concerning the middle schools and districts which the PCSSD examined and visited as part of this process. 3 In response to the PACT and PASS objections, the PCSSD asserts their objections are \"untimely, speculative, and premised largely upon double and triple hearsay, and . mischaracterization of witnesses' testimony.\" 1 In addition, the PCSSD submits exhibits which it contends show that, contrary to the assertions made by PACT, the staff allocation process is 94 % complete for the middle schools,2 and that the agreement between the District and the Union regarding the conversion does not require that middle school personnel placement be completed by the end of May. 3 Further, the PCSSD submits an exhibit which it contends shows that the reservation of openings for minority staff is in keeping with Plan 2000 in which the District committed to increasing the number of African-American secondary core teachers. 4 Neither the Court nor any of the parties or intervenors conceptually oppose the conversion of the school grade alignment from essentially a six-grade primary, three-grade junior high and three-grade senior high to a five-grade primary, three-grade middle, and four-grade high school configuration. The Court continues to have its own concerns and shares the concerns of the objectors about the lack of planning and stakeholder involvement on the part of the PCSSD in the conversion to middle schools. However, the Court believes and hopes that the implementation of the middle school concept will benefit student achievement and reduce disparity. In addition, the Court believes it is important for the PCSSD to align its grade configuration with those of the Little Rock and North Little Rock school districts as soon as possible to avoid negative impacts 1See Docket entry 3435 (PCSSD's Combined Reply to Joshua Intervenors and PACT) at 3. 2See Docket entry 3435, Ex. D. 3See Docket entry 3435, Ex. E. 4See Docket entry 3435, Ex. E. 4 on M-to-M recruiting and magnet school attendance. The Court determines that putting a hold on the conversion to middle schools, however flawed the planning has been, would be more damaging than allowing the PCSSD to proceed to middle school conversion on the present schedule. The Court, therefore, will not prevent the conversion to middle schools and will grant the motions. The Court will direct the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor closely the conversion process and the impact of the realignment on the desegregation plan. II. Also before the Court are motions to approve middle school construction modification.  The Court notes that the construction projects at Mills and Robinson High Schools were underway  prior to the filing of the April 13, 2001 motion and April 18, 2001 supplement to the motion. Additionally, to seek the court's permission for construction after the fact is neither a demonstration of good planning and management nor a manifestation -of good faith on the part of the PCSSD. The Court is concerned about the changes in building capacities and in the use of space created at the elementary schools when the sixth grade is moved to middle schools. Again, the Court does not wish to obstruct the implementation of the conversion to middle schools in the PCSSD and, therefore, grants the motions. The Court will direct the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor closely the impact of the construction upon the desegregation plan as well as the use of space created by the middle school conversion. 5 m. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motions to approve middle schools and revamped high schools5 are granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to approve middle school construction modification6 are granted. i1f1\\.... DATED this _\"T_ day of June 2001. 5Docket entries 3402 \u0026 3422. 6Docket entries 3418 \u0026 3419. -~~~~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH R~,LE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 6 r Lf--0} BY_vf:..-,1.... __ 6 -  FILED EAsTMRsN. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN 0 5 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~~:ME1'f, ~iri~~ ~K DEPCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL. , * Defendants, * RECEIVED * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * JUN 13 100\\ Intervenors, * * omCEOf KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * DESE61Sll0li MONll0RlNG Intervenors. * ORDER On April 4, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the LRSD 's Notice of Filing and Request for Scheduling Order. On the same day, the Court filed an Order setting forth deadlines and hearing dates to address any challenges to the LRSD Compliance Report. 1 Therefore, the Court finds that the motion [ docket entry 3415] is moot. The Clerk is directed to remove said motion from the pending motions report. DATED this~ day of June 2001. \u0026iLll~.)1~~ F JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 The Court referenced in that Order a letter from the Joshua Intervenors' counsel in which he stated he needed additional time to review the report. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE -~l~_')._U~~ ~8 AND/D_~9(a) FRCP FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN O 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. , Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW RECEIVED JUN 1 3 2001 OFFlCE Of DESEGREGATION MDNITOiUNS Before the Court is the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for Court approval of the addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School. The Joshua Intervenors have responded in opposition to the motion. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion. The PCSSD notes that parents and an area business have approached the principal of Baker Interdistrict School about privately funding the building of an activities complex that would include a gymnasium, music room, and art room. 1 The PCSSD asserts that the addition of an activities complex would enhance recruitment of minority students to Baker and help it compete more effectively with the private schools in the area. The Joshua Intervenors object to the motion, 1See Ex. A, PCSSD Mot. to Approve Add. of Activities Complex, docket entry 3430. arguing that the proposal has not been developed and fully considered, and may serve to further establish Baker as a racially identifiable school. Among the specific concerns expressed by the Joshua lntervenors are the PCSSD 's recruitment ( or lack thereof) of minority students from the Little Rock School District and the lack of a recruitment plan in the motion; the absence of a plan setting forth any additional resources, including staff that may be required in expanding programs; the lack of a statement of costs; no indication of whether existing programs will be duplicated; and no indication of the effect of the addition on other schools. Lastly, the Joshua Intervenors -- question whether private donations may be used to establish \"'separate but unequal' schools. \"2 The Court believes community and parental involvement in public schools, including voluntary contributions, should be encouraged. Perhaps the Baker experience will serve as an example to encourage similar parental and community involvement at other schools in the three - Pulaski County school districts. In granting the motion and approving the addition at Balcer, however, the Court directs the PCSSD to file a report by July 9, 2001, setting forth how it intends to improve racial balance at Baker and how it is going about meeting its obligations under Section J of Plan 2000. The Court further directs the PCSSD to set forth target dates for completion of these obligations.3 2See Joshua's Resp. to PCSSD's Mot. to Approve Baker Addition (docket entry 3436) at 3. 3Section J of the Plan, School Resources, provides: \"PCSSD shall design and carry out, in consultation with the Joshua Intervenors, a study to detennine whether school resources are allocated equitable (sic) among the schools of the district. The resources assessed may include such factors as pupil/teacher ratio; pupil/staff ratio; square feet per pupil; percentage of staff with a masters degree and nine or more years of experience; the turnover rate of certified staff; school size; computer/pupil ratio; per pupil expenditure; volunteer hours per pupil; and donations per pupil. The study shall contain recommendations, where appropriate, to address any problems identified.\" See docket entry 3337, Attach. C (PCSSD Plan 2000). 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to approve the addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School4 is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the PCSSD file its report on or before July 9, 2001. ..JI\\.. DATED this l,) day of June 2001. ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO{IB.T THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH Rl,ILE 58 ANO/OR~) FRCP ON (c, - l.;,- Q) BY---'\\.._[L __ The Court notes that the same ten factors were addressed in the \"Report of LRSD's Assessment of the Equitable Allocation of Resources,\" docket entry 3214. 4Docket entry 3430. 3 .,I FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN f 5 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTJA.MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By. ______ =-=-- WESTERN DIVISION DEP CLEl\u003cK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLIANCE REPORT PLAJNTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSDs Compliance Report, state: 1. Counsel is in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District regarding the compliance report and other matters. 2. This request is not made for purposes of delay. 3. Counsel for Little Rock School District has been consulted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School District' s Compliance Report up to and including June 25, 2001. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-3~74]/5]8 ~ I . By _{__Jj; _Qv'-\u003c:...,-v-'----\" J W. alker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been sent to all counsel ofrecord on this 15th day ofJune, 2001. RECEIVl:IJ JUN 2 5 2001 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUN 2 O 2001 ~(I~ WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, * * * * *  JA~E1. ~RMACK. ~ By. \\ ' \\ l /\\ /\\f\\ DEPCLERK vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * Intervenors, * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., lntervenors. * * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which - to respond to the Little Rock School District's Compliance Report. For good cause shown, and without objection from the Little Rock School District, the Court grants the motion. The Joshua Intervenors have until and including June 25, 2001, within which to file their response. No further exte~ions will be granted. SO ORDERED this ~ay of June 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wll1' RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON e_~c)..(,Ol sv_rr=-: __ ~A, ~ F JUDGE --=-- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRicf coUR1J.foU~1E,D EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAf SA's'STERN DISTRg A~~:~SAs WESTERN DMSION f' . JUN 2 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, NIRS . LORENE JOSHUA, et al:, Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * .~:~ES W. McCORMACK, CLERK * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * * * * * * * * * * RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2001 OfRCEOf OESE6RE6AnON lllNJTORJNG JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S OPPOSITION TO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE REPORT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to defer final decision upon the petition of the Little Rock School District for a declaration that it is now unitary as that term has been defined by relevant case law. Toe Joshua Intervenors believe that there are numerous significant questions which are not addressed in a clear, accurate and substantive manner which need to be further explored in an evidentiary proceeding before the Court. Upon that event the Court would be in a better position to make the necessary analysis to determine whether the objectives and commitments of the revised desegregation plan have been fully met. Toe Joshua Intervenors believe further that = the Court must have before it a written response to the district's plan or other written analysis -1- regarding that plan from the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be incomplete and not in keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. The sc:hool district's compliance report of March 15, 2001, which incorporates by reference its interim compliance report dated March 15, 2000, is before the Court reportedly to inform concerned interests of \"the status of the district's efforts to meet its obligations under the revised plan . . . \" The district makes reference to the fact that it offered the opportunity for interested parties to provide comments or suggestions to the interim court and that it received none. Because it received no comments or suggestions regarding that report, the district has determined that the form of the report is appropriate for the present report. That position is inaccurate. Joshua made many comments throughout the year to District officials regarding areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation. Joshua notes, however, that before either of the reports was submitted to the Court, the district did not consult and meet with Joshua regarding the contents in order to reach the agreements of the report contemplated by the desegregation plan. The present report has many of the same failings of earlier reports to the Court. In fact, it has been the exception rather than the rule for the district to affirmatively involve Joshua in preliminary stages of any report or other activity undertaken by the school district. Joshua submits that the Little Rock School District is far from being \"unitary\" at this time, and that the District has much work to accomplish before court release is appropriate. Joshua further submits that the burden of proof that the District is unitary, i.e., has fulfilled all of its obligations, -2- is upon the District rather than upon Joshua. The following comments by Joshua to the March 15, 2001 report raise appropriate for further inquiry by the court. JOSHUA'S SERIATIM RESPONSES TO THE DISTRICT'S REPORT DATED MARCH 15, 2001 Section 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. The district firsts projects the covenants dated January 11, 2000 to illustrate its good faith beyond March 15, 2001 in.the event that the Court declares the district to be unitary. It points to meetings of administrators who were informed of the covenant; the involvement of Dr. Terrence Roberts, a consultant to the district1 ; and the receipt of the district of a \"quality interest award\" from the Arkansas Quality Award Nonprofit Agency to demonstrate that the initiatives now in place will continue. Joshua notes that the emphasis of the report is upon the objective to improve the academic achievement of all students through the use of its resources in a manner which complies with the non discrimination requirements of law. The commitment is vague! It allows equal, we say greater, attention to the higher achieving white students than to the lower achieving Black students. It does not address the problems which have persisted since the settlement agreement was reached in 1989, especially the concern of remediating preexisting achievement disparities between white and Black 1 Dr. Roberts is one of the first African American students to enroll in Little Rock Central High, i.e., \"the Little Rock Nine\"; he is a clinical psychologist who is on the staff of the University of Antioch University. .., -.)- students. The district received at least $20 million dollars in the form of a forgivable loan by which to address the remediation disparities. Those achievement disparities linger. 2 In this respect, the State of Arkansas has given the district little assistance in meeting this objective and, on information and belief, despite noncompliance, has agreed to forgive the Little Rock School District loan obligation (See Exhibit 1 hereto). Joshua further notes that an objection to the incentive schools by district officials was that those schools were too program heavy and therefore did not lend themselves to effective implementation and evaluation of those programs. We believe that the district now has even more programs which were present in its schools and that the district's past criticism of the incentive schools programs may be applied to the programs which it has put in place since it reduced the number of incentive school programs. Effectiveness of the programs is still lacking. Effect is usually determined after program evaluation. The district's evaluation system borders upon being nil. The district makes reference under good faith to the success of the Campus Leadership Team, later referred to herein as CLT. The person assigned the responsibility for the CL T was Ms. Gayle Bradford. She (like School Superintendent Les Carnine and Associate Superintendent Brady Gadberry) is leaving the school district as of July 1. Her assignment to the position was makeshift in the first place in that it was a job created for her while the district determined what good use could be made of her services after she was removed as principal at Hall High School due to problems associated with desegregation complaince. The Campus Leadership Program was ill conceived, and 2The plan which set the objective that African American achievement as measured by appropriate standardized tests, on a comparative basis, would come within ten percentage points of white student academic achievement. -4- has been poorly implemented. It may be said that the CLT is only a hope for better school management for the future. But it too lacks an assessment or evaluation component. The Campus Leaderships Team are generally under the overall leadership of Associate Superintendent Ms. Sadie Mitchell, to whom Ms. Gayle Bradford reported. Ms. Mitchell, to her credit, has sought to create a working environment conducive to better cooperation between administrators and teachers. But those efforts .on her part are have just begun and with the departure of Ms. Bradford, must begin anew with new staff. The program is not so fundamentru.ly sound as to be self executing. Good faith is to be determined, we submit, within the context of the objectives set by the parties and by the law, especially the law of the case; the actions promised to be taken in order to achieve the objectives; and the manner in which those actions are actually undertaken. Good faith contemplates results as well as processes for achieving the contemplated results. The Little Rock School District outrageously argues that it is simply obliged to make promises to meet its objectives and to set up a procedure for fulfilling those promises but, having done that, it is not required to meet  the objectives set. That position reflects the basic difference between Joshua and Little Rock. Joshua believes that the commitments agreed upon required that the processes or plans for achieving the agreed upon objectives actually be fulfilled and that only conditions of impossibility could preclude compliance. Joshua further believes that the agreement contemplated that there would be prompt undertaking of the commitments; and that that undertaking would be vigorous and sustained. Joshua also believes that implicit in the agreement is that the commitments would be subject to professionally competent evaluation of policies, programs, and procedures put in place as implementing tools for the plan objectives. As will be shown below, the District's efforts have been neither timely nor prompt, vigorous or sustained; nor complimented by competent professional -5- evaluation. We are thus met with a pleading of excuse with promises (the Covenant) of actions that will follow upon Court release. The question before the Court is whether the district can be expected to achieve goals and objectives without Court oversight (the Covenant) that have not been achieved with Court oversight. Moreover, how can Black students enforce this Covenant? \"The LT program was at the heart of the District's efforts to met its obligations under the reviewed plan\". P. 1, Compliance Report. \"A quality school district meets the needs of all students.\" In adopting the CLT program, the District committed itselftoproviding each school the leadership and autonomy necessary to meet the needs of each school's unique population. With that autotomy comes a responsibility to ensure the success of each student.\" Page 3, Compliance Report. Joshua differs with that obj~.ctive. Remediation of disparity conflicts with that concept. When racial grouping is taken into account. Joshua has not been provided with any report which reports an evaluation of the CLT program or of the results that have been achieved by that program. The program appears to accept the proposition that individual schools, through the CLT, will meet their responsibility to each of its students. Because of this \"autonomy\", some magic conversion or remediation of disparities will occur it seems to be argued. Joshua submits that the CLT's actually provide more opportunity for discrimination and for mischief and maintenance of the status quo_ than a system wide appr "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1359","title":"Proceedings: ''Pulaski County: Plan for Implementation of Middle Schools in Pulaski County Special School District''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-05-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School facilities","School management and organization","Education, Secondary","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Pulaski County: Plan for Implementation of Middle Schools in Pulaski County Special School District''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1359"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["28 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1707","title":"Court filings concerning LRSD's compliance report, addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School, and motion release of LRSD from federal court supervision","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education, Secondary","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School buildings","School employees","Student activities","School integration","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning LRSD's compliance report, addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School, and motion release of LRSD from federal court supervision"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1707"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["57 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Knight intervenors' motion for extension of time; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time; District Court, order; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report; District Court, motion to approve addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School; District Court, motion objecting to release of Little Rock School District (LRSD) from federal court supervision; District Court, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS) intervenors' objections to proposed Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) conversion to middle schools; District Court, response of the Joshua intervenors to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle schools; District Court, order; District Court, the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) combined reply to Joshua and Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and further submissions to this court; District Court, Joshua's response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to approve addition of an activities facility at Baker Interdistrict School; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FILED EAsrM;...sN01STR1cr COURT K 01STRICT ARf\u003cANSAS MAY JC ;,nrn IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAY 11 2001 Offliit 1:. EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 8JAy M ES W. McCORMACK, CLERK DESmRE6ATION MONITORING WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME For their Motion, Knight, et al. Intervenors, state: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. At the close of the hearing on Friday, May 4, 2001, the undersigned counsel for PACT and PASS requested a ten (10) day period to file objections to the 4I PCSSD plan to implement middle schools within the district. The court granted the request and gave PACT and PASS ten (10) days to file such objections. PACT/PASS intend to file objections to the PCSSD proposal. 2. Because of scheduling conflicts, the Mother's Day week-end and the absence of Sandra Roy, Executive Director of PACT, counsel has been unable to meet with PACT and gather information with which to file said objections. 3. Granting a seven (7) day extension of time to file said objections until close of business on Monday, May 21, 2001 will cause no prejudice to PCSSD or the other parties. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors, et al., and JJ10re specifically PACT and PASS pray that the court grant an additional seven (7) days or until close of business on ,,,, 'ft DEP CLEHK Monday, May 21, 2001 to file their objections to PCSSD's plan to implement middle schools within the district and grant them all other relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 (501) 224-1110 Richard W. Roachell (78132) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE  I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify that a true and correct c~y. of the foregoing document was sent by U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, on this. l \\ T ~Y of May, 2001, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated. M. Samuel Jones III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings, LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ~.~ Richard W. Roachell RECEIVEO MAY 1 6 2001 MAY 1 4 2001 VlfiCl:OF DESEGREGATION MONfflJRJNQ JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: OEP CLER~ rn THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERmEKNIGffi, ET AL. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PLAmTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Come the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to PCSSD l\\Jotion for Approval of Middle Schools up to and including May 21, 2001. For their motion, Joshua states: 1. Additional time is needed in order to provide a response due to undersigned counsel's schedule. 2. Counsel for the Knight Interv~nors has filed a similar request. 3. Counsel for the PCS SD has been contacted and he has indicated that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an Order extending the time up to and including May 21, 2001 in which they may file their response to PCSSD's Motion for Approval of Middle Schools. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 50137~ By~r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been sent to all counsel of record via United States mail postage prepaid on this 14th day of May, 2001. ~-~ \\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY 15 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff (s) vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW RECEIVED Defendant(s) MAY 21 2001 OfflCEOf DESEGREGATION MONITORING Intervenors Intervenors Pending before the Court are motions filed by the Knight Intervenors and the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which to file responses to PCSSD's motion to approve middle schools. The Court finds that the motions should be, and they are hereby, granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Knight Intervenors and the Joshua Intervenors are allowed an extension up to and including May 21, 2001, to file responses to PSCCD's motion for approval of middle schools . 11' Dated this ___ii_ day of May, 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED .ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WI ~ULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP ON - '{;..~(J/ BY er:-: 9?~~M SUAN WEBBER WRIGH~ Chief United States District Judge -FIECEl\\fEO - MAY 18 2001 MAY 1 6 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONrroRING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C=S W. McCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERI( WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSD'S COMPLIANCE REPORT Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension ohime to Respond to LRSD's Compliance Report, state: 1. Because of undersigned counsel busy trial schedule, additional time is needed for undersigned counsel to review the voluminous report of the Little Rock School District. 2. Undersigned counsel has at least a dozen trials scheduled within the next thirty days for which he has been and is being required to prepare and to meet imminent time requirements and deadlines which included the following cases: Name of Case Date of Trial Bennett v. First National Bank May 21 , 2001 State of Arkansas v. Tyrone Gamble May 22, 2001 U.S.A. v. Joe Bryant III May 29, 2001 Beverly Burkett v. USDA June 4, 2001 Schroeder, et al, v. Ibbottson, et al. June 4, 2001 Jamie Tims v. DHS June 4, 2001 Court/Judge Prince George Co., Maryland Craighead Co. Circuit Court Judge George Howard Jr. Judge Susan Webber Wright Judoo G. Thomas Eisele 'r!., Judge George Howard Jr. Carolyn Adkins v. McGhee SD D. Williams, et al. v Parkcrest Apts. J.C. Springer v. Rita Rowland State of AR v. Tremaille Ross State of AR v. Ravin Taylor Tenisha Stewart v. Dr. James Trice June 4, 2001 June 6, 2001 June 8, 2001 June 11, 2001 June 11, 2001 June 13, 2001 Judge William \"Bill\" Wilson Judge Jim Moody Ouachita County Chancery Court Jackson County Circuit Court Jackson County Circuit Court Jefferson County Circuit Court 3. In addition, undersigned counsel has been in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas regarding the District's compliance report and related matters. 4. This request is not being made for purposes of delay. 5. Counsel for the Little Rock School District has been contacted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enters an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School District's Compliance Report up to and - including June 18, 2001 . Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374- 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been sent via United States mail postage prepaid to all counsel of record on thi th day of May, 01. EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1077) ROBERT S. LINDSEY WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR.' ,, .... ,  ,1 ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR. JOHN G . LILE GORDON S. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR . PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER , JR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER O. ROWE JOHN 0 . DAVIS Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: ATTORNEYS AT LAW TROY A. PRICE . ... ,..,...... -.a,. \" wlICIA SIEVERS HARRIS 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE Bl\"' e C MN !'.0 P 0 R 0 /o~R. SUITE 2200 . . .  A SOH\"oV~~ HANCOCK LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3 9 KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS (501) 371-0808 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON FAX (501) 376-9442  ~ICHAEL 0 . BARNES MAY 2 i 200 TEPHEN R. LANCASTER , ~ UOY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM www.wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN l\\C:j ; u\"i: C. TAO BOHANNON Ur.-lwJ;; I MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD ~TIN! M0NITQMl(tia~~'b~i;HERTY' ~ _......Ni.I M. SEAN HATCH ., PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE Writer's Direct Dia I No. 501-212-1273 JANE W. DUKE mJonesCwlJ .com ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J . DAUGHERTY. Pn.o .  May 18, 2001 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 l..icflnHd to practice before the Un#ed Stat Patent and Trademark Off,ce Enclosed is a copy of PCSSD's motion to approve addition of an activities complex at Baker lnterdistrict School, which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 255717-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP \u0026-~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION TO APPROVE ADDITION OF AN ACTIVITIES COMPLEX AT BAKER INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL The PCSSD for its motion, states: RECEIVED MAY 21 200f GROF BM WN1aomNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Attached as Exhibit \"A\" to this motion is a letter from the principal of Baker lnterdistrict Elementary School to the PCSSD Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services outlining what she feels to be an opportunity to enhance recruitment of minority students to Baker Elementary. 2. Briefly stated, the principal and administration believe that the construction of the complex described in Exhibit \"A\" would present a unique opportunity not present at the District's other elementary schools. 3. While the construction of the activities complex would relieve congestion in the building regarding music, art and other activities, it would not literally expand capacity. The District would commit not to utilize any of the new construction for regular classroom space without permission of this Court. 255238-v1 4. However, the Court's approval of the District's current motion to convert to middle schools would generate space sufficient to accommodate newly recruited M to M students and intradistrict transfers to Baker, for the 2001-2002 school year. 5. Further, in a matter not mentioned in Exhibit \"A\", it is important for the Court to note that Baker and other PCSSD schools in the western part of Pulaski County compete directly with established private schools in the area. One is Walnut Valley Christian Academy located at 19010 Highway 10. Walnut Valley has a gymnasium/activity complex. Chenal Valley Montessori School is located at 15717 Taylor Loop Road, which offers preschool through middle school. Baker itself also competes directly with Hebron Christian Academy located at 18715 Kanis Road, about 1  miles from Baker. 6. Further, it is known. and has been known for some time, that Pulaski Academy plans to relocate to a site proximate to the Wildwood Performing Arts Center on Denny Road located approximately two miles from Baker Elementary. 7. The District believes that the construction of a complex as described in Exhibit \"A\" would enhance its ability to recruit additional minority students to Baker and at the same time help position it to compete more effectively with the schools described above. Three pages depicting the location design and dimensions of the proposed complex are attached as Exhibit \"B\". 8. The District will need to supplement this motion as soon as possible to outline a specific strategy and plan for the recruitment of additional minority students to Baker as well as provide the specifics of how additional students would be - accommodated as regards space. The District anticipates that this plan can be 255238-v1 2 - developed in coordination with Joshua and submitted to the Court as soon as reasonably possible. WHEREFORE, the District prays that the construction plans set forth herein be approved and for all proper relief. 255238-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 0) ty Special 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On May 18, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 255238-v1 4 Baker lnterdistrict Elementary School May 18, 2001 Karl Brown Assistant Superintendent Equity and Pupil Services 15001 Kanis Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 (501) 228-3250 Pulaski County Special School District 925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dear Mr. Brown: Baker Elementary is located in west Little Rock off of Chenal Parkway. In the original Desegregation Plan, because of its low minority population, Baker Elementary was identified as an lnterdistrict school with an extended day program to attract minority students. Since 1988, Baker has struggled to meet the targeted percentage of minority students. Again this year Baker's minority population is below the target range, at sixteen percent. As the new administrator of Baker lnterdistrict Elementary, I have a strong commitment to Pulaski County Special School District's Desegregation Plan. I have realized during this past year that the recruitment efforts to attract minority students to Baker have not positively impacted our racial composition. Recognizing Baker's need to increase the minority enrollment, I have established a recruitment committee that has formulated and implemented a recruitment plan. At the beginning of the year, we met with Horace Smith from the Office of Desegregation and Monitoring to seek his guidance in our plan. The District's Director of Equity has also been involved in Baker's recruitment planning. As the year has progressed, we have made good faith efforts toward our goal of increasing minority enrollment. These include, but are not limited to, 1) participating in city wide events (World Fest and Boo at the Zoo); 2) surveying our M to M parents as to why they chose to attend Baker and what keeps them at Baker; and 3) visiting our partner Little Rock school, Romine Elementary, where our students presented Baker's economic specialty program and the extended day program (selling points identified from the survey) to this group. Information was then sent home with Romine students. To date, however, these efforts unfortunately have not yielded the results we had anticipated. While seeking to find an added incentive that will attract minority families to Baker, a unique opportunity has presented itself. Parents and an area business have approached me about privately funding the building of an activities complex that would include a gymnasium, music room , and an art room. While exploring this opportunity, I began to envision what this building might mean to my goal for increasing Baker's minority student population.  Baker has a strong and highly successful studio art program offered by volunteers and supported by the district with materials and training. The availability of a room designed for art would be optimal for the in-school program and extension of the after school extended day program.  Volunteers offer Baker students additional curriculum in the area of vocal music that is now held in an open space room with heavy traffic or the regular classroom. A music room would allow for school-wide music instruction as well as enrichment for the extended day program.  Just this year, volunteers have offered a high-interest curriculum teaching physical education. However, this instruction competes for available open spaces. The EXHIBIT Pulaski County Special School District I A gymnasium would optimize instruction and create opportunity for intramural sports and before and after school program use. The opportunity to acquire a facility free to the District (on the heels of voters having declined a millage that would be directed at facilities improvement) may be the blessing Baker has hoped for-a recruitment tool we have not tried. With an activities complex, our art, music, and physical education programs could be expanded during the school day and beyond to enrich our lnterdistrict Specialty after school extended day program. As parents and the lead business continue to plan, the recruitment possibilities seem to be limited only by our imagination (i.e. intramural sports, music and art lessons). Pending court approval, the District has made a \"good faith\" offer of support, approving this request and allocating a part-time certified physical education teacher that validates the program as a recruitment tool. The District has identified Crystal Hill Magnet Elementary School to share the certified physical education teacher in an effort to offer an additional program for their recruitment of minorities. With this facility, the support of a certified teacher, and strong parental and community involvement, this may just be what we need for additional incentive for increased recruitment for Baker. An important note, our district currently has schools that seek to attract white students through physical education (Bates Elementary) and music/art (Landmark Elementary) for desegregation purposes. However, there is no school that seeks to attract minority students through physical education and music/art programs. Therefore, it is our hope that it would please the court to grant our request to allow for the construction of the proposed activities complex to assist with Baker's recruitment plan. Thank you for your attention and representation of our request. M'tk -TJ!t:._, Beverly M. Ruthven Principal Baker lnterdistrict Elementary Pulaski County Special School District A NEW GYMNASIUM FOR BAKER ELEMENTARY LI TTL E ROCK , ARKAN SAS FRONT ELEVATION a ~ BAINUI C0Hsu.T,HT F I'I $ P_ROPOSED SITE PLAN A NEW GYMNASIUM FOR BAKER ELEMENTARY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLAN t BAINUM CONsll.TAHt( MtPJ -f ,  .vr. I J ~?Y. .- ,};.?~~~''.( :.:;,,~,:~,?,)~'\\'~ .:-?r~itF~)f.f!~, ;~:~;;;~~j;lr~~~{ :ti~r.;f !I~t: ~~!1~.:;'fi;:l.cf*:'t .   \" ;:tf:l:-.. l! \\. ;:;y{h::ttf :-T: .. :ii{'~t ~ ~, ~-. -,:c :,.:~:t\"\\i J,i!: !,,,~., ?:fi : rJ~~~tf l!\\:~-\\1~;itfi} . .:, ,. !~ i ~.,J-:,:\\ ~_l'::;!';\\: ~  '-~:-~{~.t!:~~rr:-~~\\ -:-.~D: --- ......____..... ...... ,P. .R.O. POSED SITE PLAN- MAY 2 9 2001 FILED EAST~ifN ~i; RR/ICCTTCOURT AR/\u003cANSAS MAY 1 8 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JBy:~ A~~CL ERK vs CASE NO. 4:82-CV-866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFENDANT MOTION OBJECTING TO RELEASE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION Comes Franklin A. Davis, former employee of Little Rock School District, representing himself PRO SE, and for his action states: 1. Venue is proper under Ark. Code Ann. 16-60-115 as at least one, if not all, Defendants (LRSD) live in Pulaski County and the cause of action arose in Pulaski County. 2. 3. 4. Jurisdiction is proper as Frankliil A. Davis is a resident of Arkansas and all Defendants are residents of the State of Arkansas. Davis became a principal in the Little Rock School District in 1989. In late December of 1994, Defendant Sadie Mitchell, made repeated sexual advances and remarks towards Davis while she was his supervisor. 5. Davis rejected these advances. 6. In December of 1997, the Little Rock School District, Dr. Leslie Carnine, Brady Gadberry, and Sadie Mitchell began an orchestration to tortuously interfere with Davis' employment contract with the Little Rock School District. 7. This tortuous interference directly led to Davis' termination as a principal in the Little Rock School District. DEP CLERK e..r.:. 8. The Little Rock School District denied Davis his due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution by terminating his employment without providing Davis adequate notice, adequate opportunity to respond, and a timely hearing. 9. The Little Rock School District materially misrepresented Davis' job performance as a principal in the Little Rock School District. 10. The Little Rock School District violated the procedural due process requirements of the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. 11. The Little Rock School District wrongfully committed slander and defamation of Davis' character and reputation by publicizing unproven facts and allegations claiming Davis had committed sexual harassment to various individuals in the community, in his profession, and state agencies. 12. The Little Rock School District intentionally discriminated against Davis by treating Davis detrimentally and causing his termination based on his race and gender. 13. Davis has suffered emotional, financial and physical damages as a result of these actions caused by the Little Rock School District. 14. Davis has suffered irreparable damage to his reputation and monetary loss of income damage as a result of his termination by the Little Rock School District and their actions in this matter. 2 15. All of the discriminatory actions the Little Rock School District took against Davis, happened after the LRSD submitted its current Desegregation Plan to this Court. 16. On April 3, 2000, the Little Rock School District issued a report aimed at reassuring the public and this Court that it. 'is moving swiftly and in good faith' to carry out its revised desegregation plan. Defendant Brady Gadberry was a co-author of this report. 17. As recent as today, May 18, 2001, the Little Rock School District's scandalous, whitewashing, and 'dirty linen' covered behavior covers the front page of the state's largest newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. All of the praise lauded on Dr. Les Carnine the past several months has been merely a subterfuge by the Little Rock School District to convince the Honorable Chief Judge Susan Webber Wright to grant their release from federal Court supervision. SUMMARY OF WHAT THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DID TO FRANKLIN A. DA VIS SINCE SUBMITTING THEIR REVISED DESEGREGATION PLAN TO THIS COURT The bulk of Franklin A. Davis' suit against the Little Rock School District, and certain school officials, falls under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1983 which states: \"Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.\"  3 The Little Rock School District is liable under  1983 for violating Franklin A. Davis' Due Process rights under the 14th Amendment. According to current law, Due Process mandates that a Teacher be provided a hearing prior to termination if the nature of the termination involves an attack on the teacher's character or reputation. The Supreme Court hoJds that a teacher, even a nonprobationary one, has a property interest that requires a prior termination hearing by the school board to respond to claims that affect his/her \"good name, reputation, honor, or integrity.\" See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573-577 (1972). The Eighth Circuit, which Arkansas falls in, has also held that there is a liberty interest when an employee is fired based on a charge that would impair that employee's opportunities within his profession. See Wellner v. Minnesota State Junior College Board, 487 F. 2d 153, 155-156 (1973)(citing Harnett v. Vlett, 466 F.2d 113, 116 (8th Cir. 1972)). The Eighth Circuit has constantly held that a teacher or government employee, who has been fired under circumstances that tarnish the teacher's character and negatively impact future job possibilities, is entitled to a prior termination hearing with full opportunity to respond to the charges. See Wilderman v. Nelson, 467 F.2d 1173 (1972); Scheelhaase v. Woodbury Central Community School District, 488 F.2d 237 (1973); Buhr v. Buffalo Public School District NO. 38, 509 F.2d 1196 (1974). Franklin A. Davis was a Principal with the Little Rock School District for many years. During all those years, he received outstanding evaluations. In 1995, Sadie Mitchell wrote in his evaluation, \"An open line of communication (with Assistant Superintendent) was evident\". \"Mr. Davis has been very cooperative and receptive to constructive criticism.\" She also wrote, \"His leadership style and relationship is respected 4 - by personnel, colleagues, parents, students, and the community.\" She again gave Mr. Davis a near perfect evaluation in 1996. In a mid-year evaluation in February of 1996, Sadie Mitchell wrote, \"Correspondences to parents, teachers, and District personnel displays that Mr. Davis is a team player.\" \"Administrative policies are followed while working well with others.\" She also gave him an excellent evaluation in June of 1997(the last evaluation Franklin A. Davis received as a LRSD employee). Yet, somehow by December of 1997, six months after his evaluation, Franklin A. Davis was suddenly reassigned. Four months later in April of 1998, Superintendent Les Carnine sent a termination letter to Franklin A. Davis. In less than six months, Franklin A. Davis had gone from the Little Rock School District's exemplary tenured principal to being considered an outcast without the LRSD granting him a hearing. It is noteworthy and interesting that Franklin A. Davis became a principal with the Little Rock School District at the age of twenty-seven (27). Essential to a full understanding of Franklin A. Davis' claim against the Little Rock School District is the timing of what occurred. This is the timeline, followed with an explanation of what it means: 1.) June 1997 - Sadie Mitchell gives Franklin A. Davis a great evaluation. 2.) December 30, 1997 -Davis is asked to leave Wilson Elementary and temporarily reassigned. 3.) April 2, 1998 -Dr. Carnine sends Davis a letter informing Davis of Dr. Carnine's intent to recommend the School Board terminate Davis and suspending him without pay, which is later temporarily reinstated. 5 4 .) May 4, 1998 - Davis gets an attorney to write the School Board requesting a hearing, with an offer to arbitrate the superintendent's recommendation for termination before going before the school board. 5.) May 12; 1998-Dr. Carnine writes Davis agreeing to arbitrate Dr. Carnine's termination recommendation before proceeding to the board with it. 6.) December 1, 1998 - Davis still has not had a hearing of any kind, yet the Little Rock School District quits paying Davis. 7.) June 28, 1999 - Fourteen months after Dr. Carnine's recommendation, Davis is given an arbitration hearing covering solely the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. Davis is awarded back pay, but not reinstated. Franklin A. Davis and the Little Rock School District did come to an understanding to arbitrate under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, however, this was under the assumption that the arbitrator would decide whether he would be terminated if the recommendation went before the School Board. Davis did not expect the School District to terminate him fourteen months later without a hearing. Afler the understanding to arbitrate whether Davis would be terminated, the Little Rock School District did the following: 1.) Dr. Richard Hurley sent a form to the Arkansas Employment Security Division checking the box stating that Davis was discharged. 2.) The Little Rock School District stopped paying Davis in December of 1998, and 6 3.) The Little Rock School District sent Davis a letter on June 29, 1998 informing him his insurance would terminate on August 31, 1998. These actions were in direct conflict with the letter from Dr. Carnine, dated May 12, 1998, which stated that the arbitration was to be an \"alternative method for binding adjudication of the termination recornrnendation.\"(Emphasis added). This was not to be an arbitration of a Principal who was already terminated. The Superintendent wrote the letter recommending Davis' termination in April of 1998. Davis requested a hearing. All Davis received was an arbitration hearing 14 months later, but after the Little Rock School District terminated him anyway despite his understanding. Although Davis' attorney (at that time), did write a letter that included a proposal to arbitrate his claims under the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, this letter was prior to his termination. Davis NEVER agreed to waive his right to a full and open hearing in front of the School Board when the Little Rock School District later terminated him. This is what this MOTION OF OBJECTION is about. CONCLUSION I, Franklin A. Davis, have been fighting for justice in this sad and unfortunate situation for nearly four (4) years. The Little Rock School District's attorney Chris Heller has continuously advised the school district against doing the right thing and reinstating me to my principal' s job with appropriate back pay and damages. Mr. Heller has the advantage of working for a large law firm and the support of the Arkan "}],"pages":{"current_page":16,"next_page":17,"prev_page":15,"total_pages":46,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":180,"total_count":544,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":313},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":35},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":14},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":11},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":6},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":3},{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":3},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":2},{"value":"Cobb Court Reporting","hits":2},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":2},{"value":"Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, Sixth Division","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":439},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":396},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":378},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":354},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":329},{"value":"School integration","hits":317},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":295},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":268},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":249},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":223},{"value":"Court records","hits":206}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":6},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Heller, Christopher","hits":2},{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":2},{"value":"Armor, David","hits":1},{"value":"Eddington, Ramsey","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Sam","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Stephen W.","hits":1},{"value":"Joshua, Lorene","hits":1},{"value":"Lester, Bobby","hits":1},{"value":"Porter, Austin, Jr.","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":544},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":537},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":535},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":472},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Kansas, 38.50029, -98.50063","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Missouri, 38.25031, -92.50046","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Phillips County, 34.42829, -90.84802","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Jacksonville, 34.8662, -92.11015","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Scott County, Waldron, 34.89843, -94.09076","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":537},{"value":"Kansas","hits":2},{"value":"Missouri","hits":2},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Illinois","hits":1},{"value":"Massachusetts","hits":1},{"value":"Oklahoma","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1994","hits":50},{"value":"1995","hits":44},{"value":"1992","hits":41},{"value":"1996","hits":40},{"value":"1993","hits":38},{"value":"2001","hits":32},{"value":"2011","hits":31},{"value":"1997","hits":28},{"value":"2002","hits":24},{"value":"1991","hits":23},{"value":"1998","hits":22},{"value":"2012","hits":20},{"value":"2010","hits":16},{"value":"1999","hits":15},{"value":"2003","hits":15},{"value":"1989","hits":12},{"value":"2000","hits":12},{"value":"2004","hits":12},{"value":"2013","hits":12},{"value":"2007","hits":11},{"value":"2005","hits":10},{"value":"2006","hits":10},{"value":"2009","hits":8},{"value":"1988","hits":7},{"value":"1990","hits":7},{"value":"1984","hits":6},{"value":"2008","hits":6},{"value":"1986","hits":4},{"value":"1985","hits":3},{"value":"1987","hits":2},{"value":"1954","hits":1},{"value":"1983","hits":1},{"value":"2017","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1954","max":"2017","count":564,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"filing","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}