{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1673","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief for appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD)","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 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1997-09-08"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief for appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD)"],"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/1673"],"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":["135 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FRIDAY , ELDREDGE\u0026: CLARK H(IUCH(L H FRIDAY ( 1117 - tlI WllLIAW H tUTTON . r A JAM(I W WOO\"[ IYIIIIOH M (ll(MAN. JIii . ,. A JO( 0 IILL. ,. A . A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIV IOUAL5 ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOC ' A TIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN C . (CHOlt , ,. A J 4M(I A IUTT,.Y , ,. A . FIIUQ(IIIIIClt  . Ullll(IIIY , f' A . H f L.41UL\" ,. A  All  DAVIS, JIii . f' A (8 C CLAfllt. Jl4 , f' A MAI,. LEOOETT. ,. A H Q[W(Y WATIION , f' A . it4Ul I . l(NHAM Ill. f' A l Al'lftY W 8Ul41C8 , r A. 4 WYCS:L!FF Hl81T J l4 .. ,. A J AM(! 0 WAl40 H411111!1, r A J l\"tHlL l r MALCOM , I\" A J ,t,M(!I M SIMrSOH,,. A . J A.M(!I M S AXTON , r A .J 5H(,.H(l4 O jlfUSS(lL Ill. f' A OQ H,t,LO M IACON , f' A . WILL IAM THOMAS 8AXTUt . r A . WAlf11 4 ,.AUl.8ON II, ,. A . IAIIIIIIY (. COf'llH, t' .A .IIICHAltO 0 . TA.YL014 . ,. A .J OIH'H I HUlll9T , JII . f' A . HIZA8(TH lll081N WUIIJ,.AY . ,. A . CHltllTO,.IHIIII H(ll.11 . ,. A L AUlllA H(NIH(Y SMITH , ,. A . lt08(11T S SHAF(ft , f A . WIL LI AM ltol 0141FFIH Ill. ,. , A . M ICH AEL 5 . M0014( . f' A . DIAM( S WACS:(Y . f A WAL TEii M (l(l Ill . 1' A l(VIN A CR ASI . ,. A WI LLIAM A . WAOO(LL. JIit  f' A , Mr. Michael E. United States Gans Court U.S. Court \u0026 Custom 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL 8UILO INO 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , ARKA ... SAS n:o 1- l4tl TELEPHONE 50t - J7e-:o, I FAX ~O. 501 -l7 S- 214 7 September 8, 1997 of Appeals House 9 COTT .J l ,t,HC,t,I T ., \u0026 M -l A Y L( ,:0 11tt[Y  4 ~ O l(ltf I l(A.CW .1 111 J l( ( llltQWN ., 4 .J AW(I C 14C(II .J Iit  \u0026 M,t,IUIY 4 U OHT  4 ICOf T H ru c,c . ,- 4 .JOH N CL A'l\"\"OH Jl4HOOL,.\"'f OU Y ,t,l fO H W40( . , 4 it'I IC[ .:. 0Aflt0H(II ., 4. fO H I A ,- .10 H8 . !' .A Q ,t,V IO O Wll!IOH ,- 4 .J(FF .. (Y M WOO ..  . ,. 4 A\"\"O\"(W \" TU llfloj[Jt , ., .A Q ,t,VIO W U IIA.F . ,. A C All l A G i,.Al,..HOU\" JOH M C ;:(HOLE Y J \" A. Lll90 N !l lLI.VCS JO NA.MN C '10OSE VL7 II ,:HIIISTO r't-tEllt L AW SO -\" Gll(OO IIY O \"AYLOII TO NY L. WILC O X F\" AH C. HICS:WAM l (TTY; O(MOIIY IAIIIAll4 .J .IIAHO J A.W(I WI !Ml TH CUFFOIIJO W r'L U WC[-OAHIEl l \"l(lltllt lHG ~;: .. 4 LLISO H J :o,nfWH~ TOCO 4 a 1111 [LLE H W ,J W(HS HELEfrH \"II ~AYOEII J ASCH I . \"t(HOIIE-, 9UIAH )rif CHll.O ~9 o, c:uH W I LLIAM J 5W ITH 8 S ClAAl Wllll4W L. ... EAIIY ,  A WIL LI AM L. 4T TO M . II  4 {50 I 370  5C~ Re: Court of Appeals No. 97-1794, 97-1855 , 97-2394 and 97-2406 (Consolidated) Dear Mr. Gans: Brief CJH/k Enc. cc: I have enclosed for filing the Little Rock in the above-referenced matter. School \\..,. Christopher Heller All Counsel Dist:::-ic-:'s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APPELLANT v. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al .ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al v. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al Nos. 97-1794EALR, 97-1855EALR, 97-2394EALR and 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) Appeals from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division APPELLEES APPELLANTS APPELLEES Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE, CLARK 400 w. Capitol Ave. Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF THE CASE. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. ARGUMENT TllLZ o:, COll'l'D'l'S I. Th Diatriot Court Did ot Rely Upon Diaputed xaterial :raota ii . . l . . \"   6 II. Th Diatriot Court correctly :rollowed Recent Precedent III. Other Iaauea ltaiaed By AD And Intervenor Do ot warrant aeveraal CONCLUSION i 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '!'ULS 01' \u0026U'l'BOIU'!'XU DuPree v. Allla School Dist. No. 30 279 Ark. S.W. 2d 90 (1983) .... Jenkins v. Missouri 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 21468 (8th Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . 18 . 1 LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996 ...... 5,9,10,16 LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) 18 ii I I BTA'l'DDl'I' OP ~ CASB I Th s1tt1g1nt AsJr1uaent I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Little Rock School District (LRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), collectively the \"Districts,\" brought this case to enforce the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case settlement Agreement. For the second time, this Court has been asked to interpret those parts of the Settlement Agreement which protect the Districts from the loss of State funding for programs which were funded at the tiae of the settlement and from retaliatory action by the State because of the settlement. Two separate and distinct coponents of the Settlement Agreement are at issue in this appeal. First, because of the relatively small amount of the financial settlement in this case, 1 the State of Arkansas agreed to continue to fund all of the programs for which the Districts received state funding at the time of the settlement: 1The Settlement Agreement requires the State of Arkansas to pay to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD a total of nearly one hundred thirty million dollars, including a twenty aillion dollar loan to LRSD. ADE Appx. Vol. 1, pp. 110-124. By comparison, the State of Missouri has paid the Kansas City School District approximately two hundred fifty million dollars for restoration of the district's physical facilities and approximately nine hundred fifty aillion dollars for educational and other prograJ1s. Jenkins y, Missouri. 1997 u.s. App. LEXIS 21468 at *22- *23 (8th Cir. 1997). This Court recently approved an agreement by which Missouri will be released from any further obligation upon the payment to the Kansas City School District of an additional three hundred twenty aillion dollars over three years . .lg. at *l. The Kansas City School District has fewer students than the Districts in this case. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II.E continuation of Existing Funding In addition to any paYJlent described elsewhere in this agreeaent, the State will continue to pay the following costs:      (6) The State' share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funding. ADE Appx. Vol.l, pp. 92-93. It is undisputed that the Districts are now required to fund certain programs, including teacher retirement and health insurance, which were funded by the State of Arkansas at the time of the settlement agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p.385. The second provision of the Settleaent Agreement at issue in this case prohibits the state from retaliating against the Districts because of the aettleaent: II.L Prohibition of Punitive Action The State shall take no action (including the enactment of legislation) for the purpose of retaliating against the Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of this Litigation or this settlement. ADE Appx. Vol. 1, p. 98. 2 2This section of the Settlement Agreement also prohibits legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate, but creates an exception for fair and rational adjustaents to the funding formula which have general applicability even if those adjustaents reduce the proportion of state aid to any of the Districts. The Districts have not claied that the State's new funding formula has had a substantial adverse impact on their ability to desegregate. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Th J'Undinq roraul Before 1995, the State bore the entire burden of funding the teacher retirement and health insurance programs for all Arkansas school districts. Direct state funding of teacher retirement and health insurance was discontinued by Act 1194 of 1995. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 357-58. Act 1194 also changed the State's aethod of appropriating funds for teacher retirement, health insurance and other programs fro a line it81l appropriation to a general appropriation. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 352-53. School districts are now required to pay the total cost of these programs. undisputed ract1 The material facts of this case are not in dispute. Teacher retirement and health insurance were programs fully funded by the State of Arkansas at the time of the Settlement Agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 385. The Settlement Agreement requires the State to continue to pay its share of any and all programs for which the Districts received State funding at the tiae of the Settlement Agreeaent. ADE Appx. Vol. 1, pp. 92-93. One hundred thirty aillion dollars was appropriated for teacher retirement for the 1995-96 school year (ADE Appx. p. 387- 88; Amicus Appx. pp. 143-45) and before the new funding scheme was adopted, the Arkansas Department of Education requested $134,500.00 to fund teacher retirement for the 1996-97 school year (ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 387-88). Nearly forty-three million dollars was budgeted for \"public school employee insurance\" for the 1995-96 school year. ADE Appx. Vol 3, p. 352. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The state adopted a new funding formula, Act 917 of 1995, to take effect at the beginning of the 1996-97 school year. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 321-50. A related law, Act 1194 of 1995, requires that school districts fund their own teacher retirement and health insurance programs beginning with the 1996-97 school year. ADE Brief, p. 7; ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 357-58. The new funding laws contain no specific appropriation for teacher retirement or health insurance. Most State funding under the new State funding system is distributed on a per ADM basis as equalized by the relative wealth of the funded district. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 376. Distributing State funds on an equalized basis aeans pursuant to a method that takes into account a district's local revenue and which gives aore State funds to poorer districts than richer districts. ADE Brief, p. 6. other xatt1r1 In its statement of the case, PCSSD has addressed and clarified several other matters contained in the ADE and Intervenor briefs. LRSD adopts PCSSD's position with respect to those matters. 8omRY OJ' UCl1JIID'l' The undisputed facts in the record are sufficient to uphold the district court's grant of swaary judgment. The district court's finding that funds which in past years were appropriated specifically for teacher retirement and health insurance are now included within a larger general appropriation is a logical 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I conclusion based on the undisputed evidence and not an imperaiasible resolution of a disputed fact. ADE's contention that there exists a dispute as to whether its new funding formula distributes funds on a~ per-student basis as opposed to an equalized per-student basis is also incorrect. Both district court opinions at issue here clearly show the district court's understanding that funds are distributed on a equalized per-student basis as the State contends. This case is governed by this Court's decision with respect to the workers' compensation program. LR.SD y, PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). The actions of the State at issue here are very similar to the actions the State took to discontinue the State funded workers' copensation program and then to distribute workers' compensation funding on a per-student basis. The State's effort to redistribute teacher retirement and health insurance program funds on an equalized per student basis, rather than a basis which bears any rational relationship to the nwnber of employees in a school district or to the cost of those programs, should be rejected. The distribution of funds on an equalized per-student basis results in LRSD receiving State funding for a much smaller percentage of its teacher retirement and health insurance costs than the percentage received by other districts outside Pulaski County. Thia result is precisely what the anti-retaliation clause of the Settlement Agreeaent was eant to prevent. ,Ig. at 1018. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UGUJODl'l' I. Th Di  t.riot Court Di4 IIOt ly Upon Di pute4 Material J'aot The Arkansas Department of Education contends that the district court ignored or resolved two factual issues which \"were central and essential to the Districts' claims.\" ADE Brief, p. 14. ADE described the \"two key disputed factual issues\" as follows: First, that there is \"an identifiable amount of dollars distributed as Equalization Funding that are 'ear-marked' to satisfy school districts' teacher retirement and health insurance matching\"; and second, that \"these identifiable and ear-marked 'retirement' and 'health insurance' funds are now being distributed on a pure per-student3 basis\" as opposed to an equalized per-student basis. ADE Brief, p. 16. There is, in fact, no issue at all with regard to the second \"factual dispute\" described by ADE. Both district court opinions below clearly adopted ADE's position. In its order granting summary judgment on the teacher retirement issue, the district court found that the State's new funding scheme \"distributes funds on a per-ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district.\" ADE Add. p. 9 (emphasis supplied). In its opinion granting SWllllary judgment on the health insurance issue, the district court held \"that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based 3ADE uses the terms \"per-ADM basis\" (ADE Brief, p. 16) and \"per-student basis\" (ADE Brief, p. 14). The terms are roughly equivalent. ADM means average daily membership. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling Districts to pay health insurance matching from equalization or local funds is not a \"fair and rational\" adjustment to the funding formula.\" ADE Add. p. 17 (emphasis supplied). ADE's contention that there exists in this case some dispute about whether the new funding formula distributes funds on a \"pure per-student basis, as opposed to an equalized per student basis,\" is simply wrong. If there ever was a dispute, it has been resolved in ADE'\u0026 favor. The State's contention that there is a material dispute about whether the new funding formula distributes certain funds that are \"ear-marked\" for teacher retirement and health insurance is also insubstantial. Teacher retireaent and health insurance were programs fully funded by the State at the tiae of the Settlement Agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 385. There were specific appropriations for teacher retirement and health insurance for the 1995-96 school year. ADE Appx. p. 387-88; Amicus Appx. pp. 143-45. Act 1194 of 1995 discontinued itemized State funding for teacher retireaent and health insurance beginning with the 1996-97 chool year. Finally, overall State funding for Arkanaaa public schools is greater for the 1996-97 school year than it was for the 1995-96 school year by an amount which exceeds the total 1995-96 State payments for teacher retirement and health insurance. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 352-53. These established facts are sufficient to support the district court's finding that \"it is only logical to conclude that sums 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I that were previously either paid directly by the State or appropriated as line iteaa for distribution to the Districts must be components of a fund that is forecast to be over $200,000,000.00 more than it was at the tiae of the Lake View decision.' ADE Add. p. 7. The state is contending that if the Districts cannot find a line item appropriation for teacher retirement and health insurance, then those programs, which have been funded by the state for decades, are not funded under the new school formula. The district court reached the only logical conclusion. Funding for teacher retirement and health insurance is contained in a large, unitemized appropriation under the new funding formula, and those funds are distributed on an equalized per-student basis rather than a basis which bears soae relation to the number of employees or actual costs. 4Even the intervenor\u0026 seem to see the logic of the district court's conclusion. In describing the change from the old program funding systell to the new student funding system, they say: The money is there but the requirement to pend a specific amount on employee health insurance, for example, is gone. Intervenor\u0026' Brief, p. 20 (emphasis supplied). The Intervenor\u0026 go on to say that our argwaent that the Settlement Agreement has been violated with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance funding ignores the fact that the funds are still provided  Intervenors' Brief, p. 21. 8 I I II. Th Pitrict \u0026r BntitlO To emunnn Judgment A A Matter I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Of Lay Thia case is governed by the terms of the settlement Agreement. In deciding the eaning of the terms in the Settlement Agreement, and their application to the facts in this case, the district court carefully followed the oat recent precedent established by this Court. As a result, the district court reached the correct conclusion under the law of this case. The precedent followed by the district court was established in LRSD y, Pesso, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). In that case, this court determined that State funding of workers' compensation was a \"program\" for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and held that funding the Districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state violates the Settlement Agreement . .lg. at 1017. Although the State added a slightly different twist in its effort to redistribute funding for the teacher retir .. ent and health insurance prograJU1, the facts are close enough to the workers' compensation case to warrant the same result. In the workers' compensation case, the districts argued that payment of workers' compensation costs was a \"program\" for which they received \"State funding\" at the time of the Settlement Agreement. LRSD y, Pesso. 83 F.3d at 1013, 1017 (8th cir. 1996). This Court agreed, but defined the \"program\" as \"equal state funding of workers' compensation for all school diatricts.\"5 .lg. 5NLR.so will argue that programs such as teacher retirement and health insurance which were funded by the State at the time of the settlement cannot be discontinued even by a change in State funding 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I at 1018. This court concluded that \"the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, so long as the change is, in the words of the Settlement Agreement, \"fair and rational\" and of \"general applicability.\" l.s1- The State argues that the teacher retirement and health insurance programs have been eliminated for every district in the State and, because the \"change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement.\" lg. However, aa with the worker' compensation case, there is more to the story. To eaae the transition fro a State funded to a district funded workers' compensation program, the State disbursed \"seed oney\" which paid about one-half of the workers' compensation expense statewide but only about one-third of the expense for the settling Districts. The disparity arose because the State used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive. l.sl- This Court held that the distribution of workers' compensation \"seed money\" violated the settlement: Thia result is precisely what the antiretaliation clause was meant to prevent. It funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state. It is of no oent that the State reached this result in a aathematically consistent anner. The District Court correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide. which is determined to be fair, rational, and generally applicable. LRSD agrees with that argument. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In thia case, the legialature ha said that beginning with the 1996-97 school year funding for teacher retirement and health insurance is a district, rather than a State, responsibility. The state has also moved from a line item appropriation which shows specific funding for health insurance and teacher retirement to a general appropriation of funds to be distributed, for the most part, on an equalized per-student basis. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 317-366. Statewide, the amount of money which flows through the public school fund is greater for the 1996-97 school year than it was for the 1995-96 school year. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 352-53. ADE argues that because none of the aoney in the expanded public school fund is \"ear-aarked\" for teacher retirement or health insurance, this case does not fit within this Court's ruling which required fair distribution of workers' compensation seed money. ADE Brief, p. 19-22. All the State has really done is to strip away the labels from the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. The funding for those prograas has been shifted from a line item appropriation to a general appropriation. Funds for teacher retirement and health insurance are now combined with other funds to be distributed on an equalized per-student basis as \"equalization funding.\" ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 352. The State is playing a shell gaae, contending that if the Districts cannot find the pea, it does not exist. The district court was not fooled. It was clear to the district court that \"what used to be funded as a line item was 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I folded into the 1996-97 appropriation for State equalization funding.w ADE Ad. pp. 8-9. Simple logic dictates wthat sums that were previously either paid directly by the State or appropriated as line iteas for distribution to the districts ust be component of [the new equalization) fund .... w ADE Ad., p.7. This Court should affira the di trict court. If the State can avoid responsibility for continued funding of the teacher retirement and health insurance programs simply by moving the funds into a general appropriation to be distributed on an equalized per-student basis, the Settlement Agreement requirement of continued funding and this Court's decision concerning workers' compensation seed aoney will have been rendered meaningless. This is not a case where the State has treated all Arkansas school districts the same with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance funding. The State has changed the way it distributes funding for those prograas in a way that favors districts outside Pulaski County. Instead of simply paying the actual costs of those programs statewide, the State has elected to distribute on an equalized per-student basis the funds which would have gone to pay for the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. The impact of the State's distribution of teacher retirement funds according to the number of students rather than the number 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of teachers in LR.SD can be easily shown.' The State budgeted $130,000,000.00 to pay teacher retirement statewide for the 1995- 96 fiscal year. ADE Appx. Vol., 3, p. 352. The average daily membership for the State for the 1995-96 school year was 443,516 students. A per student distribution of those retirement funds would yield $293.11 per student. Distribution of that amount based on LRSD's average daily aeabership of 22,385 students would result in a state teacher retireaent payaent of $6,561,267.00. This is only about two-thirds of the aaount actually paid by the State to LR.SD for the 1995-96 school year when the calculation was done on a per-teacher rather than per-student basis. The State appropriation of $130,000,000.00 for the 1995-96 school year should have been sufficient to fund the entire cost of the teacher retirement program statewide. Before the establishment of the new funding program, ADE sought an appropriation of $134,500,000.00 to fund the statewide teacher retirement program for the 1996-97 school year. ADE Appx., Vol. 3, pp. 387-88. That amount also should have been sufficient to fund the entire cost of the statewide teacher retirement program. The result of the state aoving teacher retirement funds into a general appropriation and distributing those funds on an 'we understand that ADE uses an equalized per-student distribution rather than a pure per-student distribution. Largely because its aillage rate is the fifth highest in the state (ADE Appx., Vol. 4, p. 583), LR.SD is a relatively rich school district for the purposes of the new funding formula. Accordingly, LR.SD would actually receive less funding on an equalized per-student basis than is shown in this example. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I equalized per-student basis is that LRSD will receive two-thirds or less of its teacher retirement costs while the average funding level statewide exceeds one hundred percent of teacher retirement costs. The results are the same for employee health insurance. The estimated statewide health insurance contribution for the 1996-97 school year is $42,815,000.00. ADE Appx. Vol. 2, p. 245 and Vol. 3, p. 352. This money is distributed through the new funding formula on an equalized per-student basis which bears no rational relationship to a particular district's costs for employee health insurance. As a result, the State paid 109.95 percent of the cost of employee health insurance statewide excluding Pulaski County. ADE Appx. Vol. 2, p. 245. The average funding in the Pulaski county school districts is 71.39 percent. LRSD receives only 53.41 percent of its cost of employee health insurance payments. The district court correctly held \"that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling districts to pay health insurance matching from equalization or local funds is not a 'fair and rational' adjustment to the funding formula.\" ADE Ad., p. 17. III. other 11,v IAi IY N\u003eI  xntervenor1 Do 1ot warrant lYral ADE and the Intervenor\u0026 have raised several other issues, none of which warrants reversal of the district court opinions. Both appellants contend that the new funding formula is 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I beneficial to the Pulaski County School districts since they received aor State funding this year than they did last year. The Intervenor\u0026 completely misstate the District' claim: The Districts allege that the total funding is less under the new funding formula than under the prior funding foraula. Intervenor Brief, p. 8. In fact, the Districts argued that they receive less than they would haye received had the same amount of money been distributed for the 1996-97 school year under the old Act 34 formula instead of the new Act 917 formula. Intervenor Appx., p. 68. The Intervenor\u0026 seem to think that the district court resolved a conflict between the Districts' position that they would have received a greater amount of funding for the 1996-97 school year had the available funds been distributed under the old Act 34 formula and ADE' position that the Districts received more State aid this year than last year. Intervenor Brief, pp. 8- 9. There is no conflict. The district court accepted PCSSD's position \"that its total State funding in 1996-97 will be less under the new foraula than it would haye been under the old.\" ADE Ad., p. 12. ADE's exhibit which purports to show that the Pulaski County districts will receive more State funding for the 1996-97 school year than they did for the 1995-96 school year (Intervenor Appx., p. 170) is not in conflict with PCSSD's position that it would have received aore money for 1996-97 under Act 34 than it does under the new funding scheme. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ADE seems to admit that any increase received by the Pulaski county districts for the 1996-97 school year was proportionately smaller than increases received by other Arkansas school districts (ADE Brief, p. 25), but argues that the settling districts are \"winners\" under the new formula so their increased state aid \"should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them.\" ADE Brief, p. 24. First of all, the Settlement Agreement requirement of continued funding of existing programs does not require a finding of discriminatory intent in order to prove a violation, only a discriminatory impact. The workers' compensation issue was decided by this Court without any discussion of ADE'a intent. LRSD y, PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). Second, a simple hypothetical shows the flaw in ADE's reasoning. Assume that a large amount of money was added to the public school fund and that ADE intentionally devised a formula to minimize the amount of aoney that would go to the Pulaski County achool districts. Ass\\llle also that as a result education funding doubled statewide under a formula which increased funding for the Pulaski County school districts by only one percent. Would the Pulaski County school districts be precluded from claiming a violation of the Settlement Agreement simply because the small increase in their funding made them \"winners\"? The Intervenor\u0026 claim that the Pulaski County districts are seeking \"to divert millions of dollars from students outside of 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County districts.\" Intervenor Brief, p. 10. That contention is completely unsupported and is absolutely untrue. The state's 1994-95 expenditure for public schools was only forty-eight percent of the total net State general revenues. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 324. The state's practice has been to transfer funds from general revenues to the public school fund in order to pay the costs associated with the Settlement Agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 359-60. The Pulaski County districts did not ask the district court to divert any money from districts outside Pulaski County. There is no reason that the funds necessary for the State to meet its settlement obligations should come from the public school fund rather than from general revenues. The Intervenors argue that the Districts do not care about \"equal treatment\" of students and are seeking to enforce the Settlement Agreement \"simply because they believe they need more money.\" Intervenor Brief, p. 10. They are apparently forgetting that the Settlement Agreement provides a remedy for years of state imposed segregation. Had the state adopted a policy of equal treatment rather than segregation decades ago, we would not have this lawsuit today. The State cannot avoid its responsibilities under the Settl-ent Agreement simply by contending the Arkansas Constitution requires equal treatment. The response to that ar(JUllent is found in Judge Arnold's concurrence in a previous appeal in this case: The State argues that we cannot require it to spend more money in one school district than 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I another, because to do so would conflict with a recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas requiring, under the State Constitution, ubstantially equal per-pupil funding throughout the state, DuPree Y, Alma School Dist. No, 30, 279 Ark. 340, 651 s.w. 2d 90 (1983), and with a statute iapl8lllenting thi opinion, Ark. Stat. Ann. SS 80-850.10 - 80-850.22. Thia argwaent is insubstantial. Under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. CONST. ART. VI. , cl. 2 , the Fourteenth Amendment overrides any inconsistent state statute or constitutional provision. LRSD y, PCSSD. 778 F.2d 404, 437 n. 1. (8th Cir. 1985) (Arnold, J. concurring). The Intervenor\u0026 point out, correctly, that funds paid to the Districts by reason of the Settlement Agreement are not included in determining the appropriateness of public school funding under state law. Intervenor' Brief, p. 16. Nothing in state or federal law requires that uch fund be included in any calculation to determine the equity of a state school funding scheme. Inexplicably, however, the Intervenor\u0026 go on to argue that \"(t)he State funding syst8Jll will be put at risk when compliance with the federal range ratio requires additional funding to other districts as a result of any increase in funds to the Little Rock School District which will result from the district court's order.\" Intervenor Brief, p. 17. This argument is simply wrong and is in conflict with the position of the Intervenors, taken on the previous page of their brief, that funds paid by reason of the Settlement Agreement are not included in the calculation of the federal range ratio. 18 I I I I I I "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1669","title":"Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) separate motion for summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula","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)","Pulaski County Special School District"],"dc_date":["1997-09-02"],"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--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School facilities","School employees","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) separate motion for summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula"],"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/1669"],"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":["158 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript 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 RECEIVED V. LR-C-82-866 SEP 3 1997 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS omc OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORIN6INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PCSSD SEPARATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF THE STATE FUNDING FORMULA The PCSSD for its motion states: INTERVENORS 1. As a result of the change from Act 34 to Act 917, including the overall funding increases which accompanied Act - 917, the PCSSD lost over $5,500,000 in State aid this past year as compared to what it would have received had Act 34 continued in existence at the higher appropriation levels. In contrast, the average increase in State aid per district was 12.64% under Act 917. 2. The case law, the orders of this Court, and the Settlement Agreement prohibit this disparity. 3. This Court should order that the State aid received by the PCSSD this past school year be increased to the state average increase of 12.64%, an increase of $6,496,896. 4. In the alternative, this Court should award the PCSSD the $5.5 million it lost when one compares Act 34 outcomes to Act 917 outcomes. # 5. This motion is accompanied by an updated Affidavit of Dr. Donald Stewart, together with accompanying exhibits, additional exhibits, and by a memorandum brief. The PCSSD incorporates by reference its previous statements of material facts and orders of this Court. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that it be funded for the previous year at the level of the State average or, in the alternative, that it be awarded the sums it lost when Act 917 replaced Act 34, for its costs, attorneys' fees and all proper relief. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By-;n_.xJ_~ M .... ~~= Jones I}o/ (76060) At~for Pcpn 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September J- , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 J : j hsl 0S0 . 030 umuel Jn 3 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTL!:MENT AGREEMENT March, 1989 (As Revised September 28, 1989) EXHIBIT I .L - K. District Budgets The Districts may  utilize the-  receipt of funds paid pursuant to this settlement to balance previous years' budgets and if this is done, neither the previous year's deficit nor such fund usage will be regarded as a violation of State law. L. Prohibition of Punitive Action The State shall take no action (including the enactment of legislation) for the purpose of retaliating against the Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of this Litigation or .th is settlement. The State will enact - no legislation which has a substantia~ adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. Fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts. M. Rededicated Millages The court ordered on December 29, 1986 (reinstated Jan. 7, 1987) the rededication of certain millages of the Districts. It was the intent of the Districts and the court that all millages _due to expire before the year 2007 be rededicated. The - motion seeking the extension, however, failed to list 98 10 fN TI-IE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR rnE EIGHTI-1 CIRCUIT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APPELLANT V. LITIT.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. APPELLEES ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. APPELLANTS V. LITIT.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. APPELLEES Nos. 97-1794EALR. 97-1855EALR. 97-2394EALRand 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Hon. Susan Webber Wright APPELLANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S OPENING BRIEF I WINSTON BRYANT, Attorney General By: TIMOlHY G. GAUGER Arkansas Bar No. 95019 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l ( 50 l) 682-2007 EXHIBIT Finally, and most important, the changes in funding of teacher retirement and health insurance matching differ significantly from the workers' compensation issue in that, unlike-the change in workers' compensation funding (which involved a change in only one discrete aspect of the funding scheme while leaving the rest of the scheme unchanged) the district court had before it a wholesale change in the funding scheme, in effect an entirely new funding system designed from scratch. ADE submits that in this context it was particularly inappropriate to isolate and rule on the changes in teacher retirement and health insurance funding without giving any legal weight or effect to the undisputed beneficial effect the new funding system had on the Districts. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement authorizes or even suggests that such a piecemeal dissection and comparison of certain discrete aspects of the old and new funding systems is appropriate, and nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires or permits the Districts to be insulated from having to make the sometimes difficult choices and deal with changes in the law that all other school districts in the State must grapple with. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or in any notion or equity or common sense permits the Districts to be relieved of aspects of a new funding system that they do not like without taking into account those aspects of the new funding system that operate to their benefit At the very minimum, the fact that these three Districts in the aggregate and individually are \"winners\" under the new formula should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them. 24 'llnitea States Court of ~ppeafs for tk 'Eigl,,tli Circuit NO. 97-1794 ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL APPELLANT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL APPELLEES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge ~ppe{{ant's tJJrie,f JAMES M. LLEWELLYN, JR. #66040 THOMPSON AND LLEWELLYN, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 Telephone: 501-785-2867 Facsimile: 501-782-8046 Attorney for Appellant 111 School Districts EXHIBIT I 3 THE DISTRICT COURTS ORDER SHOULD BE REVERSED AS A MATIER OF LAW The Districts' Motion for Summary Judgment challenges that portion of the new school funding formula they view as unfavorable while ignoring other portions from which they would admittedly benefit. The Districts receive more state aid under the new formula than under the old formula. Greene Declaration, App. 170. By petitioning the District Court for orders directing the state to divert millions of dollars from students outside of Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County Districts, they would have the Court ignore the clear Arkansas Constitutional mandate of \"equal treatment\" to which all students are entitled.4 While the Settlement Agreement permits \"Fair - and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability . . . \". Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement March, 1997, Add. 18, the Districts suggest, by implication, such an adjustment should not apply to them simply because they believe they need more money. There is probably not a school district in Arkansas that does not believe it needs more money. However, equal treatment to all students must be the concern of the Court, because it is right, it is fair and rational and it is the rule of general applicability in Arkansas. Du Pree and lake View. 4 DuPree v. Alma, 65 l S.W.2d 90, 279 Ark. 340 ( 1983). App. 172 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SC~OOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. AFFIDAVIT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS My name is Don Stewart and I am Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs of the PCSSD. Attached as Exhibit A to this affidavit is information I received from the Arkansas Department of Education which permitted me to compare total state aid received by each school district in - 1995-96 to total state aid they received for 1996-97. From this information, I was able to prepare Exhibit 11 B11 which demonstrates that the PCSSD experienced a net increase in State aid this year of only 1.12 percent. This compares to a state total of 12.09 percent increase per district which percentage rises to 12.64 percent when the PCSSD State aid is subtracted from the state-wide totals. Attached as Exhibit \"C\" is a letter the PCSSD received from Mr. Kunkel, Coordinator for Local Fiscal Services requesting the return of growth funding in the amount of $81,165. As requested, this sum of money has been returned by the PCSSD to the State and the PCSSD will receive no growth funding for 1996-97. However, were loss funding still in place, the PCSSD would be eligible for loss funding for the 1996-97 school year. Exhibit 11 0 11 is the latest printout received by the PCSSD from EXHIBIT I 4 - the State. The total sum set forth was adjusted by the State to reflect the overpayment of che $81,165. I certify.that che calculations set forth in these various exhibits were e1~her directly performed by the Arkansas Department of Education or were calculaced from databases furnished to me by the Arkansas Department of Education. It is entirely possible chat some of the State aid levels for some of the districts reflected in Exhibit \"A\" may have changed since the State furnished its dacabase to the PCSSD. However, for purposes of the present analysis and claim, the PCSSD believes that the calculations and conclusions set forth in the various exhibics are reasonably accurate. If, however, the Arkansas Department of Education desires that the PCSSD utilize updated information, the - PCSSD will be more chan willing to comply as soon as such information is furnished to it from the Arkansas Department of Education. FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI day SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN of A-U,,4 ,-r-, 1997. J My ComIT\\ission Expires: .: JZ\u003c.,-'Ulf; ;_') -~ QC k-l I --- TO before me, a notary public, this2Y NotarPublic 2 -1.,. COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE: 96TO97 WK4 I LEA i COUNTY 101,AHKANSAS 102 AHKANSAS 104 1 ARKANSAS 105 ARKANSAS 201 ASHLEY 202 ASHLE'Y 20JASHLEY 302 BAXTF.R 30:1 RAXTER 304 RAXTF.R 401 RENTON 402 RENTON 40:1 DENTON 404 BENION 405 BENTON 406 BENTON 407 BENTON 501 BOONE 502 BOONE 503 BOONE 504 BOONE 505 BOONE 506 AOONE 601 BRADLEY fi02 BRADLEY 701 CALHOUN 801 CARROLL R02 CARROLL R03 CARRO~L 901 CHICOT 'l02 CHICOT 903 CHICOT 1002 CLARK ! 1003 CLARK 1101 C:I AY I 1104 CIAY I 110fi CLAY 1701 CLEnllRNE DISTRICT OE'WITT GILLE'Tl STlllTGART HUMPHREY CROSSETT FOUNTAIN HILL HAMBURG COTTER MOUNTAIN HOME NORFORK RENTONVILLE DECATUR GENTRY GRAVETTE ROGERS SILOAM SPRINGS PEA RIDGE ALPENA BERGMAN HARRISON OMAHA VALLEY SPRINGS LEAD HILL HERMITAGE WARREN HAMPTON RERRYVILLE FIIHEKA SPRINGS /\u003c,HErN FOREST I1irRMOTT IEIIIJORA 11 AKFSIOE AHKAl\u003eElPHIA c;uRDON lr.ORNING PI\u003c;r.0TT I !CLAY COUNTY !coNr.ono AOM FOR I 1995-1996 JQ 1,278 94 287. 10 2,268 54 288 83 2,760 47 283 86 1,812 03 60640 3,845 95 500 22 5,107 53 553 15 1,147 53 1,284 30 8,656 66 2,510 38 910 51 474 74 820 99 2,894 62 385 11 863 22 404 14 607 37 1,763 43 917 27 1,562 17 1108 31 1,232 84 1,012 81 935 13 1,220 59 2,407 09 R93111 1.2:10 2R 1,001 97 736 R6 473 16 AOMFOR 1996-1997 I I NUMBER PERCENT CHANGE ' CHANGE 1st Q 1,2:12 17 285 22 2,211 .18 280 02 2,720 43 299.19 1,777 53 619 65 3,898 14 518.94 5.444 47 589 99 1,144 64 1,30560 9,375 04 2,594 68 946 35 50802 808 48 2,81554 372 62 89981 384 671 594 09 1,756 02 901 031 1,590 96 8011351 1.23996 : 1,002 761 915 21 1 1,163 43 2,442 37 I 918 351 1.248 49 1 1,039 74 I 72995, 468 )CJ (46771 (1 BR (57 36 (8 81 (4004 15 33 (34 50 13 25 52 19 18 72 33694 36 84 (2 89 21 .30 718 38 84 30 35 84 33 28 (12 51 (7908 (12 49 36 59 (19 47 (13 28 (7 41 (16 24 28 79 0 04 7 12 (1005 (19 92 (57 16 35 28 24 54 1R 21 37 77 (f, 91 (4 77 .3 66%1 -065% -2 53% -3 05% -1.45% 5.40% -1 .90% 219% 1.36% 3 74% 660% 666% -025% 166% 8 30% J 36% 3 94% 701% -152% -2 .73% -3 24% 4.24% -4 .82% -219% -042% -1 77% 164% 000% 0 58% -099% -2 13% .4 68% 1 47% 2 75% 1 48% :i 77% 0 94% -101% TOTAL 1995-1996 STATE AID S:J .041.llfi5 1 $610,743 S5.055.029 $886.831 $6,293,054 $881,650 $5,552.298 $1,830,298 S7.724.759 S1 .437 .262 $9,575,525 S1.525.271 S2, 157,190 S2, 174,171 $19,498,428 $6,005,872 S2.765,315 S1 .542.232 $2,638,593 $6,575,634 $1 ,265.575 $2,543.767 $1,202,421 $1 ,672,214 $4 ,941 ,446 $1,993,857 S4 ,223,025 $546,953 $3,611.2151 S3.272.036 S2.76R,6:l8 I $3 ,364,464 $6,019,989 $2,291 ,087 S3. 133.616 $:\u003e, 769.~\u003e46 s2.096. :100 $ 1,49:1 ,6761 TOT. SELECT. 1996-97 AID 12-27-96 S2.9138.74!l : S735.795I $5,6:15,639 $840,659 $7 ,015.296 $915,885 S5.309,8116 $1 ,915,093 $8,699,379 $1 ,463,375 $12,814,870 $1 ,642,592 $2,696.660 S2,716.828 $24,269.301 S7,207, 164 S3,254,057 Sl ,742,722 S2,757,022 S6,662,071 S1 .181,713 S2,931, 110 Sl.100,367 Sl ,675,076 S5,174,627 S2.077,037 S4,270,083 S850.028 $3,719.161 $3,150.098 S2,724,351 S3,413.368 S6,430,653 S2,540,432 S3.407.51l6 $:J, 117,026 $2,135,236 $1 ,532,464 ADO. BASE FUNDING $~,A .ll91 , so 1 S230.360 S2,195 S176.954 $8,954 S151 ,191 so so $32,806 so so S184,411 so so so S40,470 S75,857 S265,098 so S122,656 so S24.500 S200,713 S26,465 S173,331 I S26,6531 S157,437 $102,722 $8,631 $66,162 so $23,556 S91 ,651 S104 ,682I $65,2131 S:17 ,663 GROWTH FACILITY FUNDING so: S16,661 I' so so so so so S6,227 so so S235,001 so S37.266 S46,518 S192,472 S39,737 S55,653 S19,573 S18,502 so so S13,446 so so so S14,122 so $17,293 so so so so so so so so so $8, 1171 - COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE: 96TO97 WK4 rJ ~ FISCAL FISCAL ISOLATED DEBT TOTAL ALL AMOUNT PERCENT CRISIS CRISIS AID SUPP 1996-97 AID CHANGE CHANGE LEA COUNTY DISTRICT LOC. RES. TRANS. 101 ARKANSAS DEWITT $68.436 $15.772 S:l .131 .648 $119.71131 295% 102 ARKANSAS GILLETT $80.642 S3.468 Sfl36.566 $225.82:lj 36911% 104 ARKANSAS STlJTTGART $51.458 $5.917.457 S862.428 17 06% 105 ARKANSAS HlJMPHREY S802 so S643.6r\u003e6 (S43.175 -4117%1 201 ASHLEY CROSSETT S94.658 S7.286.908 S993.854 J 15 79% I 202 ASHLEY FOUNTAIN HILL S1.253 S17.171 S14 .704 S957.967 S76.317 ; 866%1 203 ASHLEY HAMBURG S93.117 S77 .814 S5.632.008 S79.710J 1 44%1 302 RAXTER COTTER S48.873 S1.970.193 S139.895; 7 64% 303 RAXTER MOUNTAIN HOME S530 S60.805 S8.760.714 Sl .035.955I 13 41% 304 RAXTER NORFORK $-48,651 S36,349 S1,581 ,181 S143.9191 1001% 401 BENTON RENTONVILLE S101,882 S13,151 ,753 $3.576,2281 37 35% 402 RENTON DECATUR $20,593 $1 ,663,185 $137,9141 904% 403 BENTON GENTRY S32,257 S2.766,205 S609,015 28 23% 404 BENTON GRAVETTE S31,613 S1 ,586 S2,980,956 $806,785 37 11% 405 BENTON ROGERS S205.440 S24.667.213 S5. 168,785 26.51% 406 BENTON SILOAM SPRINGS S140,034 $7,386,935 S1,381,063 2300% 407 BENTON PEA RIDGE S64, 108 SJ,373,818 S608,503 2200% 501 BOONE ALPENA S42,062 S25,930 $1,870,757 $328,525 21 30%1 502 BOONE RERGMAN S35.430 S63.764 S2,950,595 $312,002 1162% 503 BOONE HARRISON $46,396 $6,973,565 $397,931 605% 504 BOONE OMAHA $45.434 S32,278 $1,259,425 ($6,150 -0.49% 505 BOONE VALLEY SPRINGS S12.890 S66.271 SJ. 146,375 $602,608 23.69% 506 ROONE LEAD HILL S30,805 S21,523 $1,152,695 ($49.726 -4 14% 601 ARADLEY HERMITAGE $62,907 $23,748 $1.786,231 $114,0171 682% 602 BRADLEY WARREN S32.799 S60.540 SS,466,679 $527,233 1067% 701 CALHOUN !HAMPTON $31,065 S12,271 $2,162,960 $169,103 848% 801 CARROLL IRFRRYVILLE S43.871 $79,194 $4,566.479 $343,454 813% 802 CARRO~L jrtJREKA SPRINGS S8.985 so S904,959 $356,006 6545% 803 CARROLL \\\u003c;IIEEN FOREST S37.485 S108,936 S4.023.01!l $405,604 1122% 901 CHICOT 1 nERMOTT $26,518 $85,433 S3.364.771 $92,735 2 83% I 902 CHICOT !FlJllORA S64.716 S34.381 $2,832.079 $63,441 2 29% .. I 903 CHICOT IL AKESIDE S58.856I S102,935 S3.641,321 $256,857 7 59% i 1002 CLARK IAIIKADELPHIA $25,051 SB8,711 S6,544,415 $524,426 8 71% I 1003 CLARK lc;uRDON S9,365 S53,902 $2,627,255 $336,166 1101 14 67% CLAY C:ORNING $26.772 $3,526,009 S392,393 12 52% 1104 CLAY PIGGOTT $23,729 S3.245,437 S475,891 17 18% 1106 CLAY CLAY COUNTY S12,924 I S42,447 $2,255,820 $159,520 761% 1201 CLEBURNE CONCORD S22,99ol $26,768 S1,628,002 S134,326 899% - - COMPARISON or lOTAL STATE AID l()fl!J-96 TO 1996-97 FILE. 96T097 WK4 ((') ~ ADM FOR ADM FOR NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL TOT. SELECT. ADD. BASE GROWTH 1995-1996 1996-1991 CHANGE CHANGE 1995-1996 1996-97 AID FUNDING FACILITY LEA COUNTY DISTRICT 30 1sI a STATE AID 12-27-96 FUNDING 1202 CLEAUHNE l1tERER SPRINGS 1.47078 1,536 52 65 74 4 47% , S:I.0ll0 .91ill S:l .fl1'l.Dll so $27.4:18 1203 CLERIJRNE I ' Sl ,9:12.717 S:17 .564 ' S13.27'l QUITMAN 631 .81 626 82 (4 99 -079% Sl ,830.0551 1204 CLERIIRNE WESl SH)E 51809 547 .44 29 35 567% S964,458 ' S 1,233,844 so S14 ,844I 1205 CLEOURNE WILBURN 194 03 219 37 25.34 13 06% S700,645 S712,880 S31,281 sol 1301 CLEVELAND KINGSLAND 351 37 338.20 (13 17 .3 75% S919,711 S888.531 S6.660 sol 1303 CLEVELAND RISON 674 04 658.43 (15.61 -2 32% S2. 108. 141 S2.043,272 S54 .513 so 1304 CLEVELAND WOODLAWN 50698 517 64 10.66 2.10% Sl ,536.283 Sl ,794.266 S74 ,759 S21,619 1401 COLUMBIA EMERSON 407 .21 398.07 (914 -2.24% S559,099 S557.478 so so 1402 COLUMRIA MAGNOLIA 3.135 87 3,139.38 3 51 011% S7 ,495.865 S8.658.396 S276.956 so 1403 COLUMBIA MCNEIL 329.63 324.71 (4 92 -1.49% Sl .057,953 S974,465 S28.688 so 1404 COLUMAIA TAYLOR 30940 284.92 (24 .48 .7 91% S786,832 S730,722 so S10,361 1406 COLUMAIA WALDO 535 42 523 33 (12.09 -2 26% Sl,685.013 Sl .645.579 S30. 159 so 1407 COLUMBIA WALKER 244 .18 24687 269 110% S825.379 S805.851 so S2.870 1503 CONWAY NEMOVISTA 413 33 403 96 (9.37 -2 27% Sl .381,667 Sl.337.212 S45.167 SB,718 1505 CONWAY WONOERVIEW 480 38 491 04 1066 2 22% Sl.492.467 Sl ,624,610 S37 ,603 S18.617 1507 CONWAY SO CONWAYCO 2,638 42 2,663 91 2549 097% S7. 116,952 S7,493, 193 S259,518 so 1601 CRAIGHEAD BAY 617 32 649 35 32 03 519% Sl ,896,161 S2,092,589 S62,491 so 1602 CRAIGHEAD WEST SIDE 1,428 36 1,515 03 86 67 607% S4 .094,071 S .773,608 S184.145 S21 .463 1603 CRAIGHEAD BROOKLAND 937 21 99688 5967 6 37% S2.866.614 S3.230.607 S109.517 S22.197 1605 CRAIGHEAD BUFFALO ISLAND GEN 91166 894111 (16 85 -1 85% S2.579,779 S2,610.054 S76,029 S10,644 1608 CRAIGHEAD JONESBORO 4,700 51 4,733 68 33 17 071%1 SI0,021,324 S11.322,739 S181 ,0JJ S51 .856 1611 CRAIGHEAD NETTLETON 2,076 87 2.147 OJ 70 16 J 38% $4 ,517,292 S5.271.245I S237,969 S52.102 1612 CRAIGHEAD VALLEYVIEW 1,060 47 1,11602 55 55 524% S2.835,001 S3.516.569 S187,903 S63.758 1611 CRAIGHEAl1 1 RIVERSIDE 821 92 846 54 24 62 300% S2,481,685 S2.645.855; S58.842 so 1701 CRAWFORD ALMA 2,622 32 2.64104 1 18 72 071% S8.511 ,288 S8,957,302 $340,832 S61,158 1702 CRAWFORl1 ' r.EOARVILLE 847 08 889 77 42 69 504% S3,041 ,769 $3,032,572 S46.935 sol 1703 CRAWFORD M()UNTAINOURG 789 96 829 601 39 64 ' 502% S2,677.202 $2,727,452 $44 ,8311 so 1704 CRAWFO,~D ' MIii flERRY 47:1 23 495 13 21 ool 4 63% Sl ,442.:192 Sl ,645,334 S51 .020 S12.612! 1705 CRAWF'oRD VI\\N flllHFN 5.00'l 96 5.131 03 , 121 071 2 42% S14 .433.8:J6 S15,814,880 S516,736 S71.779 ; 11101 CRITTENDEN Clll\\WI OROSVII IE 408 11 :160 251 (47 86 -11 7:1% $1 ,255.364 1 $949,652 $0 so ., I 1802 CRITTENDEN rllHLE 919 17 922 97 3 80 0 41% S2,940,458 $12.053 so I $2,711 ,485, 1803 CRITTENI IFN WFST MEMPHIS 5,979 29 5,958 04 (21 25 -036% $17.007.315 i $18,381,695 $542,658 so 1804 CRITTENDEN MI\\HION 2,859 21 , 2,868 07 8 80 0 31% $8,166,542 S8.826.606 S270.345 S25,272 : 1805 CRITTENOEN TURRELL 462 26 465 74 J 48 0 75% Sl ,558.612 Sl ,496,608 S:18.414 S0 i 1901 !CROSS ;CROSS COUNTY 777 92 733 78 1 (44 14 -567% S2.101 . 192 Sl ,927.532 so S6.733 1 1903,CROSS ' PARKIN 563 67 549 32 (14 35 -2 55% Sl .680,802 Sl ,643,5031 S10,695 so, 1905 CROSS 1 wYNNE 2.8:19 60 2.838 84 I (0 76 -003% Sll .090.531 1 $8,8411.356 S286.813 soi 2001 jOALLAS \\cARTHAGE 198 68 187 281 (11 40 -5 74% S471 .501 S457,611 so S5.234 , - - - -:r COMPARISON or TOTAL S rA TE AID 1995 96 TO 1996-97 FILE : 96T097 WK4 FISCAL FISCAL ISOLATED DEBT TOTAL ALL AMOUNT PERCENT CRISIS CRISIS AID SUPP. 1996-97 AID CHANGE CHANGE LEA COUNTY DISTRICT LOC. RES. TRANS. I 1202 iCLEBlJRNE HEBER SPRINGS $55.502, S3.902.07R 1 $821 .110, 2665% 1203 ,CLERIJRNE OlllTMAN $30,666 $7,807 $2,022.053  $191 ,998 1049% 1204 CLEAIJRNE WEST SIDE $53,804 $1 ,652 $1,304 .144 1 $339.6861 35 22% , 12051CLERIJRNE WILBURN $61 ,289 $14 ,506 $3,193 $823.149 $122,504 1 17 48%1 1301 CLEVELAND KINGSLAND $41 ,413 so S936.604 $16,8931 184% 1303 , CLEVELAN[) RISON S55,996 S59,892 $2,213.673 S 105,532 501%1 1304 \\CLF.VF.LAND WOODLAWN S34 ,381 S41 ,809 Sl .966,834 S4 30,551 28 03%1 S16,9971 I 1401 COLIIMAIA EMERSON S18,618 so $576,096 3 04%1 1402 I COLI IMBIA MAGNOLIA S59.266 $8.994.6181 S 1,498. 753! 1999%1 I 1403 1COUJMRIA !MCNEIL S12,379 so Sl ,015,5321 ($4 2.421 -4 01%1 1404 ICOlllMRIA TAYLOR $22.142 S7.652 so $770,877 , ($15.955_ -2 03%1 1406 COLlJMRIA WALDO S5.626 S16,490 Sl ,697.854 S12.841 0 76% 1407 COllJMRIA WALKER S5,888 S9.895 S35,636 S860.140 S34.761 4 21%1 1~,03 CONWAY NEMOVISTA S37,715 $46,919 $1 ,475,731 S94 ,064 681% j 1505 CONWAY WONlJERVIEW S59,230 S22,379 $1.762.439 S269,972 1809% 1507 CONWAY SO CONWAYCO $26.843 S142,261 $7,921,815 $804,863 1131% 1601 CRAIGHEAD RAY S3,812 $59,807 $2,218.699 S322.538 17.01% 1602 CRAIGHEAD WEST SIDE S72.084 $113,321 $5.164 ,624 Sl .070.553 2615% 1603 CRAIGHEAD BROOKLAN[) $13,971 , S76,951 $3,453,243 S586,629 20 46% 1605 CRAIGHEAD RUFFALO ISLAND CEN S20.736 $2,717,463 $137,684 534% 1608 CRAIGHEAD JONESBORO S86,973 $11,642,601 $1 ,621,277 1618% 1611 CRAIGHEAD NETTLETON $55,304 $5,616,620 $1 ,099,328 24 34% 1612 CRAIGHEAD VALLEY VIEW $2,477 $59,322 $3,830.029 $995.028 3510% 1613 CRAIGHEAD RIVERSIDE $39,301 $2.743,998 $262,313 1057% 1701 CRAWFORD ALMA $581 ,542 $9,940,834 $1 ,429,546 16.80% 1702 CRAWFORD CEDARVILLE $44,387 $25,9231 $54,410 $3,204 ,227 $162.458 5 34% 1703 CRAWFORO MOUNTAINBURG $58,698 : $111 ,549 $2,942.530 $265.328 991%1 1704 CRAWFO~O MllLBERRY I ' S37,307 $1 ,746.273 $303,881 21 07%, $27 ,7561 1705 CRAWf:ORD VANRUREN $445,044 $16,848,439 $2,414.603 16 73%1 I 1801 CRITTENDEN !CRAWFORDSVILLE $16,137 so $993,545 ($261,819 -2066% .. I 1802 CRITTENDEN ;FARLE I $26.092 S2.978.603 $267,118 985%  I 1803 CRITTENOEN WEST MEMPHIS $161 .569 S1 9.085,9 22 $2,078,607 12 22%1 I 1804 CRITTENDEN ' MARION I I $214,276 $9.336,499 $1 ,169,957 14 :l:1%1 11105 CRITTENDEN TURRELL S60.165 $1.595, 187 $36,575 2 35%1 1901 ( ROSS I CROSS COUNTY $69,11 21 $14 .512 $2.017,889 ($83,303 .3 96%1 1903 ;CROSS f'ARKIN I $1 .654.1981 1WYNNE I so ($26,604 -158%1 1905,CROSS $174 ,205 $9,309.374 $1 ,218.843 2001 OALLAS \\r:ARTIIAGE $199,509 1 $2,627 1507%1 S6fi5. IR1 $193,680 41 08% COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE 96TO97 WK4 \\0 0... ADM FOR ADM FOR NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL TOT. SELECT. ADO. BASE GROWTH 1995-1996 1996-1997 CHANGE CHANGE 1995-1996 1996-97 AID FUNDING FACILITY LEA I COUNTY DISTRICT ]Q 1st a -1 70\"J STATE AID 12-27-96 FUNDING I 2002 [)Al I AS ' SJ .ll8J.90'l S4 .0114 .2 71 1 S1fi9.1118 so / FORDYCE 1,377 81 1.)5443 (23 311 2003 OALLAS SPARKMAN 333.65 316 16 (17 49 -5 24% S907.5361 S828.2114 so 1 so 1 2101 OESHA ARKANSAS CITY 162.72 169 29 6 57 4 04% S156.603  $118.263 sol S23.689 2102 OF.SHA DEL TA SPECIAL 305 82 286 14 (1968 -644% $812,468 $668.098 soi so 2104 DESHA DUMAS 2.126 29 2,088 59 (37.70 -1.77% $6,604 ,223 S6,528.573 $196.515 so 2105 OESHA MCGEHEE 1,459 23 1,431 .35 (27 88 -191% $4 ,232.312 S4 ,520.753 $119.703 so 2202 DREW r\u003eREW CENTRAL 1.176 66 1,210 20 33 54 2 85% S3.579.087 S3.629,443 $47 ,591 so 2203 DRF.W MONTICELLO 2.137 57 2,128.17 (9.40 -0.44% $6,173.807 S6,707.646 S82.688 S50,857 2301 FA\\JLKNER CONWAY 7,141 52 7.365 57 224 05 3.14% S18.063,372 S20,290.719 so so 2303 FAULKNER GREENBRIER 2,015 78 2,082.74 6696 3.32% S6.497 ,965 S7, 128.424 S190.242 S57.428 2304 FA\\JLKNER GUY-PERKINS 271 .96 291 90 1994 7.33% S884.028 S997,906 so S12.834 2305 FAULKNER MAYFLOWER 815.11 861 .46 46.35 5.69% S2,607, 185 S2.852,496 S99,563 S22,781 2306 FAULKNER MT VERNON/ENOLA 346 72 364 99 18.27 5 27% S1 .053.849 S1.155.81J S26.152 S2.834 2307 FAULKNER VILONIA 2,024.48 2,166 28 141 .80 7 00% S6,962.519 S7.619,846 S13.976 S70,726 2401 FRANKLIN AL TIIS -OENNING 278 88 278 08 (080 -029% S687.461 S678.552 so S3,550 2402 FRANKLIN CHARLESTON 804 07 794 06 (10.01 -1 24% S2,304.242 S2.500.026 S34 .0J0 S21 ,992 2403 FRANKLIN COUNTY LINE 590 22 593 52 J JO 056% S1 ,558.842 S1 .659.994 S65,085 S16,49J 2404 FRANKLIN OZARK 1,515 45 1,561 54 46 09 J 04% SJ,913.415 S4 .400.107 S114 ,560 so 2405 FRANKLIN PLEASANT VIEW 272.16 279 751 7 57 2 78% S793,468 $818,827 so S11 , 14J 2501 FULTON MAMMOTH SPRING 506 71 489 29 (17 42 .J 44% $1 ,697,554 Sl .563,435 $30.7591 so 2502 FULTON SALEM 767 56 754 661 (12 92 -1 68% $2,333.839 S2.348, 127 $55,2481 so 2503 FULTON VIOLA 457.36 466 45 909 199% Sl ,383,916 Sl ,416.903 S46.3271 so 2601 GARLANO CUTTER-MORNING ST 53668 563 14 26 46 4 93% S1 ,533.986 Sl,702.629 S32.7861 so ?602 GARLANO FOUNTAIN LAKE 1.108 61 1,120 11 1 11 50 1 04% S603, 141 Sl .247.271 1 soi S50,682 2fi03 GARLAND HOT SPRINGS 3.437 66 3.327 15 (110 51 -3 21% S6.688.675 S6,938,622 sol S32.216 2f\u003e04 GARLAND 1 .IESSIEVILLE 638 69 690 39 51 70 809% S379,899 S546,451 so so 2fi05 GARLAND I AKE HAMIL TON 3.353 24 3.471 02 117 78 3 51% S9.168,774 St0.559,526 S169.892 SS0.965 2f,()6 GARLAND 11 AKESIDE 2.330 98 2.433 74 102 76 4 41% SS.0116.106 S6.510.4CM so S70.792 2607 GARLA~b I MOI /Nl AIN PINE 651 76 696 19 44 43 6 82% S 1,790.5731 S2.077,428 S73.2?5 Sl9,074 2703 GRANT ' l 'OYFN 404 03 443 101 39 07 967% Sl ,439.850  S1,599,382 so S15,036 7705 GRANT , s ,trmDAN 3,72006 3,811 27 91 21 2 45% S 10,262.59 11; S11 .807.650 S4 22.7461 S77 ,375 2801 GREENE I \u003eELAPLAINE 304 98 296 951 (8 OJ -2 63% S924.048 Sl.022,272 S23.952 1' S29,357 21103 GREENE \\MAnMADUKE 695 90 701 9111 6 08 0 87% S2.11l 1.4117 I S2.381 ,055 s 110.2r,4 $36,728 21107 GREENE !' ;RF.ENE CTY TECHNIC 2,412 98 2.429 11 16 13 067% $7.076,230 S7,795.716 S299,907 $59.046 21106 GREENE NE ARKANSAS 2.720 46 2.781 61 1 61 15 2 25% $7 ,477,732 S7 ,813,828 S 103,726 so 2901 HEMPSTEAD RLEVINS 530 54 556 75 26 21 4 94% S 1.5118.980 Sl.728,237 so so 2903 ,HEMPSTEAD HOPE 3.143 55 3.109 78 (33 77 -1 07% S8.728.936 S9, 176.445 S309.298 so 2905 HEMPSTEAD SARATOGA 28660 266 54 1 (20 06 .7 00% Sllll5.494 S728.559 so so - - - COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE : 96TO97 WK4 ..) a.. FISCAL FISCAL ISOLATED DEBT TOTAL ALL AMOUNT PERCENT CRISIS CRISIS AID SUPP. 1996-97 AID CIIANGE CHANGE LEA 1 COUNTY DISTRICT LOC. RES. TRANS. 2002 ! OAI LAS ,FORDYCE $45.697 $8fl.909 $4 .JAfl.G!ll $504.7AA 1:100% $7 .9951 ' 2003 j OALI AS 'SPARKMAN $14 .334 $46.696 $897.30'1 ($10.227 -113% 2101 OESHA ARKANSAS CITY $58.890 $0 $200.842 $44 .239 28 25% i 2102 Dr-SHA DELTA SPECIAL $35.143 $34.341 $2.358 S739.940 ($72.52fl -8 93%1 2104 DESHA DUMAS $124.930 $6.850.018 $245.7951 3 72% 2105 OF.SHA MCGEHEE $130.606 $4.771.062 $538.750 , 12 73%1 2202 DREW DREW CENTRAL $86.641 S63, 181 S3.826,856 S247.769: 692%1 2203 OREW MONTICELLO S11 .008 S142.668 S6.994,867 S821 .060 13 30% 2]01 FAIILKNER CONWAY S392,437 S20.683. 156 S2.619.784 14 50% , 2303 FAllLKNFR GREENBRIER $14 ,039 S263.174 $7,653.307 S1 .155.342 j 11 7fl I 2304 FAULKNER GUY-PERKINS $19,746 S4 ,657 Sl ,035.143 S151 .1151 17 09 ! 2305 FAULKNER MAYFLOWER S62.713 S3,037,553 $430.368 1651% 2]06 FAULKNER MT VERNON/ENOLA $34,329 so S1 ,219.128 $165,279 1568% 2307 FAULKNER VILONIA $13,862 S330.229 $8,048.639 $1 ,086,120 1560% 2401 FRANKLIN ALTUS-DENNING S1,817 S8,328 $692,247 $4,766 069% 2402 FRANKLIN CHARLESTON S31, 136 $2,587,186 $282,944 12 28% 2403 FRANKLIN COUNTY LINE $36.925 $21,811 $1 ,800,308 $241.466 1549 2404 FRANKLIN OZARK S12.843 S89,227 $4,616,737 $703,322 17 97% 2405 FRANKLIN PLEASANT VIEW S13.499 S19,280 $2.930 $865,679 $72,191 910 2501 FULTON MAMMOTH SPRING $17 ,500 $30.925 $18.090 $1 .660,709 ($36.845 -2 17% 2502 FULTON SALEM $57.941 $76.728 $2,538.044 $204,205 8 75% 2503 FULTON VIOLA S66.193 S14 .007 $1,543.430 $159,514 11 .53% 2601 GARLAND CUTTER MORNING ST $3,426 $35.886 $1 ,774,727 $240,741 1569% 2602 GARLAND FOlJNTAIN LAKE S2.885 so $1,300,838 $497,697 61 97% 2fi0] GARLAND HOT SPRINGS I $15.915 $6,986,753 $298,078 4 46% 7604 GARLAND I.IESSIEVILLE S43.519 so $589,970 $210,071 55 30% 2605 GARLAND LAKE HAMIL TON S32.791 S218.597 S11 ,031 ,771 $1,862,997 20 32% 2606 GARLAND LAKFSIDE S68.542 $6.649,7:18 S1 ,563,632 30 74 2607 GARLAr-:ID MOlJNT AIN PINE S36,304 S41 ,398 S2.247.429 S456,856 25 51% 2703 GRANT POYEN $73,962 S15,930 so S1.704 .310 $264,460 18 37% 2705 GRANT SHFRIOAN S109.399 S247,550I S12,664 ,720 $2,402,129 23 41 2801 GREENE IDELAPtAINE S 14.953 SfiR.756 so S1,159,290 $235,242 25 46%1 2803 GREENE 1MARMADUKE S24,987 S51 ,2221 S2,604 ,256 $422,769 1938%1 2807 GREENE ;\u003c;REENE CTY TECHNIC $53,012 S175,666 S8,:J83.347 $1 ,307,117 11147%1 2fl0R GREFNE IN E ARKANSAS S97.750 S8,015.304 S537,572 7 19%1 2901IHEMPSTEAO ,1LEVINS $39.444 S15,468 S1,78J.149 S194.169 12 22% 2903 HEMPSTEAD IHOPE $]1 ,0131 S201 ,4fl0 S9,6R7 .2231 S958,287 10 9fl I 7905 HEMPSTEAD \\SARATOGA S58.203 i S6,97R Sll24 ,7~,3 . (S60,741 -6fl6% ! - - I. COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE 96TO97 WK4 ci.. ADM FOR ADM FOR NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL TOT. SELECT. ADO. BASE GROWTH 1995-1996 1996-1997 CHANGE CHANGE 1995-1996 1996-97 AID FUNDING FACILITY LEA COUNTY DISTRICT JQ hlQ STATE AID 12-27-96 FUNDING I I 2906 HrMf'SlEAO Sf'RING HILL 412 94 451 31 38 37 9 29%1 S1.J1Ul33 Sl .534.083 S 14.6201 S4 48111 3001 HOI SPRING OISMARCK 903.40 943 59 40 19 4 45% S2.703.39'l $3.045.087, S 161l.073 S19,0801 3002 HOT SPRING GLEN ROSE 961 .08 983 79 22 71 2 36% S3.043.974 S3,422.231 Sl 1,706 S43,799 3003 IIOT SPRING MAGNET COVE 677 77 723 38 45 61 6.73% S1 .644.850 S2,035.675 so S20.283 I 3004 HOT Sf'RING MALVERN 2,722 49 2,653 75 (68.74 -2 52% S7.605,392 S7 ,796.149 S255.556 3005 HOT SPRING OUACHITA 40997 381 .77 (28.20 -6 88% Sl ,267,543 S1.217.545 S17.777 $4,65so7l 3102 HOWARD ll)IERKS 60801 627.89 19.88 3.27% Sl.473.910 Sl ,719.922 S18,321 so 3104 HOWARD MINERAL SPGS 535.46 531 65 (3 81 -0.71% S 1.673.781 Sl,737,894 so sol 3105 HOWARO NASHVILLE 1,837.78 1,841 .52 3.74 0 20% S4 ,897,393 S5.335.245 S148,958 so 3106 HOWARO UMf'IRE 112 94 108 55 (4 39 -3 89% S277,089 S211 .505 so so 3201 INDEPENDEN BATESVILLE 2.282 37 2.249 88 (32 49 -1 42% S5.676.270 S6.172.829 S167,481 so 3202 INOEPENOEN CORD-CHARLOTTE 28941 292 88 3 47 1 20% S920.774 S929.268 S20.874 so 3203 INDEPENDEN CUSHMAN 36540 388 50 23 10 6 32% S1.448,487 Sl ,355.848 S3.080 S6,649 3206 INOEPENDEN NEWARK 751 43 747 74 (3 69 -049% S575.930 so S27.187 so 3209 INDEPENOEN SOUTH SIDE 1,379 42 1,363 53 (1589 -115% S5,068, 173 S4,598.882 S92, 188 so 3210 INDEPENDEN SULPHUR ROCK 282 90 295 10 12 20 4 31% S479,934 S573.817 so S7 ,882 3211 INDEPENDEN MIDLAND 673 72 683 72 1000 148% S2.448.494 S2,286.734 S64 .637 so 3301 IZARD C:AUCOROCK 503 85 513 35 9 50 1 89% S1 ,607,127 S1 ,662.308 so S18.6591 3302 IZARD MELBOURNE 545 12 538 45 (667 -1 22% Sl,525,610 Sl ,534.140 S24 ,156 so, 3303 IZARO MOUNT PLEASANT 280 41 301 65 21 24 7 57% S897,039 S923,852 S10,376 so' 3306 IZARO IZARO COl INTY 622 41 66206 3965 6 37% S1.68J,788 Sl,841 ,655 S48.567 so 3403 JACKSON NEWPORT 2,12039 2,087 41 (32 98 -1.56% S5,850,617 S5,574.888 S7 .138 sol 3404 JACKSON SWIFTON 260 45 264 05 360 1 38% S681,928 S820.616, so S11.185j 3405 /.IACKSON .IACKSON COUNTY 663 60 66064 (2 96 -0 45% Sl.714,539 S1,736,JOO S60.970 so, 3501 JEFFERSON AL THEIMER UNIFIED 724 92 715 31 (9 61 -1 33% S2,0J0,959 Sl,946.189 so  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1672","title":"Court filings concerning release of four-year-old seats, summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula, Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator, and LRSD's revised desegregation and education 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":["1997-09"],"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--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Southwest Junior High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School administrators","School employees","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning release of four-year-old seats, summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula, Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator, and LRSD's revised desegregation and education 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/1672"],"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":["26 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion to release four-year-old seats; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) separate motion for summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator; District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator; District Court, two orders; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  This transcript 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 OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORma INTERvENoRs INTERVENORS MOTION TO RELEASE FOUR-YEAR OLD SEATS For its motion to release four-year old seats, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD has encouraged parents to register their children for four-year old seats during the regular registration process. Many black parents have registered their children but those children cannot be assigned because of the number of seats which have been reserved for white students. 2. The LRSD engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts during the 1996-97 school year as it prepared for registration for the 1997-98 school year. Attached to this motion as Exhibit 1 is a partial list of those recruitment efforts. Additionally, the information contained in LRSD's quarterly program planning and budget documents, status reports and project management tools serve to supplement this listing. 3. Although most of the schools with four-year old programs have racially balanced programs with no vacancies, seats are available in some four-year old programs and no white students are - on the waiting lists for those programs. The vacancies are shown on Exhibit 2 attached to this motion, which is titled \"1997-98 FourYear Old Applications.\" LRSD seeks permission to fill the vacancies shown on Exhibit 2 with students from the waiting lists. 4. LRSD endeavored to register as many new white students as possible in its four-year old programs. Most of those programs are racially balanced. The seats that still remain vacant should now be released to black students who can benefit from the educational opportunities which will be provided. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District moves for an order permitting it to release the vacant four-year old program seats for the 1997-98 school year to students on the waiting list. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ~:~ Christo:~------ Bar No. 81083 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion To Release FourYear Old Seats has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 2nd day of September, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 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. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 - August 25, 1997 To: Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment From: Becky Rather, Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Re: Recruitment Efforts For Four-Year-Old Seats January edition of Little Rock Family Magazine published Public School Issue as a results of our involvement. January 2 Worked with Dawn Jackson in planning neighborhood parent meeting, resulting in a number of west Little Rock parents applying for four-year-old programs and kindergarten. 6 Provided packets to Rector Phillips Morse Realtors 6 Mailed 15,000 Home and School Connection newsletters informing parents of registration. 6 Mailed registration packets to: 7 10 13-14 14 14 16 16-17 16 17 18 21 21 24 27 27 28 30 31 135 Childcare Centers 44 Homeowners Associations 210 Special Interest Patrons of Little Rock 88 Ministers Gave presentation to HIPPY staff Taped promo for Channel 11, \"Always Kids, Educated Choice\" Show and Tell in all schools sponsored and advertised through Alliance for Our Public Schools Presented at Early Childhood meeting Presented at evening HIPPY parent group meeting Sent flyers home with elementary children on registration Posted flyers throughout the city on registration. Attended evening parent meeting in private home of Dawn Jackson. Mailed 400 brochures to PCSSD on Incentive Schools Participated in Saturday Mall show Registration begins through Jan. 31 . Provided information to Christ Temple Church Assist Steve Pintor Realtors Assist Rainey Realty Open House, Incentive and Interdistrict Open House, Elementary Area . Participate in Arkansas Legislative Day on Education with PT A Assist Mc eil Smith Realtors February 3 Evening presentation to network of Executive Women 4 Presentation to Charlotte John Realty EXHIBIT 1 4 6 7 8 11 12 19 20 21 24 24 March 3 4 4 5 10 13 18 19 26 27 April Report to Biracial Committee Parent Involvement meeting Work with CARE office Attend Saturday, Title 1 Parent Involvement program Report to Early Childhood board on 4-year-old registration HIPPY board meeting Attend Kids Count Coalition at Children 's Hospital Meet with PCS SD PT A parents Work with McKay Realty Meet with Janet Jones Realty Meet with NLR PT A parents Assist Byer Agent Realtors Mail assignment letters Report to Biracial Committee Assist Howell Realtors Assembly for Success Assisted Grobmyer Realty Presentation to Janet Jones Realty Spent afternoon with Lisa Woodrow, new relocation specialist for RPM Realty Worked with Barbara Sumpter, new relocation specialist for Entergy Early Childhood Parent Involvement meeting. 1 Kids Count meeting 8 Early Childhood Advocacy Committee 8 PTA Council, Dunbar 8 Meeting at Clinton Elementary 9 Work with Fair Park parents on recruitment 14 Kids Count meeting 15 Four-year-old assignments mailed 15 Worked with Fair Park parents on recruitment May Worked with !!!illlY parents who did not get into 4-year-old program offering assistance and information to best serve those students. 15 PT A Council Gibbs 15 Mailed letters to all parents of white 4-year-old students who did not get into a school of their choice, offering seats in schools with vacancies June 4 Report to Biracial Committee 5 Arranged for and provided program for mid-west Little Rock parents meeting at Books A Million in the evening - 16 July 2 3 7 8 15 16 23 Gained approval to purchase ad in Kids Directory and provided copy emphasizing Incentive schools and four-year-old program Full page ad purchased to run full month in Kids Directory Prepared Four-Year-Old flyer Met with Hispanic organization informing them of programs offered Mailed letters to white PCS SD parents who did not get into program at King or Rockefeller offering other schools with vacancies Notified Communications to prepare \"Check In\" flyers and posters Arranged tour of Rightsell for PCS SD white parents, enrolling 4. Wrote article about school programs for Central Hispanic Newsletter Mailed information letters and flyers to: 68 Childcare centers 33 Community leaders 86 Churches 29 Kids Count Coalition meeting, announced white seats available in program 30 Displayed \"Check In\" posters throughout the city in grocery stores, etc. August 1 Worked with Parents for Public Schools in providing information for Parent Connection hotline We continue to accept applications for P4 program and process and assign all that we can in schools that have vacancies. All white students are advised as to openings that may be available at this time and toured if not convinced. Forms were sent to all schools with P4 so they could FAX in any drops they might find as people checkin. Vacancies are then filled from the waiting lists according to the race of the child who is not coming this year. Sheet1 1997-98 4-YEAR OLD APPLICATIONS NAME OF SCHOOL ENROLLED WAITING LIST BL NBL TOTAL CAPACITY VACANCIE~ %BLACK BL NBL Badgett 18 2 20 36 16 90% 8 0 Bale 18 18 36 36 0 50% 58 4 Baseline 18 9 27 36 9 67% 86 0 Brady 9 9 18 18 0 50% 91 36 Chicot 18 18 36 36 0 50% 72 3 Cloverdale 18 7 25 36 11 72% 88 0 Fair Park 18 18 36 36 0 50% 50 20 Franklin 36 21 57 72 15 50% 82 0 Garland 9 2 11 18 7 82% 42 0 Geyer Springs 18 18 36 36 0 50% 82 5 Martin L. King 36 36 72 72 0 50% 260 52 Mabelvale 9 9 18 18 0 50% 52 4 Mitchell 9 3 12 18 6 75% 71 0 Rightsell 9 9 18 18 0 50% 70 0 Rockefeller 27 27 54 54 0 50% 140 20 Romine 18 18 36 36 0 50% 92 7 Washington 27 27 54 54 0 50% 104 7 Watson 18 4 22 36 14 82% 52 0 Wilson 9 9 18 18 0 50% 70 4 Woodruff 18 18 36 36 0 50% 27 10 *Clinton 25 0 25 25 0 100% 15 0 *Crystal Hill 32 0 32 32 0 100% 36 0 TOTAL 417 282 699 777 78 1648 172 *denote Pulaski Countv Page 1 EXHIBIT 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP 2 1997 EASTERN DIST~~CT OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. 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 AD E's Project Management Tool for August, 1997. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General TIMO Assistant ey General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education 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 AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AD~SPROJECTMANAGEMENTTOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 29, 1997 Based on the information available at July 31, 1997, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 97/98, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-86JtECE.1\\fED PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL SEP 3 1997 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S SEPARATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF THE STATE FUNDING FORMULA Introduction The Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") recently filed - its opening brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the consolidated appeals concerning teacher retirement and health insurance. In the concluding paragraphs of that brief, as well as elsewhere throughout, the ADE contends that: .... [t]he fact that these three Districts in the aggregate and individually are \"winners\" under the new formula should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them. 1 ADE App. Br. at p. 24, attached to motion as Exhibit 2. [Emphasis supplied.] 1It should be noted that the Settlement Agreement speaks in terms of \"impact\" and requires no showing of \"intent\". Agreement at~ L, page 10, attached to motion as Exhibit 1. 1 Contrary to the ADE's assertion that the PCSSD was a ''winner\", and as it will demonstrate below, the PCSSD lost over $5,000,000 this past year because of the new funding system. The ADE also argues: ADE submits that in this context it was particularly inappropriate to isolate and rule on the changes in teacher retirement and health insurance funding without giving any legal weight or effect to the undisputed beneficial effect the new funding system had on the Districts. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement authorizes or even suggests that such a piecemeal dissection and comparison of certain discrete aspects of the old and new funding systems is appropriate, and nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires or permits the Districts to be insulated from having to make the sometimes difficult choices and deal with changes in the law that all other school districts in the State must grapple with. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or in any notion or [sic) equity or common sense permits the Districts to be relieved of aspects of a new funding system that they do not like without taking into account those aspects of the new funding system that operate to their benefit. The Intervenors are equally blunt in their argument to the Court of Appeals: The Districts received more State aid under the new formula than under the old formula. Int. App. Br. at p. 10, attached to motion as Exhibit 3. The PCSSD accepts the challenge of the ADE and the 111 school districts to scrutinize the effect of the new funding system as a whole upon the PCSSD and will demonstrate that the new funding system as a whole is unfair to the PCSSD and violates the Settlement Agreement and previous orders of this Court. 2 Effects of the New System The PCSSD has now obtained updated information from the Arkansas Department of Education which demonstrates precisely how all major categories of State aid were distributed for the 1996- 97 school year. This document, attached to the Stewart Affidavit as Exhibit \"A\", compares all major categories of total State aid from the 1995-96 fiscal year to the 1996-97 fiscal year. 2 Stewart Affidavit, attached to motion as Exhibit 4. This comparison demonstrates that the PCSSD experienced a net growth in State aid of 1.12% this past year as compared to the previous year. Overall, however, the average increase in State aid per school district for this past year was 12.09% before adjustment is made for the PCSSD. When the PCSSD is removed from the calculation, the average overall state increase becomes 12.64%. The Case Law and the Settlement Agreement Prohibit this Disparity As this Court observed in its order of April 22, 1997 regarding health insurance: The appellate court held that the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, \"so long as the change is, in the words of the settlement agreement, 'fair and rational' and of 'general applicability.'\" . . . . \"So long as the change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement.\" Order, pp. 3-4. (Citations omitted) [Emphasis supplied.] 2This Exhibit A is essentially an updated version of the - analysis accepted by the District Court on February 18, 1997. 3 In commenting further upon the disparity that actually resulted from the funding system, this Court quoted the Court of Appeals' conclusion that: This results in precisely what the anti-retaliation clause was meant to prevent. It funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than the other districts in the state. It is of no moment that the State reached this result in a mathematically consistent manner.\" Order, p. 4. (Citation omitted). The Disparity Is Immense Of the 111 Intervening School Districts, over one-half have 1996-97 State aid outcomes which are right at or which greatly exceed the state average of a 12.09% increase. 3 As drawn from Exhibit A to Dr. Stewart's Affidavit, attached to motion as Exhibit 4, they are as follows: District Fountain Lake Alread Carthage Bentonville Gillett Biggers-Reyno Greenland Yellville-Summit Leslie Junction City Nettleton White Hall Valley Springs Greenwood Increase Over 1995-96 61.97 51. 42 41.08 37.35 36.98 35.75 29.45 27.94 27.12 24.45 24.34 24. 04 23.69 23.34 3Anticipating that the Intervenors may once again make their Parade Magazine argument concerning \"averages\", it should be observed that the Blevins School District, one of the Intervenors, had a statistical increase which is right at the state average and that the Magazine District experienced a State aid increase almost precisely that of the state average when the PCSSD is removed from the calculation. See, infra, p. 5. 4 - - Beebe 22.81 Greene County Technical 18.47 Lavaca 18.30 Ashdown 18.25 Wonderview 18.09 Ozark 17.97 Weiner 17.38 Glen Rose 17.11 Guy-Perkins 17.09 Stuttgart 17.06 Manila 17.03 Alma 16.80 Van Buren 16.73 Mayflower 16.51 Jonesboro 16.18 Pocahontas 16.10 Centerpoint 16.08 Crossett 15.79 Cutter-Morning Star 15.69 County Line 15.49 Winslow 15.30 Oden 14.48 Marion 14.33 Batesville 14.01 Rural Special 13 .44 Wickes 13. 33 Marshall 13. 05 Waldron 13. 02 McGehee 12.73 Magazine 12.67 Smackover 12.34 West Fork 12.32 Charleston 12.28 Blevins 12.22 Booneville 11. 90 So. Conway Co. 11. 31 Green Forest 11. 22 Bryant 10.98 Prairie Grove 10.69 Searcy 10. 52 4 Pulaski County Special 1. 26 4This group of intervening districts is 90.71 white at the elementary level and 91.07 white at the secondary level. See Exhibit 5 attached to motion. 5 Fiscal Crisis Relief Funding The Court will further see from an examination of Exhibit \"A\" that many districts, including many of the intervening districts, received fiscal crisis relief funding as well as fiscal crisis relief funding for transportation. On January 22, 1997, the PCSSD sought an enlargement of time from the State to submit its application for fiscal crisis relief funding. See Exhibit \"8\". The State has distributed all $10,000,000 appropriated for fiscal crisis relief funding for this school year. The PCSSD received no response to its application for an enlargement of time. In the Court's order of February 18, 1997 dealing with separate funding issues, this Court stated the following: The Court finds persuasive the figures submitted by the PCSSD which show that its total State funding in 1996- 97 will be less under the new formula than it would have been under the old. See PCSSD MFPA Calculation Estimate with Act 34 of 1996-97, Ex. A, PCSSD Prehearing Brief (doc. #2854). In response to the State's figures that indicate that the PCSSD does better under the new formula, see Green Deel., State's Resp. to M. Summ. J., the PCSSD points out that the State's figures are not adjusted for the increases in teacher retirement and health insurance costs that the PCSSD is experiencing this year and instead rely on data from the previous school year. The figures that this Court found persuasive were that the PCSSD would receive $3,462,880 less in 1996-97 under Act 917 than it would have received had Act 34 remained the law. The difference became $4,479,527 if the State added more money to the Act 34 formula. See PCSSD brief dated November 18, 1996 at pp. - 3-4 and Exhibit \"A\" to that brief. 6 When the PCSSD prepared these estimates last November, it assumed initially that only $56,000,000 would be added to the equalization formula. That resulted in the decrease of $3,462,880. The decrease of $4,479,527 resulted from the PCSSD assumption, made then, that $80,000,000 might be added to the formula. In fact, with final figures now available, $142,672,000 was in fact added to the formula or available for distribution to school districts. Had Act 34 been in existence, the State would have used approximately $9,911,000 of that increased amount to fund increases in teacher retirement and health insurance, leaving $132,760,638 available for distribution through the Act 34 formula. See Stewart Affidavit5 , attached to motion as Exhibit 4. Utilizing the actual new money that was added to the formula after controlling for teacher retirement and health insurance increases, and utilizing the same methodology that the PCSSD used in Exhibit \"A\" from last November, the PCSSD calculates its actual loss for 1996-97 to be $5,631,491. That is, if Act 34 had remained in operation for this past school year, and utilizing the actual addition to the formula of $132,760,636, the PCSSD lost over $5,600,000 under Act 917 as compared to Act 34. 5This is essentially the same affidavit and calculations, now updated, which the District Court found persuasive on February 18, 1997. To the extent necessary, the PCSSD incorporates by reference its previous statements of material and undisputed facts, prior affidavits, and the prior findings of this Court. 7 At this rate of loss, the State will recoup within approximately five years all of the desegregation case settlement money it ever paid the PCSSD. The State has represented to the Court of Appeals that: [t]he three Districts emerged from the change in the funding system unscathed. In fact, from a state aid perspective the three Districts benefited from the passage of Act 917 when compared to 1995-96, the last year of operation of the old Act 34 system ... For 1996-97 PCSSD received approximately $700,000 more in state aid than it did for the 1995-96 school year. ADE App. Br. at pp. 8-9, attached to motion as Exhibit 6. The fashion in which the State compared aid outcomes for 1995-96 against 1996-97 is meaningless. What must be compared, as the PCSSD has done supra, are aid outcomes comparing 1996-97 State aid under Act 917 versus Act 34 utilizing 1996-97 funding levels for each Act. Thus, the State's boast that PCSSD benefited to the extent of $700,000 becomes picayunish when the proper analysis is made. The District Court has already rejected the $700,000 claim by the State, see Order dated February 18, 1997 at p. 12, attached to motion as Exhibit 7 and, since the calculation by the State was made in December, 1996, it included the $81,000 in growth funding that the State later took away from the PCSSD as we point out infra at page 9. Further, in the same order, in the context of considering the teacher retirement issue, this Court held: Even if the Court were to find that the new funding scheme for teacher retirement is an \"adjustment\" to the funding formula which has \"general applicability\", 8 however, the Court cannot find that it is a \"fair and rational adjustment.\" Throughout these proceedings, the State and Intervenors have consistently argued that the changes in State aid should be viewed as a whole, not piecemeal. They have also argued that when the entire system is considered, the Pulaski County school districts fare better under the new system than under the old. With the fiscal year now ended, the PCSSD can conclusively demonstrate that the State's argument, as to the PCSSD, is simply wrong. As observed above, the PCSSD lost over $5,500,000 under the new system as compared to the old. It trails in the wake of more than one-half of the intervening school districts, was not considered for the fiscal crisis relief funding or extra transportation aid that was lavished upon the wealthy Newark School District (indeed its application for an extension of the deadline was not even acknowledged), and is basically being penalized because it votes one of the highest millages in the state, thus reducing its State aid entitlement under the new scheme. In contrast, Newark, which is either the wealthiest or second wealthiest district in the State, received additional base funding, fiscal crisis relief funding and extra transportation funding. (See Exhibit A to Exhibit 4 to motion at pp. 7 and 8. It qualified for this State aid because it only levies local taxes of approximately one-half those voted in the PCSSD. How can it plausibly be argued by the State that the adjustments it - has made to the formula are \"fair and rational\", at least to the 9 - extent they affect the PCSSD, a relatively poor district, so negatively? The State Revoked the PCSSD Growth Funding Earlier this year, the PCSSD unsuccessfully sought to persuade this Court, via motion for summary judgment, . to restore loss funding. In its response dated February 10, 1997, the State jabbed the PCSSD's claim for the restoration of loss funding stating: in a crowning bid of irony, all three of the Pulaski County Districts are eligible for and will receive growth funding for 1996-97. The Districts' argument that the Settlement Agreement requires the \"reinstatement\" of loss funding under these circumstances is plainly frivolous. The State did pay growth funding to the PCSSD for a period of time, but then revoked it. Despite the rhetorical theatrics of the State noted above, the State did on June 13, 1997 request return of the $81,000 it had paid the PCSSD as \"growth funding\". See Exhibit C attached to motion as Exhibit 4. The PCSSD immediately complied and returned the money. Once again, while not sought directly by this motion, the PCSSD ended the year where it has been for the last several years, a candidate for loss funding with no loss funding available. As a relatively poor school district, should not the PCSSD reasonably expect to be treated at least as well as the average school district in Arkansas, especially when the \"average\" school district has none of the extra commitments and expenditures that the PCSSD has, as repeatedly pointed out by this Court? 10 Conclusion The Intervening Districts have, of course, intervened to protect their gains at the Court of Appeals level and seek intervention again to protect their gains in light of the latest order of this Court. The PCSSD is a relatively poor district when compared to all other school districts in the state of Arkansas. It asks only to be brought up to the state-wide average, i.e., that it be funded to the same degree, as the average school district in Arkansas fared under the new formula. This adjustment will not totally ameliorate for the PCSSD's high special education costs, its loss of loss funding, cuts in residential treatment aid, etc., but it will lend some equity to a situation that is inequitable on its - face, a situation which violates the Settlement Agreement as interpreted by this Court and the Court of Appeals. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court requiring that the Arkansas Department of Education correct its 1996-97 overall State-aid to obtain the result of the same average increase as experienced by the average school district in Arkansas, or, in the alternative, for the sums it would have received in 1996-97 under Act 34. 11 Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 2-, 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 J ,J hslOS0.030 12 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT oF ARKANsPI LED Or-FlCE OF A WESTERN DIVISION u.s. DISTRICT ccuRTnE~tGREGATION MONITORING W E.A.STE;;N CISTRICT ARK.A:'L ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SEP 51997 PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ------;;;:;::;-;O:E;P;\". CELEoRiKi PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO HAVE SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH SCHOOL PLACED IN RECEIVERSHIP AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR LRSD for its Response states: 1. Joshua's Motion arises out of the alleged \"misfeasance and malfeasance of the [Southwest Junior High School) principal, Dr. Walter Marchalek (sic).\" Joshua's Motion, 1 1. Dr. Marshaleck' s competency to perform his duti es is an individual personnel matter. Consistent with this Court's past practice, LRSD respectfully requests that it be permitted to address this matter in accordance with its own internal processes. See Order filed Jan. 23, 1997, Docket No. 2915, attached hereto as Exhibit A. LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion be dismissed without a hearing. 2. LRSD admits that late summer changes in Southwest's master schedule resulted in approximately 80 registered students not having a schedule on the first day of classes. To accommodate these students, Dr. Marshaleck planned to provide hand-written schedules to these students upon arrival. This effort was slowed by the illness of Southwest's registrar who missed the first three days of school. Southwest's attendance secretary was also absent the first day of school due to illness. The effort was further complicated by the arrival of approximately 60 students not previously registered to attend Southwest. These students also needed schedules. Students without schedules were supervised in the cafeteria without incident. Every effort was made, including 16-hour workdays, to provide all students with schedules as quickly as possible. All Southwest students had schedules and were attending class by August 27, 1997. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 3. LRSD denies that \"numerous\" students were \"misassigned\" by Dr. Marshaleck. LRSD admits that one special education student was erroneously assigned to a gifted and talented class as a result - of a data entry error. First priority was given to students with no schedules. As soon as all students had schedules, work began on correcting scheduling errors. The special education student's schedule was corrected on August 28, 1997. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 4. LRSD admits the allegation set forth in paragraph 3 of Joshua's Motion. Individualized education plans are only prepared for special education students. 5. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of Joshua's Motion. 2 6. LRSD admits that one student was slightly injured during an altercation with another student which occurred while a teacher left a class unattended. This was against LRSD policy and appropriate action has been taken in response to this incident. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 5 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 7. LRSD admits that students without schedules were not receiving instruction. LRSD denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 6 of Joshua's Motion. The teaching staff at Southwest has been asked to make every effort to ensure that students who were assigned to class late do not fall behind. 8. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of Joshua's Motion. 9. LRSD admits that it was aware of the scheduling problem at Southwest. LRSD believes it responded appropriately by making additional personnel available to assist Southwest, and the problem has now been resolved. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 10. LRSD denies the allegations  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1648","title":"Court filings: District Court, motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator; District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors in support of their motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator","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":["1997-08-27"],"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--20th century","Southwest Junior High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator; District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors in support of their motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator"],"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/1648"],"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":["52 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 COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 2 7 1997 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS :MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. AUG 2 8 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG INTERVENORS MOTION TO HA VE SOUTHWEST JR. IDGH SCHOOL PLACED IN RECEIVERSIDP AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR The Joshua lntervenors respectfully request that the Court convene a hearing involving the Little Rock School District, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Intervenors in order to review the circumstances that exist at Southwest Junior High School including many violations of the LRSD and Interdistrict Plans adversely affecting the education of black students, and upon appropriate findings determine that it is necessary to have the school placed in receivership, or in the hands of a specially designated authority other than the present principal of the school. For cause, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the court that: 1. Chaotic conditions exist at the schoo~ including but not limited to, numerous students having been kept out of classes for the first five days of school by the principal because they have no schedules through no fault of their own and through the misfeasance or malfeasance of the princip~ Dr. Walter Marchalek and the failure of the leadership of the LRSD to respond appropriat_e,l,y,- to the 1 situation; 2. Numerous students have been misassigned to classes by Principal Marshalek with the result being that some students who were lasi year assigned to special education and/or resource classes are now assigned to gifted and talented classes and vice versa; 3. Many students are retained or have been retained in the same grade for one or more years without the school developing an individualized remedial plan for the student; 4. Many students are retained or have been retained in the same grade for two years or more without their parents receiving interim reports prior to their retention; 5. Discipline in the school is frequently arbitrary or in some cases non-existent. Some students are left unsupervised in classes without teachers thereby increasing the probability of difficult student relationships. In one of the unsupervised classrooms, at least one student has been injured - due, in large part, to the absence of supervisor personnel; 6. Students are not being taught due to the delay in making schedules for them. For these students, the school has no plan for providing remediation type work. These students will necessarily be disadvantaged in mee~ing the educational expectations of the school, with many being unable to make up the time or work lost, due to the administrator misfeasance or malfeasance; 7. The teaching staff is fractionated and substantially leaderless. Education on an organized, systematic and educationally acceptable basis is simply not occurring at Southwest Junior High school; 8. The school district is aware of these problems. It has been aware of these problems since the assignment of the present principal to the school. The school district has not devised a plan to correct the problems identified above and others of a similar nature. The problems impact black 2 students almost exclusively, with black males being disproportionately affected by the adverse conditions at the school. Moreover, the school administration has difficulty in treating this group of students fairly, as a general matter, 9. The equal educational opportunities promised by the desegregation plan are not occurring at Southwestern Junior High School; the facts cited in this motion establish violations of the LRSD Plan, 4/92, at [pp. 2-3 (Leadership), pp. 28-29 (School Operations), and 33-35], and the Interdistrict Plan, 4/92, at [p. 21 (School Operations)]. 10. Joshua has previously served notice of the administrative malfeasance which has occurred at the school upon Little Rock's acting administrative superintendent Don Roberts and upon Ms. Ann Brown. See Attachment A These efforts did not yield improvements at Southwest. Black students are thus in a position where their educational opportunity is being severely curtailed, and in - some cases denied in violation of the desegregation plan. This action for relief is therefore appropriate and necessary. An early hearing is essential if relief is to be meaningful. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court a) give this matter urgent and immediate attention; b) require the District to prepare within two days a report showing the actual school climate and the extent to which students have been assigned or misassigned to class; c) require the District to report to extend to which black males have been adversely affected by late assignment or scheduling practices and to describe the remediation plans that the District has provided or plans to provide for make-up work, and other corrective actions; d) require the District to establish the extent to which students have been retained in specific grades for more than one year; and to explain by clear and convincing proof all other conditions that demonstrate racial disparity. The Court is further called upon to enjoin the District from allowing the present principal to continue 3 his assignment at Southwest Junior High School and to have placed in his stead someone responsible to the Court who will establish the school as an efficient, nondiscriminatory educational institution. The Intervenors further pray that the Court require the ODM to develop a comprehensive monitoring report on the present educational and interpersonal conditions which exist at Southwest Junior High School, the extent to which there is racial division in the school, and the extent to which the principal has led and now leads the institution. Joshua finally prays, as a last resort, for the school to be placed into receivership. Respectfully submitted, JOHNW. WALKER,P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 By: -j_ Jo CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon all counsel of record, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid, on this -2:3_ day of August, 1997. 4 .JOHN W. WALKER ~.ALPH WASHINGTON \\L.\\RK BURNETTE . .\\USTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. AITOR!-IEY AT I.Aw 1723 BROADWAY LIITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 324-2146 August 12, 1997 Dr. Don Roberts Interim Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Roberts: During the last school year, we had myriad complaints of a racial nature from students, parents and staff regarding the-  .  . administration of Dr. Walter Marshaleck at Southwest Junior High. School. I advised him that there appeared to be a number of  problems and suggested that he may wish to address them before  the beginning of this school year. The school year is at hand Aand my office has already received at least three complaints from wblack staff members which we construe to have racial overtones. I believe that it would be appropriate for you to address this matter at once to determine whether the indications we have received are symptoms of a more endemic problem. We will cooperate with you in addressing the issue at your request. Back to the Southwest Junior High School matter, Ms. Springer and I spoke with Dr. Marshaleck today and we will no doubt have different opinions about our conversation. From our perspective, he seeks to run the school and to interact with people as if he is still a military officer. This approach is contrary to the spirit and promises of the desegregation plan. The plan seeks and promises cooperation rather than dictatorial approaches to interpersonal and interprofessional situations. Your counsel and wisdom are earnestly sought regarding this matter. r:eri.2~ 5;t!1:. Walker ~ JWW: js ecc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Walter Marshaleck I  ; ~,::II(, : . ,:_ _.. ... 1=-.-: . ~~: ~;, it' :. \",t:.: . FILED U.S. DISTRICT C8t.JRT IN Tiffi UNITED STATES couftrESN DISTRICT .l~ i{ ~'IJSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 7 1997 WESTERN DMSION JAMES W McCORMACK. CLERK By: ---------,=-=--=-:-:=-=-e UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Di:?. K~IFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG 2 8 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO HA VE SOUTHWEST JR. IDGH SCHOOL PLACED IN RECEIVERSHIP AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR Joshua Intervenors' motion concerning Southwest Junior High School shows a total breakdown in the educational program at the school, violative of the rights of class members as set forth in the LRSD and Interdistrict Plans. See Motion, para. 9. The relief requested in the motion, as strong as it is, is tailored to address the situation at the school. It is in accordance with relevant precedent. This motion cannot be dismissed as \"an individual personal matter.\" It shows a failure by the LRSD leadership to fulfill the promises voluntarily undertaken in the plan. Intervenors rely on the following points and authorities. a) Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371. 1394 (8th Cir. 1990), (\"The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.\") b) Morgan v. McDonoutp1, 540 F.2d 527 (1st Cir. 1976). C:rl. denied, 429 U.S. 1042 (1977) (one Boston high school placed in receivership during the course of Boston school desegregation case as a result of breakdown in implementation of desegregation plan there, lack of leadership by the principal, hostility by school's staff: and overall pattern of resistance by school board; initial receiver was area superintendent of Boston system in which the school was located; thereafter, the district's superintendent was designated the receiver; the receiver's duties included the replacement of the school's administrative staff and a review of\"all faculty and ~ucational personnel\" to select a staff \"fit for the purpose of desegregation\"; the receiver reported directly to the district court). c) The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has twice cited with approval the opinion in Morgan v. Mc[)onou\u003cp1. supra. in which the creation of a receivership to operate a high school was approved. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 839 F2d 1296, 1319 (8th Cir. 1988) cited in support of authority of district court to create a citizen monitoring committee); Omaha Indemnity Co. v. Winin~. 949 F.2d 235,239 (8th Cir. 1991) (cited in upholding district court's creation of a receivership in a business case). d) Turner v. Goolsby. 225 FSupp. 724 (S.D. Ga 1966) (3-judge court) (after a small majority black school system agreed to implement a desegregation plan, its officials assisted its white pupils to attend schools in neighboring district, including providing of bus transportation and then closed the one fonnerly white school as unneeded; this left the 87 black pupils who had chosen to attend the school without a desegregated option; the court placed the system in receivership, 2 designated the Georgia State Superintendent of Schools as receiver \"operate the schools ... , \" and charged him with the obligation \"to submit a plan ... , whereunder the illegal expenditure of funds will be discontinued and the right of the 87 applicants for transfer will be accorded\" (at 730); thereafter, the receiver arranged for the interested black pupils to attend the schools of the adjoining counties; and investigated why some black pupils were not accorded their first choices of schools, whether black pupils were subject to in-school segregation, and the need for remedial instruction; the receiver was discharged when the initial systems agreed to operate in a desegregated manner in 1966- 67). e) Perez v. Boston Housing:Authority. 400 N.E 2d. 1331 (Mass. 1980) (case involving unsanitary and otherwise unsatisfactory conditions in public housing; court placed the Boston Housing Authority in receivership; the orders appointing the receiver stated that he/she \"shall have - the authority to administer, manage, and operate the BHA; he/she shall have the powers of the Board of the BHA (including control of funds and revenues) and any additional powers that may be necessary or appropriate; upon his/her appointment, the Board's powers shall be superseded\" [at 1245].). f) United States v. City of Parma. Ohio. 504 F.Supp. 913. 921-22 (N.D. Ohio 1980), affirmed. 661 F.2d. 562. 577 (6th Cir. 1981) (after concluding that Parma officials had followed racially exclusionary policies and practices and had a reputation and image of being the Cleveland suburb most hostile to blacks, the district court entered a comprehensive order including in part the establishment of a \"Fair Housing Committee\" 'within [the] city government\"; this FHC was \"to operate as a primary governmental agency in Parma responsible for developing a remedial plan ... [and] to ensure that the provisions of [the] order [were] fully complied with .. .' \"[membership on 3 the FHC] shall consist of Panna citizens who are collectively knowledgeable in the fields of fair housing programs and other citizens who are sincerely interested in working to promote the purpose of [the] Order\"; the membership was to be court-approved, after comment by the United States; specific functions to be fulfilled by the FHC included: developing advertising and educational programs, drafting a fuir housing resolution, developing an outreach program, establishing within the city government a Housing Infonnation and Referral Service, developing a program designed to foster and interest among housing developers in bringing low-income housing to Parma, and conducting a survey of vacant land suitable for low-income housing development). Conclusion As the foregoing case summaries show, the court has more than ample authority to enter the relief sought by the Joshua Intervenors. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) -3758 John 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading ha:s been served upon all counsel of record, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid, on this~ day of August, 1997. Jo 5  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1660","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)","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 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1997-07-03"],"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--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","Education--Standards","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)"],"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/1660"],"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":["56 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.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 97-1689EALR NO. 97-1700EALR MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. vs. APPELLANTS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF OF APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones III (76060) Claire Shows Hancock (95013) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 APPELLEES APPELLEES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The Joshua Intervenors complain on appeal of the district court's approval of the ODM budget in the face of their objections, and its refusal to appoint additional ODM monitors. But the bases for the Joshua Intervenors' objections to the budget were unsound. There is no evidence in this case that any perceived racial \"achievement gap\" or statistical racial disparity in disciplinary treatment is caused by current discrimination. Rather, the testimony in this case, and in others across the nation (and accepted by other federal courts), is that such disparities are the result of various socioeconomic factors. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the ODM budget. This appeal also arises, in part, from an unsuccessful attempt by the Joshua Intervenors to force the district court's intervention -- in the name of monitoring the Pulaski County school districts' Desegregation Plans -- into matters which are purely internal to the PCSSD and which are not, indeed should not be, affected or governed by the Desegregation Plans. The district court properly declined to grant the Joshua Intervenors' motion for ODM monitoring at the PCSSD's Robinson High School when the motion raised only individual personnel matters. Further, notwithstanding the Joshua lntervenors' motion, and in accordance with the district court's urging that the parties continue to work with the ODM, an ODM assessment of Robinson was carried out without necessity of court order and the personnel matter was resolved by proper utilization of the PCSSD's policies and procedures. The district court did not err in denying the Joshua Intervenors' motion which, in any event, is now moot. The PCSSD respectfully requests oral argument in this appeal. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT .. .. .......... . ... . TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .... . ........... . ...... . ........... . .. iii COUNTERSTATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 1 9 ARGUMENT .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 I. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPROVED THE ODM II. BUDGET NOTWITHSTANDING THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A. The Joshua Intervenors Complaints Regarding Racial Disparities in Discipline Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 B. The Joshua Intervenors' Complaints Concerning the Achievement Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE \"ROBINSON\" MOTION .. . . . ... .. .... .... ... . . ..... ....... . ... 21 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education, 901 F. Supp. 784 (D. Del. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 18, 20 Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 609 F. Supp. 1491, 1515 and 1498 (D. Colo. 1985) .......................... 12-14, 19 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 LRSD vs. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7143 ............... 13, 15, 19, 20 Tasby v. Woolery, 869 F. Supp. 454 (N.D. Tex. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 iii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COUNTERSTATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL I. Appellants' Issue No. 1 relates solely to the LRSD's incentive schools, and is not addressed by the PCS SD. II. WHETlIER THE DISTRICT COURT'S HANDLING OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REQUEST THAT THE ODM STAFF BE EXPANDED TO ALLOW INCREASED MONITORING WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE EARLIER MANDATES OF THIS COURT? LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) III. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REQUEST THAT THE ODM STAFF BE EXPANDED SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION? Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 902 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Colo. 1995) Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education, (D. Del. 1995) Tasby v. Woolery. 869 F. Supp. 454 (N.D. Tex. 1994) 901 F. Supp. 784, IV. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION SEEKING ODM MONITORING AT ROBINSON HIGH SCHOOL SHOULD BE AFFIRMED? LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) lV I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The ODM Budget On December 13, 1996, the Josh,1a Intervenors filed their objections to the ODM budget and requested additional ODM monitors based, primarily, upon a perceived need due to a racial \"achievement gap\" and purported racial disparity in discipline throughout the districts. J. App. 252. The district court, however, approved the ODM budget as submitted. J. Add. 17. This appeal followed notwithstanding testimony by court appointed experts, Dr. David Armor and Dr. Herbert Walberg, that the achievement gap is the result of socioeconomic factors rather than current discrimination, and that these same socioeconomic factors play a deciding role in disciplinary actions across the nation. LRSD App. 264, 451-52, 543-45. 1 2. The Robinson High School Motion Prior to the filing of the budget objections, the Joshua Intervenors, on November 1, 1996, filed their motion to request ODM monitoring of Robinson High School or, in the alternative, for PCSSD to show cause. J.App. 225. Paragraph 2 of the motion states: \"Most of the complaints relate to the administration of the principal, Ralph Hoffman, and the apparent support he has been given by the Superintendent of Schools, Bobby Lester, and the Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District.\" J.App. 225. Mr. 1 PCSSD's appendix, submitted herewith, is cited as \"PC App. 11 Some of the materials included therein were filed with the district court on July 2, 1997. See PC App. 107-09. The Joshua Intervenors' appendix is cited as \"J.App. 11 , and the Little Rock School District's appendix as 11LRSD App. 11 I I Hoffman had previously been a principal in the Little Rock School District before becoming I principal at Robinson. Id. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The PCSSD responded on November 26, 1996 stating that th~ Joshua lntervenors' motion was improper because: \"It is, at bottom, primarily a complaint about one employee and therefore a personnel matter. By bringing its motion, Joshua has compromised the traditional steps to be taken in investigating and evaluating complaints concerning a single employee and they have effectively compromised the PCSSD's ability to appropriately and fairly respond to the allegations.\" J.App. 241-242. The PCSSD response continued at paragraph 8. Id. at 242. Indeed, it is Joshua who has compromised a personnel matter and which has precipitously and prematurely aired allegations which have not been fully investigated and for which it apparently has no documentary support, all as indicated in paragraph 11 of its motion. Thereafter, the District Court denied the Joshua Intervenors' motion (J. Add. 5-6) and stated in part that: \"The Court considers the allegations against the principal at Robinson High School an individual personnel matter which should be dealt with by the PCSSD according to its own processes. However, the Court encourages the parties to continue using the resources of the ODM to assist in resolving this issue .\" J.Add. 6. This appeal followed. During the pendency of the appeal, the ODM interceded at Robinson and ultimately issued its own report. PC App. 1-8. The PCSSD conducted its own investigation and followed its own written personnel policies. Mr. Hoffman resigned effective June 6, 1997 and is no longer employed by the PCSSD. PC App. 9. On June 10, 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1997, the PCSSD appointed Mr. Herb Brooks, an African-American and long time principal at Fuller Junior High School, as the new Robinson principal. 3. The PCSSD Desegregation Plan Most of the issues alleged in the Joshua Intervenors' motion concern complaints about discipline and discipline related issues. (See generally, Joshua Motion beginning at J.App. 225.) The Joshua Appendix includes portions of the PCSSD Desegregation Plan. The Plan includes provisions, among others, that dictate the resolution of issues such as discipline. For instance, with regard to the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, the Court approved plan states: J.App. 322. J.App. 323. J.App. 325. The Assistant will work with all departments to establish procedural guidelines which provide that desegregation issues will be raised and resolved as appropriate both in system-wide planning and in each school building. With advice from legal counsel, and working through the Office of Desegregation, the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation provides for the District's compliance with civil rights laws and court orders, and will see that the Office of Desegregation recommends corrective action as needed. The Office of Desegregation has worked, and will continue work, directly with principals to insure equity at the building level. It is further a function of the District's Office of Desegregation to include: Receiving, processing and preparing responses to civil rights inquiries, regardless of source, and preparing internal evaluations of operations or activities where discriminatory practices are alleged, which includes 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J.App. 325 reporting the results of the investigations to the supervisor of the operation or activity involved and to the Superintendent of Schools. The PCSSD Desegregation Plan further provides that: J.App. 380 Id. at 380. Disciplinary records are kept on each student concerning suspensions and expulsions that note the reasons for punishment, the teacher or staff member involved, and the school, race, and sex of the student disciplined. Collection and assessment of this information allows the school principal, parents, and others to analyze the reasons for suspension by race and sex, and to determine if particular teachers or staff members are experiencing problems that require attention. The Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services shall submit a discipline report to the Superintendent, School Board and the Office of Desegregation at the end of each semester along with specific recommendations or suggestions for reducing the disproportionality. 4. The PCSSD Discipline Management System Among the goals set forth in the PCSSD Plan are the development of a \"district-wide school-based discipline management system\" . Id. at 312. This school based management system was to be developed with input from teachers, parents, and administrators. Id. On January 24, 1995, counsel for the District submitted to counsel for all of the other parties copies of the \"Pulaski County Special School District Discipline Management System Manual\" . PCSSD App. 10. Thereafter, the court having received no objections or comments, the Discipline Management Manual was filed with the District Court on February 15, 1995 pursuant to the Desegregation Plan. PC App. 11. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page one of the Discipline Management System sets forth information concerning the procedure that students and parents should utilize for the filing of grievances, which information could be obtained either from the principal or from the pupil personnel office. PC App. 13. Included in the introduction to the Discipline Management System are the following comments: PC App. 16. Few would argue that maintaining good discipline is a necessary precondition to establishing a school or classroom climate that is conducive to learning. That is a given. The real question is how to establish that discipline in such a way as to support learning and encourage growth in all the students. This presents no challenge to the teacher for 90 % of the students. The remaining ten percent of the students require more, not because they are bad or unteachable, but because they are growing up in a society that is more challenging than the socialization they receive. Also, they appear not to have the usual supports available to them (i.e., parental concern or support). As the society for which the children are being prepared becomes more complex, the percentage of children coming to school less than prepared for learning is bound to increase. It is a challenge that must be addressed. The major role of the school principal has changed from that of providing a place for teachers to teach to that of providing a climate for learning and an enthusiasm for the learning process. This includes creative attention to issues of discipline and a safe and orderly environment in the school and classroom. The manual goes on to state that: Despite all efforts at prevention, discipline problems inevitably occur. When a discipline problem does occur, the teacher needs to address the problem as quickly as possible. The first step is to implement the consequence associated with the rule violation as agreed to in the social contract. Being careful of nonverbal 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PC App. 21 . gestures and indicators, the consequence should be implemented quickly and without a great deal of fuss. When violations occur with great regularity, the class ought to be asked to assess the rule and see if something could be adjusted to reduce the number of occurrences. The manual is direct regarding the issue of suspension and expulsions: PC App. 22. Teachers are asked to explore and develop consequences that minimize the loss of school time for the student. Suspensions and expulsions should be considered only when every other avenue of correction has been exhausted, in keeping with the regulations established in the student handbook. This concept is reinforced elsewhere in the manual. PC App. 23. The campus administrators are asked to utilize the various levels of referrals to keep the student in school or to minimize the out-of-school time of the student short of expulsion. 5. PCSSD School-Based Discipline Management Program While the manual is a broad conceptual consensus outline developed by a biracial committee, the development of a discipline management program is individual for each campus: Each individual campus is encouraged to express its individual character in the development of the DMP. This manual expresses how the DMP should be organized. This version is offered as a model that seems to meet most of the goals set out for a discipline management plan. Under the leadership of the principal, each school community is expected to devise a plan that is uniquely theirs and that they can implement. It is expected to have a consensus of those involved in the planning process. It is also expected to address the mission of that school in regard to the discipline 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PC App. 27. management and how that school intends to carry out that mission with fairness and justice for all the students in its care. * * * The expectation of the campus DMP is that each year will bring about a decrease in the disparity between the white and black student populations in terms of disciplinary actions in that school. The data from school year 1994-1995 will be used as the benchmark in the evaluation of the impact of each campus DMP. Discipline-related data from the 1992-1993 school year is included in appendix 2. This data was used by the Discipline Management Committee to develop this document. The manual contains a procedure for assisting individual campuses whose progress lags behind those of other District campuses: PC App. 28. At the discretion of the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services and the Division of Instruction, a special team will be recruited from the staff of another school with similar problems which is making good progress. This team, under the supervision of the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services, will assist that staff in identifying the causes for the lack of progress and the ways these causes can be addressed. Toward the end of the manual, it is observed that: PC App. 32. The diversity of the school populations that the schools now serve requires the schools to rethink the issue of appropriate school behavior and to create a climate in which academic achievement can become a reality for all students. School appropriate behavior must be examined in light of the various cultural and racial groups comprising the school. Equity is an issue that must be considered in the conceptualization of alternative strategies. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6. The PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline The Joshua Intervenors, by their Robinson motion as well as their motion objecting to the ODM budget (and requesting additional OCM monitors), bypassed the procedures for challenging disciplinary action set forth in the PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline (the \"Handbook\"). PC App. 67-74. The Handbook, the reading of which must be acknowledged in writing by each student and his or her parent or guardian, (PC App. 68), provides two distinct grievance procedures: (1) those related to a student or parent filing a grievance under the desegregation policy set forth in the Handbook (PC App. 71); and (2) a complaint procedure for students or parents when a student is involved in a disciplinary ruling. PC App. 72. The Joshua Intervenors, however, did not utilize these procedures and filed their motion directly with the district court requesting relief. Joshua never employed the PCSSD's policy and procedures as set forth in the Handbook. 7. The \"Suspension Index\" for Assessing Discipline Outcomes A general \"suspension index\" has been developed by Dr. Charles Achilles, who served as an expert witness in the Wilmington, Delaware case and whose methodology was endorsed by Dr. Walberg in this case. (LRSD App. 373-375, 381-384). The index allows comparison of one district's suspension rate for minorities to other districts and to the national average. The PCSSD's index and Robinson's are both lower than the nationwide index of 2.0. The suspension indices for the past five years for the PCSSD system-wide have decreased from 1. 77 to 1.45 and for Robinson alone, have ranged from 1.88 to 1.35 for 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the same years.2 These indices are lower than those of school districts which have achieved unitary status. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Joshua Intervenors have appealed a number of rulings of the district court, to wit, the court's approval of the ODM budget and denial of their motion relating to Robinson High School. The Joshua Intervenors complain that their objections to the ODM budget were not properly considered, and that their request for additional ODM monitors should have been granted. The purported bases for their objections and requests are the \"achievement gap\" between white and minority students, and the alleged racial disparity in disciplinary treatment of minority students. Neither bases, however, withstands scrutiny. The testimony of experts appointed by the court in this case, and similar testimony in other cases where school districts have achieved unitary status, show that socioeconomic factors rather than current discrimination are the real reason why school children achieve at different rates and why some children are disciplined. In accepting this testimony, federal courts have found that, notwithstanding racial disparities, a school district may be in good faith compliance with its desegregation plan. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the ODM budget over the objections of the Joshua Intervenors. The Joshua Intervenors also challenge the district court's denial of their motion for ODM monitoring of Robinson High School. The court's denial, however, was soundly based 2 See nn. 6 \u0026 9, infra. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I upon a finding that Joshua was complaining about an individual personnel matter which should be left to the district to deal with according to its policies and procedures. The principal al:lout whom the Joshua Intervenors complained, in fact, resigned after the PCSSD was allowed to carry out its own business. Additionally, ODM did monitor Robinson High School and made recommendations to the administration and the school community. In essence, the Joshua lntervenors' motion and appeal are moot but, in any event, the district court did not err in denying their motion. ARGUMENT The focus of a District Court charged with monitoring implementation of a comprehensive remedial desegregation decree must be, as explained more fully infra, on the proper system-wide implementation of the components of the decree. Particularly when the decree, or in this instance the agreed Plans, contain discrete due process provisions for resolution of individual complaints or concerns, the District Court should have no reason to involve itself in individual student or patron complaints, or individual personnel matters, when the institutional process already exists to deal with those. Indeed, in any large institutional setting, there will always be some concern or outcome disagreement even if a remedial device, such as the Desegregation Plans agreed upon here, are implemented not only in good faith but even with near precision. For these and other reasons set forth below, the District Court's orders were correct and should be sustained. By their appeal, the Joshua lntervenors take issue with a number of the district court's orders, including (i) treatment of their requests for additional ODM monitors and objections 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I to the ODM Budget and (ii) denial of the Robinson motion. In support of their argument that the orders should be reversed, tbey point this Court to a number of \"facts\" which the district court either allegedly ignorrc or misinterpreted.3 Included are allegations of discriminatory treatment of black students in certain areas, primarily discipline, both systemwide and at PCSSD's Robinson High School, allegations which Joshua lays predominantly at the feet of the now resigned principal, Mr. Hoffman. J. App. 225. I. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPROVED THE ODM BUDGET NOTWITHSTANDING THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS This Court, in approving the Desegregation Plan in 1990, noted that it was the \"duty of the court, when fashioning a comprehensive remedy, to prescribe a level of relief . . . that will achieve integration to the maximum practicable extent. \" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1384 (8th Cir. 1990). That is what has been done here, and the PCSSD has implemented the remedy, the Desegregation Plan, as well as the Discipline Management System required by the Desegregation Plan. The problem, however, is that the Joshua Intervenors do not look to whether the plan has been implemented, achieving integration to the maximum practicable extent; rather, they focus not on implementation but outcomes which are not legally required. The Joshua lntervenors must recognize, as have courts in other jurisdictions when faced with 3 Some of these \"facts\" bear little or no relationship to the Joshua Intervenors' requests or objections. For present purposes, and given the nature of the record submitted by Joshua with this appeal, it is impossible for the PCSSD to refute the discrete individual allegations made concerning individual students. However, as we explain infra, under the law it is unnecessary for the PCSSD to do this. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I unreasonable expectations, that a desegregation plan cannot cure all of societies' ills, nor is it designed to do so: [T]here is nothing in the law which does or couk require equality in the results of educational services. . . . No school policy and no court order can assure any particular level of success in public schools any more than in any other aspect of life. Individual students will flunk, become disciplinary problems, drop out or otherwise fail to meet expectations for reasons wholly unrelated to race, ethnicity, and environment. Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 609 F. Supp. 1491, 1515 and 1498 (D. Colo. 1985)(\"Keyes XIV\")4. Thus, the Joshua Intervenors' objections to the ODM budget and the concomitant request for additional ODM monitors -- based upon their complaints concerning achievement gaps and allegedly racially disparate disciplinary actions -- were properly considered; the district court, however, did not err in approving the budget over the objections. As discussed below, a number of school districts nationwide have been granted unitary status in the face of less achievement under a desegregation plan than that exhibited by the PCSSD. Indeed, they were granted unitary status where there was an adjudication of liability, but where any disparities were found to be, not the vestiges of dual systems but, rather, of outside factors. Here, the PCSSD was released in 1989, pursuant to the PCSSD Settlement Agreement, from all liability for issues which had been raised, or which could have been raised. The Joshua Intervenors specifically agreed that there would be no further litigation other than proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or of the Desegregation Plans. PC App. 75-79. Thus, the PCSSD's obligations were only forward 4 For a complete procedural history of the Keyes litigation, see Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 902 F. Supp. 1274, n.1 (D. Colo. 1995). 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I looking, and it has fully complied with its obligations to the Joshua Intervenors and to the children it educates -- both minority and white -- to desegregate its school district according to Plan. A. The Joshua Intervenors Complaints Regarding Racial Disparities in Discipline Rates While there may, indeed, be statistical racial disparities in discipline rates, such disparities do not mean that the PCSSD has not properly implemented the Desegregation Plan. Indeed, other school districts across the country have achieved unitary status in the face of greater statistical disparities. 5 For example, in Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 902 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Colo. 1995), the court granted the Denver school district's motion to terminate jurisdiction in a longstanding desegregation case. It did so notwithstanding statistical racial disparities in discipline rates, noting that these differences -- among others -- are longstanding and seemingly intractable, but the mere existence of such differences does not identify them as 5 As noted by Judge Posner in People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, _, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7143 at *18 (7th Cir. 1996), \"[a]ffirmative decrees are a formula for protraction.\" Recent Supreme Court decisions, however, have provided new guidance for the district courts in bringing school desegregation cases to a close. See, ~. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992)(the district court's duties in the final phases of a desegregation case are to determine whether there has been compliance with the desegregation decree since it was entered and whether the vestiges of past discrimination were eliminated to the extent practicable). The constitutional authority of the federal courts does not include the power to posit any particular affirmative achievements. While the PCSSD relies upon the consistent outcomes of other significant desegregation cases across the nation, this Court should not interpret such reliance as any lack of resolve or commitment of the PCSSD to continue implementation of its Plan and to realize the best desegregation outcomes attainable, whether or not legally required. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I vestiges of the prior dual system. \"There are too many variables, including societal and socio-economic facts, to infer causation from prior unconstitutional conduct.\" Id. at 1300. Similarly, in Coaliti.on to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education, 901 F. Supp. 784, 817 and n.38 (D. Del. 1995), the Delaware district court, granting unitary status to the Wilmington, Delaware school districts, found that the disciplinary codes were not applied in a discriminatory manner and expressly rejected as \"skewed\" any statistics \"which do not account for the fact that a small core of students account for a large percentage of the disciplinary instances, i.e., the fact that black students may account for a greater proportion of suspensions than their proportion in the general student population is essentially meaningless if only a handful of black students is responsible for multiple suspensions.\" In Coalition, Dr. Charles Achilles, an expert, employed \"suspension indices\" accepted by the district court to test whether discipline was disproportionately applied to black students. He compared those numbers with the suspension data from the 1993 Office for Civil Rights data, and determined that the national suspension index for black students is 2.0, whereas the Wilmington black suspension index was 1.81.6 901 F. Supp. at 817. Applying Dr. Achilles' methodology, and using the 1995-96 suspension data for the PCSSD, the PCSSD has a suspension index of 1.45, well below either the Wilmington schools or the 6 The \"suspension index\" for black students is derived by dividing the percentage of black students suspended by the percentage of black enrollment. Dr. Achilles also looked at external data sets (i.e., the behavior of black students outside the districts, independent of the school districts). He also checked \"consistency\" to determine if the behaviors and the suspensions seemed to be consistent and, finally, he tested the \"discretion of the person in charge of the discipline\" to see whether discretion influenced the suspension indices. 901 F. Supp. at 817. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I national norm. Indeed, its index has been well below the national norm for the past five years. 7 Most recently, the Seventh Circuit, in ruling !U response to nine consolidated appeals, found racial disciplinary quotas to violate equity \"in its root sense.\" Commenting in the quota context, but fully applicable to the statistical complaints of the Joshua Intervenors here, the court stated: They entail either systematically overpunishing the innocent or systematically underpunishing the guilty. They place race at war with justice. People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, _, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7143 at *33. The incidents touted by the Joshua Intervenors are selective with respect to certain schools and certain individual students, and do not reflect the PCSSD's systemwide good faith compliance with the disciplinary provision of the Desegregation Plan. Indeed, the Pupil Personnel Annual Report Summaries indicate that for the past few years, disciplinary actions 7 Using Dr. Achille's formula of dividing the percentage of minority suspensions by the percentage of minority enrollment, the PCSSD has calculated the following system-wide suspension indices: 1995-96: 1994-95: 1993-94: 1992-93: 1991-92: 48 % minority suspensions + 33 % minority enrollment = 1.45 48% minority suspensions + 31 % minority enrollment = 1.55 51 % minority suspensions + 30 % minority enrollment = 1. 70 49 % minority suspensions + 29 % minority enrollment = 1. 69 48 % minority suspensions + 27 % minority enrollment = 1. 77 Utilizing PC App. 80-99. 15 I I I I "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1659","title":"Court filings: District Court, supporting documents","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":["1997-07-02"],"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--20th century","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Pulaski County Special School District","Joe T. Robinson High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","School management and organization","School discipline","Students","Student suspension","Student expulsion"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, supporting documents"],"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/1659"],"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":["140 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. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 R Ec1:111,:D JUL 2 - 1997 DESEGRJFF!CE OF TION MONiTORJNG NOTICE OF FILING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Please take notice that the PCSSD is filing the following documents as part of the record in this case: 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Climate Analysis Process and Climate of Robinson High School, both performed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring this Spring. 2. A portion of the minutes of the Board of Directors meeting of the PCSSD dated May 13, 1997. 3. Letter dated January 24 , 1995 from counsel for the PCSSD to all other counsel in the case. 4. Pertinent portions of the PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline, 1996-97, Secondary Edition . 5. Portions of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised September 28, 1989, including pages 19 and portions of the attached PCSSD release. 6. Pertinent portions of the 1995-96 Pupil Personnel Services Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 7. Pertinent portions of the 1994-95 Pupil Personnel Services Annual Report ' describing discipline outcomes. 8. Pertinent portions of the 1993-94 Pupil Personnel Services Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 9. Pertinent portions of the 1992-93 Pupil Personnel Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 10. Pertinent portions of the 1991-92 Pupil Personnel Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 11. Letter dated May 16, 1997 from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to Mr. John W. Walker regarding climate analysis at Robinson High School. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 ' ,,-?\"' / By  ,, , ~-----1, -( -- --- M. Samuel Jones III (16060) Attorney~ for PU-Hiski County 8.peci--arschool District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 2, 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ODM CLIMATE ANALYSIS PROCESS The ODM climate analysis process occurred in six steps: 1. Collecting and Analyzing Archival Data To develop a statistical picture of Robinson High School, ODM examined archival data that included attendance zone maps, census tract demographics. enrollment reports, school profiles. quarterly discipline records, and extracurricular participation rates. We also studied the school CO E. (Creating Opportunities for Excellence) staff, student, and parent survey results. 2. Site Observations A team of ODM monitors formally visited Robinson twice, and individual monitors returned to the school on other occasions for interviews and observations. We observed a total of 44 classes, representing eleven disciplines (such as math, social studies, etc.) and four activities (such as basketball. cheerleading, etc.). We stayed in individual classrooms from 30 to 60 minutes or lo nger. noting the physical environment (such as visuals. facilities, seating patterns, etc.). instructio nal approaches, and the nature of student-to-student and student-to-teacher interactions. \\Ve also watched the interplay among students, staffs, and administrators during the morning bus arrival, class changes, and lunch. Additionally. we observed student interaction during one home basketball game when the boys and girls varsity teams played Lonoke High School. 3. Interviewing School Staff. Students, and Parents ODM interviewed randomly selected staff, students. and parents. We asked interviewees about their perceptions of interactions among various groups at Robinson and about their opinions of the strengths and weaknesses of the school. :\\1onitors conducted one-on-one interviews with 39 randomly selected students (approximately l ')0/o of the student body). Over half of the student interviewees ( 54%) were white and 460 \\\\ ere black Based on a random drawing, monitors identified and interviewed 16 staff members (31 % of th e total staff). Blacks comprised 31 % of staff interviewees and whites 69%. We talked to teachers. cafete ria workers, office staff, and paraprofessionals, as well as the principal and assistant principal. 0 OM conducted parent interviews by phone. We randomly generated a list of 43 parents. representing both black and white parents from various geographic areas within the Robinson attendance zone. The list also included the parents of majority-to-minority transfer students who lived in adjacent school districts. Overall, 26% of the parents we interviewed were black and 7 4% were white. - 4. Organizing the Finding, After gathering information from the various sources, we grouped our findings into broad categories (such as geography, leadership, etc.) Each individual monitor assumed responsibility for various categories and converted the data into a series of comprehensive summaries. 5. Reaching Conclusions Working in concert, the ODM monitors drew conclusions by identifying patterns across the data summaries and drawing connections bet.veen various pieces of information. We focused most of our conclusions on broad themes rather than individual behaviors and incidents. 6. Making Recommendations Finally, ODM developed a series of recommendations based directly on our findings. We attempted to make the recommendations as broad as possible in order to address more than one specific finding. The recommendations are applicable to the Robinson High School community as well as the PCSSD central administration. and are offered as suggestions for improving the school environment not only at Robinson, but at other schools in the district. CLIMATE OF ROBlNSON HIGH SCHOOL Strengths (Identified by Staff, Students, and Parents)  The students themselves. especially their comradery and good interpersonal relations Diversity of the student body (race. socioeconomic status. geographic are:i) Small size of school and local community Racial integration of the school An environment that is safe  Many involved parents Parents feel welcome at the school Teachers who care about their students and work hard Positive relationships between the students and staff Some strong relationships among staff members The academic program Block scheduling Sports  A strong program for students with special needs A strong administration An administration that has improved the academic program and established a safe environmem Strong discipline Additional Strengths (Identified by ODM) Well-maintained facility that is attractive and welcoming Orderly environment Students who are friendly and respectful Cooperative administration, staff, students, and parents Most classes are racially integrated Some good teaching practices Additional factors that have contributed to the climate at Robinson High School Geography The Robinson attendance zone is far ranging and very diverse, with a student enrollment that also includes M-to-M transfer students from various neighborhoods. \\\\-rule such diversity is a strength of the school, it is also a potential barrier to maintaining a cohesive school community. Expectations The principal expected to have the latitude to make changes as he saw fit. The pn11cipal believed he had been hired to increast! order at Robinson High. Prior to his arrival. the school had experienced disc1pli11e problems. racial conflict, and loss of e11rollmelll. The staff did not expect sweeping changes. Staff seemed pleased wiih the increased order and discipline established in the las! !WO and half years, bm they were not so pleased w1th other changes i11st1wted by the principal. The adve11t of block scheduling caused greaI co11stematio11. While there was general support for the co11cept, staff felt they did not have mough say i11 the decision. Issues related to the scheduli11g of athletics and spint teams caused a rremendous rift between some staff. parents, and rhe adm1msrraao11. The principal' s values and Robinson s traditions represented a culture clash. The prmcipal sought ro increase the emphasis on academics a11d achrevemenc, b111 many teachers believe he did so at the expense of Robinson rradiuons. Sports have been very important lO Robinson studellls. parents. and teachers. Attendance at sporting evellls was often the on(v school-related acuvrty reported by parents m our imervrft'r11s. i\\,fany members of the school community perceived the pnnc1pal as anti-athletic. One student said she thought the admi11istration was trying to /Um Robi11so11 imo \"something rt is not . ..  The PCSSD did not plan for change at Robinson High If the district had made effons to help facilitate the leadership rransrtion at the school. many of the current problems could have been avoided or at least m111imi:ed The dismct should have worked closely with the prrnc1pal to help acquaint him with the traditional culture and values at the school. If the district expected the pri11c1pal to make changes at Robinson, they should have articulated this charge to the staff and parents as well. Leadership The principal' s leadership style was perceived as autocratic by many of the staff, students, and parents. Many staff members felt they were not involved in the decision-making process within the school. , Trust has become frai.tile or non-existent between some individuals and groups. Wt! rept!at11dly ht!ard comments that reveall:!d various levels of distn1st between the administration and many staff members. as well as among some staff A minimum of infonnal inter:iction between the principal and many of the school's students, staff, and parents has contributed to perceptions that the principal was generally distant and aloof Some pi:!ople told us that the principal was seldom in the halls or cafeteria to mingl11 with st11dents and staff Others hi:!li11ved that the prmcrpal was oftm away from the school during the day or that he declined to participate in some school activities. especially athletic events. The few opportumtiesfor informal imeraction wrdened the distance between the principal and members of the school community. A lack of general collegiality has characterized the relationship between the principal and most staff members, contributing to a general lack of cohesiveness that has inhibited communication. understanding, trust, respect, shared work goals, and mutual support. Th11 school's admimstrators and faculty have not bonded well either as professional colleagues or as informal associates. Building positive relationships is work that requires time, attention. shanng, and muwal support on the part of all involved. Some staff. students, and parents have sensed a racial undercurrent at Robinson and perceived that racial prejudice has been a negative factor in some interactions. They be!il:!ved that racial prep1dice has impeded objective decision-making and caused inequitable trearmem of soml:! individuals and groups. Problem Solving ).\"o mechanism has been in place at Robinson to anticipate problems and head them off Small problems and disagreements between the administration and staff members were not addressed early on, so some small problems escalated into much larger ones. Few. if any outlets, were available for the adrninimation and staff to vent frus-trations and concerns without going through the formal grievance process. 01her rhan 1he Jonna! gnevance process, 111dividuals who were dissansfied had few opnons for ventmg 1hetr frustrations or solving 1he1r problems. Eventually neganw feelings compounded mlSt de1enorated. anger 1tscalated, and a tense atmosphere prevaJ/ed; some individuals l:!ven acted on a desire /0 retaliate. Many staff members perceived that central office administrators did not give adequate attention to the problems developing at Robinson nor did they provide direction and support for solving problems until they had grown to enonnous proportions. No staff development or any other kind of meaningful intervention was initiated early on to assist the school's administrators or staff in resolving the problems they were facing. Even !hough leaders at both Rohinson and the central office were aware !hat the school was experiencing serious difficulties, they did not quickly move lo objectlvely analy:e the problems or set about fixing them. Professionalism Many members of the staff manifested inappropriate professional behavior by individually soliciting parent and student involvement in their controversy with the principal. 'v(aJ1y srajj members, parents, and swdents were distressed by the pressure they received to take sides on issues. Some starf members have shown favoritism to certain students and parents. Some swdents and parents 1:xpressed 1ea/011sy, resenrment. and a sense that everyone co11/J11 't expect fair, 11qwtable rrearment. They perceived that some people were shown javonusm based 011 race or soc10economrc status. Instructional Quality Teachers exhibited uneven instructional performance. We found some classes that were well orgam:ed with motivarional teachers and involved studems, hlll in too many other classes we smv disengaged st11d11111s and teachers who were not presennng mformat1011111 an engagmg way. In a few cases. we found teachers who had a poor grasp of rhe basic comem of the course they were teach111g.  A number of te:ichers made poor use of instructional time. We saw maJTy teachers that seemed to be havlllg some rro11b!e adj11sring to the longer class periods afforded by block scheduling. The extended time period should have allowed for more ac11ve swdenr leam111g. but some teachers were su!l spending an ho11r or more lecwnng. In some classes. teachers S.:f!med 10 \"coast\" durmg the last 30 mmwes of class rime, usmg nomma!!y re/el'CI!ll matena/s 10 .fill nme. While teachers sel!med 10 be srn,gg!ing to .fill class lime wuh meaJ1mgf11I !eannng act1v111es, some pare ms comp/al/led that swdents did not have enough learning nme during the school day, and that the teachers did not have llme to adequately exp/am new concepts. Some classes were lacking in order and control. Whzle most classes were orderly, af(?W were dramatic excep110ns. We noted classes where no one seemed to be in charge: consequem!y, no learning could rake place. Student Behavior Some srudent behaviors may indicate a backlash against school rules that students have perceived as too restrictive. For example. fo//(J'Wing their lunch period, students left the cafeteria in a deplorable state. Much of the mess appeared to be the result of conscious neglect. We saw uneaten food, large m,mbers of unused napkins strewn on 1he floor, half-filled plastic cups, and ketcfn,p smeared across tables and chairs. Cafeteria workers said some swdents Jon 't appear 10 feel it's /heir responsibility to pick up after themselves when lunch is over. Although we saw adults supervising in the cafeteria. few of them encouraged student to bus their own 1ab{es before leaving. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Work to establish an atmosphere of collegiality and the re.1liry of teamsmanship among the entire staff Collegialiry ,s fosr2red by a number of factors, including agreement 011 common values aJ1d goals: respect for the ideas and comnhutions of fellow workers: /2adersh1p that elicits and s11pporrs a s2ns2 of teamsmanship: and opporwmtiesfor i11forma/ interaction that allows co-workers to feel comforrahle wirh 011e anorher and develop a ge1111i11e se11se of connectedness a11d caring 2. Bring together existing school organizations (such as staff committees, student council, equity committee, etc ) to squarely confront both the perception and reality of racism and other prejudices and work to eliminate them. Recog11i:mg that prejudice and bigotry are teamed, use inservice rraining. swdent workshops, open andjrank disc11ssio11, multicultural opporru11ities in the curriculum, staff retreats, behavior modeling, and all other available means to eliminate biased behavior and atti wdes. 3. The PCSSD should de\\e!op both a fonnal system for regularly assessing school climate and a process for delling with conflict within a school community.  The key to a posime school envrronment is wg,lmu monitoring of the factors that comprise the climate and addressing problems before they escalare. !11 addition. an organi:ed approach to d2aling wirh co11J7icts wirhm individual schools will help solve probl2ms before they are playd out in the evening news. 4. The district administrar;on should support a summer retreat for the Rci:inson staff led by a skilled, outside professional. A summer rerreat or series of retreats will allow the Robinson stafj an opporru111ry to reflect m1d leamfrom recent experrences. 1dennfy changes they need to make, and commll to overcoming the problems that have divided them. 5 All stakeholders at Robinson (parents, students. administration, support staif. facuity. and PCS SD administrators) should work together to deve!cp a vision for the sc:1001' s short and long tenn future. 6 Develop and implemem a staff development program on communication skills Bnng in tramers 1~1th a proven track record in the area of orgam:auonal a11d crosscultural communrcanon. Thrs r;,pe of tramrng should be an ongoing actmry ratha than the one shot,. i11oculat1on approach. 7. Provide more staff training on effective time management and varied instructional approaches for the 90 minute periods offered through block scheduling. 8. Consider collaborating with the staffs of other secondary schools in central Arkansas who have had a history of successfully implementing block scheduling. 9. Plan additional staff development for teachers who need skill development (such as classroom management techniques). Io. rn selecting the next principal. take care to match the vision. strengths. needs. culture. and expectations of the school community with the skills. style. vision. and expectations of the prospective principal. 11 . The school PTO and Equity Committee should jointly establish a plan of act ion to deve!op a more inclusive school community 12. The staff should involve student representatives in the fonnulation of school-based rules and policies. 13 . Staff members and srudent leaders should present a united front to encourage the student body to exhibit more responsible beha,ior toward maintaining a clean school en,ironment. P.2 A.DDENDVM  BOARD OF EDUCAUON MEETING MAY13, 1997 !;!,_EMENT4,RY ELFCTIQNS Wendy Case Resource To Be Assigned Nicole Robinson ElemcntarY To Be ASSigned SECONDARY ELfCTJONS Richard Allen Bishop Jacksonville Jr. High Art Rel'.)lacing: Richard Alan Llsemby Transferred to Social Stu.dies BESIGNATJQNS Brenda Groce (Priroa.ry) Temporary Oakbcook.e Elemenwy Andrea Knapp (Kindergarten) Temporary Sherwood Elemenwy Julie Rasmuson (Biology/Chemistry/Coach) Robinson High Ralph Hoffman (Principal) Robinson High School Searcy. AR; Certification: Special Ed. BA  Harding University at Searcy ,AR Experience: None Beginning: August 14, 1997 Warren, AR; Cettification: Elementary BS  U of A at Pine Bluff, AR Experience: None Beginning: August 14, 1997 Mtn. View, AR; Certification: Art K-12 BS Hardini University at Searcy, AR Experience: Two and ooc half (2-1/2) years outside the District \u0026ginning: August 14, 1997 June 17, 1997 June 17, 1997 June 17, 1997 June 6, 1997 EOWARO L . WRIGMT i I 903-t 977) ROBERT S LINOSEY WRIGHT. LINDSEY 8: JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 tl 91J.!991J RONALD A MAY IS AA.C A. SCOTT JR .;AMES M MOODY JOM N G LILE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 7 2 20 I 3699 GORD(\" t;RATHER. JR TERR)' THEWS DAVID .JWELL ROGER ..., GLASGOW C OOUGLAS BUFORD. JR PATRICK J GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS JR JOI-IN R flSDALE KATMLYN GRAVES '-t SAMUEL JON ES ill JOHN -N IL.LIAM SPIVEV IU LEE J MULDROW WENDELL L GRIFFEN N M NORTON. JR EDGAR J TVLER CHARLES C PRICE CHARLES T COLEMAN JAMES J GLOVER EDWIN L . LOWTHER. JR BEVERLY BAS SETT SCHAFFER CHARLES L SCHLUMBERGER SAMMY( L TA.VLOR WALTER E. MAV Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms. Christopher Heller Stephen Jones John W. Walker Richard Roachell Ann Brown Elizabeth Boyter ( 501 ) 371-0808 FA.X 1!5011 376,9442 OF COUNSEL ALS TON JENNING S GEORGE E LUSK J R January 24, 1995 A.N,.,.( I-IIR A I GIB S ON CRECORV T .JON ES M ~EIT,_. '4QRR ISON BETTINA E BRO'o'fNSTE JN H.-.LiER \"'4 CS P.-.OOEN ROGER O ROWE NA \"CY BELLHOUSE MAY JQl-+N O DAVIS .. UOY S IMMONS HE'-IRY K IMBERLV WOOO T'JCKER '4ARK L PRYOR RAY F COX JR H-'RRY 5 ,..URST J R TROY A PRICE P'-i'qlC IA SI E V ERS LEHALLEN J A\"'4E5 M \"\"1000Y JR t\u003cATMRYN A PRYOR J '4AR,\u003c DAVIS C!..A IRE SNOWS HANCOCK l\u003c(V IN -H ,\u003c(NNEOY \"'4ARI( A ROGERS J ERRY J SALLINGS M TOCO WOOD R GREGORY ACLIN FRED M PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON M ICH AEL O SARNES STE.='HEN R i..ANCASTE\"' FRED ANDREW WOOD JUOV \"4 ROBINSON BETS Y MEACHAM AIN SLEY H LANG Re: Pulaski County Special School District Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed for each of you are copies of the Pulaski County Special School District Discipline Management System Manual together with a copy of Memorandum of Unqerstanding between the District and PACT dated January 12,. 1995. Bill Bowles tells me that our desegregation plan requires, and that we previously indicated to the Court, that we would first develop this system, then share it with the parties and, assuming no significant opposition, then file it with the Court. MSJ/jhs Enclosures JlullJOS.030 Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY f- omuel Jones, \u0026 JENNINGS III HANDBOOK FOR STUDENT CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE ~~~~~~- /: : ' ----', .. \"------,.,i .. ',: . ' .. ~ 1996-97 SECONDARY EDITION  w z :J 0 w ~ a: 0 u.. a: w a.. c., z g \u003c( I u ~ w 0 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PARENT-STUDENT STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY Student Name Date The statement below must be signed and returned to the homeroom teacherw1thIn one (1) week after the student receives ,t. If. after one ( 1) week. the student has not returned the form. he will not be permitted to attend class until he does comply. We have read the PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline and although we may not agree with all the regulations, we understand that the student must adhere to them while he ,s at school or In attendance at school sponsored activ1t1es. In the event that we are not entirely certain of some aspect of school policy, we w,11 contact the principal for clarification w1th1n one (1) week after receipt of that policy. Student Signature ParenVGuardian Signature Date State law (6-18-502. 6-18-505) requires documentation of student and parent receipt of student d1sc1pline polIcIes. This document will be included in the records packet for students transferring w1th1n Pulaski County Special School District .  TO THE STUDENTS: This document has been prepared for the purpose of outlining to you the expectations of the Pulaski County Special School District ,n regard to student conduct. The District recognizes that students are guaranteed full rights of c1t1zensh1p by the United States Const1tut1on; and these rights may not be denied except in accordance with due process of law. The District further recognizes that with these rights there are respons1bli1t1es which are designed to help all part1c1pants acquire the full benefits of the educational program, regardless of race. sex. creed or national origin. It 1s 1mposs1ble to list in this Handbook all of the rules and guidelines for student and staff use. Therefore. the contents of this Handbook should not be construed to limit or deny your rights and respons1b1ht1es on your own campus as a member of the student body or as a c1t1zen. Neither should the Handbook be construed as limiting or denying your principal the right and respons1b11ity to develop such necessary rules and regulations that are not 1ncons1stent with federal and state laws and Board of Education policies and regulations. Each student will receive a copy of the policy Handbook, and will be required to sign a statement of receipt. ii  Eddie Collins Assistant Superintendent Pup,! Personnel Services WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR STUDENT CONDUCT? Freedom 1s a constttut1onal nght. but it does not mean the absence of reasonable rules and regulations which serve to guide the actions of 1nd1v1duals. Along with freedom comes the respons1b1ltty to act In such a manner as to insure that all part1c1pants may en1oy the same freedom. To obtain the greatest possible benefit to the students, teachers. adm1n1strators, parents. Board of Education and ti'le entire community. 1t ,s essential that all work together to insure that all persons are treated equally and with d1gn1ty 1n respect to their rights and respons1b1htIes. Students Students have the respons:01hty to pursue their education tn the Pulaski County Special School O1stnct In a manner thats ows respect for other students. acuity members. parents and other c,tIzens. Students shot;ld be aware that they have a respons1b1'.1ty o cooperate with and ass,st tne school s a~ ,n the orderly and erf1c:ent conduct of he schoo1s by abiding by rules and regulations established by the Board of Education and r.e school of attendance. and implemented by teachers and school aom,nistrators. Each student 'S respors1ble for his own conduct at all times. Parents or Guardians Parents should carefully ,ead the pages of this handbook and assume a ,ead1ng role ,n ad IsIng their children of appropriate and inappropriate behavior at school. Parents should stress he r:,portance of a good educatton and conduct necessary to achieve ,t. Without the support of tne parents/guardians. this attempt o promote good c1t1zensh1p and success ,n ,,fe may not succeed and the student will be the one to suffer the consequences of struggling though 1fe ., 1 r:out benefit of an educauon. Arkansas Law 6-15-.116. 6- 5 . .1 7 establishes a penalty not to exceed 550 plus court costs and reasonable fees for any parent who fails to attend a student conference to discuss his child's failure to achieve mastery level periormance on a basic competency test at grade levels 6 and 8. Fa,lure on the part of the student's parents to attend the conference or o arrange another t,rr,e for he conference sub1ects them to the c1v1l penalty. Arkar,sas Law 6- 7-106 states that any person who shall abuse or ,nsult a public school teacher while hat teacher ,s performing normal and regular or assigned school respons,b1hlieS shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction be liable for a fine of not ,ess than 5100 nor rrore than S1 .500. o urauthor,zed person 1non-stt;dent) shall purposely en er or remain unlawfully tn a scnoot venIc:e or on the schaol premises. ICrim1nal respass - A.C.A 5-39-203) Teachers All eacrers are responsible for the superv,s,on of he bel-iav1or of all the students .n re sc,..col. This includes not only the s udents who are regularly ass:gred to the teacner. but all ot;,er students ~J1th ,1,hom the teacher comes 1n contact. Each teacher s expected to rna,nta1n the kind of atmospr,ere and decorum which will promote the learning crocess. and to ut11,ze sound :ecr-r1ques :ih1ch seem appropriate. These techniques ,nclude conferences mth students ar,o parents. referral o counse,ors at the school or referral to other supportive service personre of tre Oistnct rnurse. attendance caseworker. educational examiner. psycho1og1st). Wren re teacher 'S unable o assist the student to maintain proper controls of ,s benav1or. the stwdent s o be referred to the appropriate adrrnnistrator 1n the school.  , I School Administrators An administrator of each school will disseminate and explain to all students at the beginning of the school year, and will d1ssem1nate to each new student upon reg1strat1on. the rules and regulations currently in effect for that school. In developing rules and regulations the administrator Is expected to involve representatives. of the teaching staff. the student body and the patrons of the school. The administrator of each school is responsible for conducting continued inservice education for all personnel on a regular basis to interpret and implement established policies. Each principal. or the princ1pal's des,gnee. ,s authorized to assign students to detention. to work detail. to probation status and to suspend or to recommend the expulsion of students. The principal ,s expected to inform the parents or guardians of any student whose behavior ,s in serious conflict with established laws, rules and procedures. Superintendent The Superintendent ,s responsible for exercIsIng leadership ,n establishing all necessary procedures. rules and regulations to make effective t e Board of Education policies relating to standards of student behavior. * * * * * Board of Education The Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District. acting through the Superintendent. holds all school employees responsible for the supervision of the behavior of students while legally under the supervision of the school. The Board expects all employees to be concerned with student behavior and when and where unacceptable behavior occurs. to take appropriate action. * * * * * Nondiscrimination It ,s the policy of the Pulaski County Special School D1stnct to provide equal opportunities without regard to race, color. national origin, sex. age. qualified handicap or veteran ,n ,ts educational programs and act1vItIes. educational services. financial a,d and employment. Inquiries concerning application of this policy may be referred o: Director of Desegregat1on/EquIty Coordinator 925 East Dixon Road/PO. Box 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216 Telephone Number: 490-2000. Extension 205 In keeping with the requirements of federal la.v. state law and aoolicable court order, the District w,11 stnve to remove any vestige of d1scnm1natIon ,n the employment. assignment and promotion of personnel: ,n educational opportunities and services offered students: ,n student assignment o schools and classes: ,n student discipline. and, ,n location and use of fac1lit1es. Furttier. the D1stnct will make special efforts to employ and advance women. blacks and handicapped persons. (Board Policy Code AC) Any student. or parent, who feels aggrieved urder the aoove policy may secure 1nformat1on concerning filing grievance procedures from the principal of a D1str:ct scrool or from ttie office of the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services. * * * * * Student Procedure for Filing Sexual Harassment Complaints It ,s me policy of the district that none of ,ts s:L.dents 11111 be sub1ec:ed to sexual :iarassment 'Jy any school employee, including teachers and administrators. any ,olunteer or any v1s1tor 2  * * * * * Alternative School The Pulaski County Special School District has an Alternative Learning Center for students in grades 7 through 12. It Is designed to serve the needs of those students whose educational needs are not met by trad1t1onal programs. The primary goal of the program ,s to help students develop and maIntaIn the academic. social and behavior skills they need to function successfully ,n school and in society. Grievance - Due Process Students have the right to be Immed1ately informed of alleged vIolat1ons of standards of behavior as estaol,shed by Board poilcy and/or school regulations. and to be informed of appeal procedures. Students have the respons1b1l1ty to know and obey school rules. to express gnevances ma ool1te and hoso1table manner. and to give parents correct information concerning misconduct. Pnnc1oals and teachers have the respons1b11ity to follow Board established procedures ,n d1sc1plmary actions against students. Principals are responsible for nottfymg and confernng with parents and students m cases mvolvmg suspension and expulsion recommendations. Parents have the respons1b1l1ty to calf pnnc1pals for conference when needed. and to arrange with proper school authont1es for desired student hearings. * * * * * Student Complaints It a student and the parent of a student involved In a dIsc1plinary ruling wish to contest a d1sc1plinary ruling or a cond1t1on or ci "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1634","title":"Court filings concerning motion for an award of attorneys' fees, PCSSD strike issue, ADE semiannual monitoring report and executive summary","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":["1997-07"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration","School employees","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning motion for an award of attorneys' fees, PCSSD strike issue, ADE semiannual monitoring report and executive summary"],"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/1634"],"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, three Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motions for enlargement of time; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to the Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in response to the Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in response to the LRSD's petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to the response of Little Rock School District (LRSD) to its petition for attorneys' fees and interest; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) semiannual monitoring report and executive summary; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) amended reply to the response of Little Rock School District (LRSD) to its petition for attorneys' fees and interest; Court of Appeals, petition for additional time; Court of Appeals, entry of appearance; District Court, order  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. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECE~ /~r; - DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL . J~1 ~ ;  - 1997 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT I ET AL. OFFICE OF PCS SD MOTION FOR ENLARGO!~{ijM'{'WJ !~friOO/NG INTER VENO RS The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. Presently pending before the Court is the response of th/ LRSD to the PCSSD motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees concerning the \"pooling\" issue. Due to the impending holiday weekend, the PCSSD requests additional time to and including July 14 to reply. 2. Counsel for the LRSD has no objection to this extension of time. WHEREFORE, PCSSD prays for an extension of time to and including July 14, 1997 in which to reply to LRSD's response to the PCSSD motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By .. r. __ , M. Samuel Jones III (76060) Attorneys for Pulaski County Special __ ,.,.School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July ___ , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III a J: Es lfED JUL 7 - 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. Presently pending before the Court is the motion of thEf Joshua Intervenors seeking an award of attorneys' fees concerning - the PCSSD strike issue. Due to the impending holiday weekend and the issues raised in the Joshua's motion, the PCSSD requests additional time to and including July 14 to respond. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (S01) 371-0808 By '-----;27-r. -~~ __ ,,-- M. Samue+ Jones ;rII (76060) - 1?-ttorn~ fok..../ Pulaski County \u003c_______~ School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 3 , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 07 10 97 15:.?3 LJP I GHT, LI I l[1SE',' . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LI7TLE ROCK SCSOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SP~CIAL SC~OOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION FOR i;-NLARGEMEN:' OF TIME PLAINTI:::'F DEFC:NDAK'I'S J::-JTERVEl\\ORS IJ:1;'7ERVEKORS ':'he P.1laski County Special School Jistrici: ( \"PCSSJ\") fol:' its motion states: , Prese:1i:l21 pending: be:'o::-e ~he Cour: :.s LRS'J' s :no~.:.or: for attorneys' feee and costs perta:ni~g to the 0 pool:~g'' issue. 2. So:;i.e of :.he issues raised ir1 :he LRSD' s CT',o~:on are s:milar to the :ssues ra1sed a~d pend:~g in ~RSD's ~sspcr.se to c~e PCSSD motion seeking an awa=d of atcor~eys' fees o~ the same issue. 7te reply to the response :s due on Mor.day, cu_y 14, 1997. 3. Due to the related nature of these pending ~otio~s, the PCSSD requests additional time to and !nc:ud::1g July 14, 1997 in which to respond to LRSD's motion. 4. Counsel for the LRSD has no cbjecticn to ~his exte~s:on of tiIT\",e. WHEREFORE, PCS SD prays for an exce:1sicr: of t:1r.1e to and includ:~g July 14, :997 in which to ree9ond to the ~~SD ~otion :or 15:2J .~E: ,lill/Ci3 - attorneys' fees and coats. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, :,I~DSEY \u0026 JE!\\-:-JIKGS 200 West Capitol Ave~~e suite 2200 Litt:e Rock, Arkansas 72201 -3699 (501) 371-0808 '-- , .. - I \\ By ) ----:\u003e--..  \u003c- '- '- ';--_, ~- Samuel Jones rr:' (76060) Attorneys,,/ for ,..,.-Pulaski Coc.nty Sp_e_c_i_a ...] ,_/:Schcol Cistr.:.c'::. CcRT!FICATE CF SE~v:cs 1~ , 199~, a copy o! t~e fores=i~g was served by U.S. mail on t~e fol:owing. Mr. Joh~ W. Wal~er ~ctn W. wa:ker, F.A. 1 723 Brcaci,.;ay ~itt:e Roe~, AR 72201 Mr. Chr:s:oor.er Heller Friday, ~~d~edge \u0026 C~ark 2000 First Cc~~ercia~ Buildi~g Little Rock, Arka~sas 72201 ODM Heritage West Blcig., Ste. 510 201 Eas: Xarkham Stree~ Lit~le Rock, Arka~sas 722Cl ~r. Richard~- Roachell Koac~e:: anc Street F:rst Federa: Pla~a 401 ~- Caci:~:. s~~ce 524 Litc~e KoCk, ~r~a~sas 722~1 ~r . ::~ot~y Ga~ger Ass:sta~t At:or~ey Ge~eral 323 Cen'::.s= S;ree'::., Suite 20 ~it~le Rock, A=kaneas 72201 Mr. Stephe~ ~. ~ones 3400 :'CBY Tcwe1: 425 West Capitol A~enue Litt!e Rock, Ar~ansas 7220: I) M. Sa:r.ue:. :II -- ----- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~!lErJJ ~S DISTRICT COURT EAST::i,,'i Cc STRICT fa.RKANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK Plaintiff, * By.~.!~ vs. * No. LR-C-82-866  oep CLERK * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEIVED Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * JUL 1 5 1997 Intervenors, * * OFFICE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG Intervenors. * QB.DER Before the Court is a motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") requesting an extension of time in which to respond to the Joshua Intervenors' motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees in regard to the PCSSD strike issue. Also before the Court is a motion filed by the PCSSD requesting an extension of time in which to file a reply to the Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") response to the PCSSD's motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees in regard to the \"pooling\" issue. In both motions, the PCSSD requests an extension of time to and including July 14, 1997. The PCSSD has indicated in its motion that the LRSD has no objection and has orally indicated to this Court that the Joshua Intervenors have no objection to this request. For good cause shown, this Court grants the PCSSD's motions for extension of time. The PCSSD has to and including July 14, 1997, in which to file its response to the Joshua Intervenors' motion for attorneys' fees in regard to the strike issue and its reply to the LRSD's response to the - PCSSD's motion for attorneys' fees in regard to the pooling issue. Jit 0 2 5. ,r/'- IT IS SO ORDERED THIS // day of July 1997. 'll/ ) , r . ,1 :;:/7 ~/4 11,,-/.._,J... UNITED STATES DISTRI~ JUDGE Tttl IXDME.0- OOEREO ON DOCKET IHET ~ C~E ~TH RULE 58 ANc;}J8~RCf \u003cMl 1 ~1  1 av ~ 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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. RECEIVED JUL 1 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\"), for its response to the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Attorneys' Fees in connection with the PCSSD strike issue, states: 1. The basis asserted by the Joshua Intervenors for a fee award is without merit and their petition should be denied. 2. The Joshua Intervenors seek an award of fees relating to an issue which was litigated by and between the PCSSD and the Knight Intervenors (which included PACT, the striking teacher body). 3. The Joshua Intervenors' reliance on Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997) and Association of Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 1996) is misplaced. 4. The Joshua Intervenors do not meet the requirements of \"defending\" their \"remedy\" as set forth in Jenkins and Schafer. Their limited participation in the post-judgment - litigation between the PCSSD and PACT was not in furtherance of enforcing the underlying desegregation obligations of the PCSSD. 5. The Joshua Intervenors' own petition for fees states that they filed a memorandum opposing the equitable relief sought by the PCSSD, arguing that \"[m]oreover, resolution of the contract dispute between the teachers and the District is not a desegregation obligation covered by the settlement agreement.\" Joshua Motion for Fees, 12 (emphasis added). 6. This is the position taken by counsel for the Joshua Intervenors at the strike hearing on August 28, 1996. 7. As argued by the Joshua Intervenors, the Settlement Agreement was not implicated in the teachers' strike. The Eighth Circuit, on appeal, held that the teachers' strike was not covered by the Settlement Agreement or Desegregation Plan. LRSD v. PCSSD, F.3d (8th Cir. 1997). 8. The Joshua Intervenors' request for fees does not fall within the parameters for an award under either Jenkins or Schafer. 9. The Joshua Intervenors cannot simply label themselves the prevailing party whenever other parties litigate a matter, and request and expect an award of fees. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD respectfully requests that this Court deny the Joshua Intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys fees in its entirety. 2 Respectfully submitted: WRJGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 - ' ----- ' (; ~ By ----:--;i ~, . -:- - \\.__ . '---'-- M. Samuel Jone , III (76060) Claire Shows ancock ~013) Attorn~s. for the Pulaski County Special Scnoof District No. 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July_, 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samlle1-Jo,, III . i ) 3 -----/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECE]VED \\JUL 1 4 1997 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\") submits this brief in response to the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Attorneys' Fees in connection with the PCSSD strike issue. The basis asserted by the Joshua Intervenors for a fee award is, simply put, without merit and their petition should be denied. ARGUMENT The Joshua Intervenors seek an award of fees relating to an issue which was litigated by and between the PCSSD and the Knight Intervenors (which included PACT, the striking teacher body). Their brief addresses only two paragraphs to the \"Predicate for Award,\" and they cite only two cases. Joshua Br. at 1-2. Their reliance on those cases, however, is misplaced. Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997), stands for the proposition that -- with regard to fee awards -- a prevailing plaintiff does not necessarily lose its \"prevailing\" status even if it does not prevail on an issue so long as it was defending its remedy. The plaintiff's claims in the post-judgment litigation must be inextricably intertwined with the underlying claims. Id. at 11. The Joshua Intervenors pay mere lip service to the requirements of \"defending\" their \"remedy\", and do not explain how their participation (limited as it was) in the post-judgment litigation between the PCSSD and PACT was in furtherance of enforcing the underlying desegregation obligations of the PCSSD. Indeed, their position is belied by their own petition for fees, in which they state that they filed a memorandum opposing the equitable relief sought by the PCSSD, arguing that \"[m]oreover, resolution of the contract dispute between the teachers and the District is not a desegregation obligation covered by the settlement agreement.\" Joshua Motion for Fees, 1 2 (emphasis added). Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors made this plain at the strike hearing, as well. The - Court, referring to a pleading filed by the Joshua Intervenors the morning of the hearing stated, and Mr. Walker responded: THE COURT: And Mr. Walker -- I won't enunciate all that he [Mr. Walker] has responded to, in fact, I have not read it all carefully, but in essence, you are asking the Court not to intervene in this dispute because the teachers union and negotiations between employer and employee has never been really a part of the Settlement Agreement. And that the black children do not stand to be harmed any more than any other children. And yet, you do concede that this Court has jurisdiction -- MR. WALKER: No, we don't, Your Honor. * * * THE COURT: All right. MR. WALKER: There was no issue in the original case that sought to raise liability of the teacher's union with respect to the constitutional rights of black children, there is none. 2 - Transcript of Hearing, August 28, 1996, at pp. 16-17 (emphasis added). Mr. Walker later stated to the Court: MR. WALKER: Your Honor, understand our position. This has been presented to the Court as a conflict between two parties, the Teacher's Union and the School District. It does not involve at this particular point the Joshua Intervenors other than to the extent that Joshua would talce a position with respect to the Settlement Agreement. . . . Id. at 27. As argued by Joshua, the Settlement Agreement was not implicated in the teachers' strike. Indeed, as this Court is aware, the Eighth Circuit, on appeal, held that the teachers' strike was not covered by the Settlement Agreement or Desegregation Plan. LRSD v. PCSSD, _ F.3d _ (8th Cir. 1997). Thus, the Joshua Intervenors' request for fees does not fall within the parameters for an award under either Jenkins or Association of Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 1996).1 The Joshua Intervenors did not have a dog in this fight. They cannot simply label themselves the prevailing party whenever other parties litigate a matter, and request and expect an award of fees. Given their present posture, it is surprising that they did not request attorneys' fees in the pooling dispute between the LRSD and the PCSSD, or the teacher retirement dispute between the LRSD/PCSSD and the ADE. The Joshua Intervenors could, and should have requested this Court's permission to absent themselves from proceedings on the strike issue, just as the PCSSD has done in the 1 In Schafer, the Eighth Circuit reversed that portion of the district court's judgment awarding attorneys' fees because the plaintiffs' were not defending their remedy, and failed to persuade the panel that the State continued to violate federal law. As the court stated: \"We must avoid creating a framework in which 'the decree institutionalizes the attorney, as well as the system.\"' 83 F.3d at 1012 (quoting Brewster v. Dukakis, 786 F.2d 16, 18 (1st Cir. 1986). 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July~. 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following . Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 5 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 I ' / ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO THE LRSD'S PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES .JUL 1 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\"), for its response to the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for attorneys' fees and costs, states: 1. The LRSD's motion should be denied because it is untimely and fees are not warranted on the merits. 2. In August 1996, the PCSSD made a motion to this Court for an enlargement of time in which to present its petition for attorneys' fees and costs, specifically requesting that the Court defer the requirement of a petition and defer ruling until thirty days after entry of a final order on the pooling issue. 3. The LRSD did not object to the PCSSD's motion, nor did it made a motion to extend its own time. On August 16, 1996, the Court entered and order granting the PCSSD's motion: \"The PCSSD is hereby given 30 days from the issuance of the Eighth - Circuit's mandate on the pooling issue in which to file its petition for attorney's fees and costs.\" 4. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling on the pooling issues in favor of the PCSSD, and its mandate issued on May 30, 1997. The PCSSD timely filed its petition for attorneys' fees, in accordance with the extension granted by this Court, on June 5, 1997. 5. Following the filing by PCSSD, the LRSD made a motion to extend its time to respond to the PCSSD's petition for fees until June 30, 1997, indicating that it would be filing its own fee petition on that date, to wit, thirty days after the Eighth Circuit mandate had issued. The PCSSD objected to the requested extension and to the LRSD's claim that it had until June 30th to file its own petition for fees and costs. 6. In its order granting the LRSD's request for an extension of time until June 30, 1997 to respond, this Court specifically noted that LRSD did not request and was not - granted an extension, and that any motion filed on or before June 30, 1997, by LRSD for attorneys' fees and costs in regard to the pooling issues would be untimely. Order, dated  June 18, 1997. 7. The LRSD filed its petition on June 30, 1997. That fee petition is untimely. 8. The LRSD stated grounds for not seeking an extension, to wit, that it has \"previously worked cooperatively [with the PCSSD] to share legal work and save fees for both school districts whenever possible\" and that the \"LRSD did not expect that either district would file a fee petition with respect to the pooling issue.\" (LRSD Br. at 3) do not excuse the LRSD's failure to obtain an extension of time . 2 9. The LRSD's and PCSSD's cooperation follows when the PCSSD and the LRSD are aligned on a legal issue and not when, as here, the PCSSD was moving against the LRSD to enforce its rights under the pooling agreement. 10. The LRSD was on notice that PCSSD intended to file a fee petition on the pooling issues, if it prevailed on appeal, at least as early as August 1996 when the PCSSD filed its motion for an enlargement of time. 11. The LRSD did not request a similar extension, and thereby failed to preserve its rights. 12. The case of Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997), does not support the LRSD's claim for attorneys' fees. The Eighth Circuit, in Jenkins, held that the class plaintiffs had not lost their status as \"prevailing party\" where they - were required to defend their original remedy, and did so reasonably. 13 . The Eighth Circuit, in Jenkins, also specifically endorsed the distinction that the issues in the post-judgment litigation must be inextricably intertwined with those on which the plaintiff prevails in the underlying suit. 14. This distinction has been applied to deny fees in civil rights cases where the parties entered a consent decree and further litigation concerned contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. 15. The LRSD's status as prevailing party as to certain remedies has been extinguished, and the pooling fee litigation was initiated by the PCSSD to enforce contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. 3 16. Further, the proceedings relating to the pooling issues concerned contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claims. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD respectfully requests that this Court deny the LRSD's petition for attorneys' fees and costs, in its entirety. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 ___ ., ('(~ By( ___.TJ:.---\"- y~~-~~ M: Samuel JfnesUI)76060) Claire Shows Hancock (95013) , _}..~or the Pulaski County Special School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July~. 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roach ell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 4 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 / Ms SamuelJ nes, III. _~ I / , _____ / 5 IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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. PCSSD'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE LRSD'S PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES J\\JI_ l ,1 1997 omcE OF OESEGREGA110N MON\\10RING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\") submits this brief in - response to the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for attorneys' fees and costs. The LRSD's motion should be denied because it is untimely and fees are not warranted on the merits. ARGUMENT I. THE LRSD's FEE PETITION IS UNTIMELY In August 1996, the PCSSD made a motion to this Court for an enlargement of time in which to present its petition for attorneys' fees and costs, specifically requesting that the Court defer the requirement of a petition and defer ruling until thirty days after entry of a final order on the pooling issue. The LRSD did not object to the PCSSD's motion, nor did it make a motion to extend its own time. On August 16, 1996, the Court entered an order - granting the PCSSD's motion: \"The PCSSD is hereby given 30 days from the issuance of - the Eighth Circuit's mandate on the pooling issue in which to file its petition for attorney's fees and costs.\" The Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling on the pooling issues in favor of the PCSSD, and its mandate issued on May 30, 1997. The PCSSD timely filed its petition for attorneys' fees, in accordance with the extension granted by this Court, on June 5, 1997. Following the filing by PCSSD, the LRSD made a motion to extend its time to respond to the PCS SD' s petition for fees until June 30, 1997, indicating that it would be filing its own fee petition on that date, to wit, thirty days after the Eighth Circuit mandate had issued. The PCSSD objected to the requested extension and to the LRSD's claim that it had until June 30th to file its own petition for fees and costs. In its order granting the LRSD's request for an extension of time until June 30, 1997 to respond, this Court specifically ruled: As PCSSD points out, this Court granted only PCSSD an extension of time to and including thirty (30) days after the Eighth Circuit issued the mandate regarding the pooling issues in which to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. LRSD did not request and was not granted a similar extension. Therefore, any motion filed on or before June 30, 1997, by LRSD for attorneys' fees and costs in regard to the pooling issues would be untimely. Order, dated June 18, 1997. Notwithstanding the express language in the Court's order that any such filing by the LRSD for fees in connection with the pooling issues would be untimely, the LRSD filed its petition on June 30, 1997. 2 The LRSD states that it is simply seeking the same time within which to file its fee petition as was previously granted the PCSSD, stating that it did not seek an extension for two reasons. Neither reason is persuasive. First, the LRSD states that it has \"previously worked cooperatively [with the PCSSD] to share legal work and save fees for both school districts whenever possible. The LRSD did not expect that either district would file a fee petition with respect to the pooling issue.\" LRSD Br. at 3. While it is true that the LRSD and PCSSD attempt -- as they should -- to work cooperatively, that cooperation flows when the PCSSD and the LRSD are aligned on a legal issue. That was certainly not the circumstance in this instance, where the PCSSD was moving against the LRSD to enforce its rights under the pooling agreement. Further, it is somewhat disingenuous of the LRSD to claim that it did not expect the PCSSD to file a fee - petition with respect to the pooling issue. The LRSD was on notice that PCSSD intended to do so, if it prevailed on appeal, at least as early as August 1996 when the PCSSD filed its motion for an enlargement of time. The LRSD did not request a similar extension, and thereby failed to preserve its rights. 1 Second, the LRSD states that its \"right to recover fees in this case was firmly established only last month by an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Kansas City desegregation case. Jenkins v. State of Missouri,_ F.3d _ (8th Cir. 1997)(slip op., May 22, 1997)\" As discussed fully in Point II, infra, the LRSD's reliance on the Jenkins 1 Even if the LRSD had requested and been granted an extension of time to file a fee petition up to and including thirty days after the Eighth Circuit issued its mandate, the fee petition would have been due June 29, 1997, i.e., thirty days from May 30, 1997. The LRSD filed its petition on June 30, 1997. 3 - case is wholly misplaced. It provides no support to the LRSD, either as to the timeliness (or lack thereof) of its fee petition, or on the merits. II. THE LRSD IS NOT ENTITLED TO FEES ON THE MERITS The LRSD misconstrues the holding of Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997) and misapplies it to the facts of this case. In Jenkins, the prevailing class plaintiffs were denied fees by the district court for their participation in the proceedings in the United States Supreme Court that culminated in Jenkins III (515 U.S. 70 (1995). The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding that the class plaintiffs had not lost their status as \"prevailing party\" where they were required to defend their original remedy, and did so reasonably. The Jenkins class plaintiffs had obtained orders at the district court level, and affirmed by the - Eighth Circuit, which related directly to the issues they won initially -- issues from which their prevailing party status flowed. The Court of Appeals held that even though they did not successfully defend their remedy at the Supreme Court level, they did not lose their prevailing party status. The Eighth Circuit, in Jenkins, also specifically endorsed the distinction set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) and applied by the Fourth Circuit in multiple cases: Under Hensley, the first inquiry is whether the issues in the post-judgment litigation are inextricably intertwined with those on which the plaintiff prevails in the underlying suit or whether they are distinct. The Fourth Circuit has applied this distinction to deny fees in civil rights cases where the parties entered a consent decree and further litigation concerned contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. 4 - 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895, *10 (citing Willie M. v. Hunt, 732 F.2d 383, 386 (4th Cir. 1994). The Eighth Circuit applied this distinction in Association for Retarded Citizens v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008, 1011 (8th Cir.), cert. denied 117 S.Ct. 482 (1996)(plaintiffs' post judgment activities so much greater than necessary for monitoring the decree, they amounted to the assertion of distinct, new claims for relief which could not be compensated on the strength of the plaintiffs' prevailing party status in the underlying suit). The facts and circumstances of this case do not fit within the Eighth Circuit's \"prevailing party\" ruling in Jenkins for two reasons. The LRSD's status as prevailing party as to certain remedies has been extinguished, and the pooling fee litigation was initiated by the PCSSD to enforce contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. While the LRSD was the prevailing plaintiff in its suit against the PCSSD initiated in 1982, any past \"liability\" of the PCSSD was extinguished by the remedy afforded the LRSD in 1985, the Settlement Agreements (and releases), and the Desegregation Plan approved by this Court and by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. As the Eighth Circuit noted: The remedy prescribed was intended to be a full and sufficient correction of wrongs done in the past. If PCSSD or some other governmental entity commits another constitutional violation in the future which has an interdistrict segregative effect, the courts will of course be open and able to order an appropriate remedy on pr "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1667","title":"Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issue","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":["1997-06-30"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issue"],"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/1667"],"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":["80 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. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JUN 3 n 1991 V I ' OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, AND POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST AS RESPECTS THE POOLING ISSUE I. Attorneys' Fees. Federal law governs PCSSD's request for attorneys' fees. A prevailing defendant can recover attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C.  1988 only where the plaintiff's claim was frivolous. However, PCSSD is not a prevailing defendant, and even if it was, LRSD's pooling claim was not frivolous. Accordingly, PCSSD's motion for attorneys' fees should be denied. A. 42 u.s.c.  1988. Prevailing defendants in civil rights litigation may recover attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C.  1988. However, the Supreme Court has declared that a prevailing defendant is entitled to attorneys' fees only in very narrow circumstances. Eichman v. Linden \u0026 Sons, Inc., 752 F.2d 1246, 1248 (7th Cir. 1985), citing Christianburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 434 U.S. 412 (: l~Vcndky\\lnd\\pcu-foc.bri (1978). \"A court may award prevailing defendants attorney's fees - under section 1988 only if the plaintiff's claim was 'frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or . . the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.'\" Flowers v. Jefferson Hospital Ass'n, 49 F.3d 391, 392 (8th Cir. 1995), quoting Christianburg, 434 U.S. at 422. Moreover, the prevailing defendant must affirmatively prove that the plaintiff's claim was \"frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.\" Marquart v. Lodge 837, 26 F.3d 842, 851 (8th Cir. 1994) (\"A survey of the Eighth Circuit's most recent decisions awarding attorneys' fees to 'prevailing defendants' in civil rights cases reveals that this Circuit has been unwilling to award attorneys' fees where the defendant is unable to prove that the plaintiff's case is meritless. 11 ) (emphasis in original). PCSSD's claim for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C.  1988 fails for two reasons. First, while PCSSD may have prevailed on the pooling issue, LRSD remains the \"prevailing party\" in the case as a whole. In Jenkins v. Missouri, F.3d , 1997 WL 268815, *l (8th Cir. 1997), the Eighth Circuit stated that \"status as a prevailing party is determined on the outcome of the case as a whole, rather than by piecemeal assessment of how a party fares on each motion along the way.\" The court noted that \"(t)his is true of matters decided after judgment on the merits, as well as those decided before.\" Id. Thus, PCSSD is not a \"prevailing defendant\" under 42 u.s.c.  1988. PCSSD's request for attorneys' fees also fails because LRSD's pooling claim was not \"frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless\". (:\\hofrc\\/crdlcy\\1n,d\\pcw-foc .bri 2 LRSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement, although rejected by the this Court, was the only interpretation consistent with the language of the agreement and with the only contemporaneous explanation of the agreement. See Docket No. 2610. The Eighth Circuit described LRSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement as \"completely logical.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 60 F.3d 436, 437 {1995). LRSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement was not \"frivolous\", and as a result, PCSSD cannot recover attorneys' fees even if it was a prevailing defendant. PCSSD also argues that it may be awarded attorneys' fees under Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308. State law governs the award of attorneys' fees only in diversity cases where the underlying claim was governed by state law. In federal question cases, attorneys' fees cannot be awarded unless authorized by federal law. Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 259 n.31 {1975). The present case is a federal question case. This Court's original jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C.  1331{a), 1343(3) and (4) 2201 and 2202 and 42 U.S.C.  1981, 1983, 1988 and 2000d. Jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement is based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (6). See Docket Nos. 1947 and 2337. Because this Court's jurisdiction was and is based on federal law, attorneys' fees cannot be awarded under Ark. Code Ann.  16- 22-308. In Home Savings Bank v. Gillam, 952 F.2d 1152 {9th Cir. 1991), the Ninth circuit reversed an award of attorneys' fees based f:\\hancVcrdky\\Jr,d\\p:::u--fcc.bti 3 on state law where the district court's jurisdiction was based on a federal question. The court stated: Because established federal common law disfavors the award of attorney's fees in federal question cases absent an express congressional directive, we hold that the district court erred in applying Alaska's law on attorney's fees. Incorporation of state law occurs in federal question cases only in the absence of federal coJillDon law or statutory law. * * * Since the Supreme Court's decision in Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240, 95 s.ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), the rule in federal courts had been that, absent an express statutory coJillDand, attorney's fees will not be awarded in civil cases. Id., at 1162 (emphasis supplied). PCSSD's reliance on TCBY Systems, Inc. v. RSP Co., 33 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 1994), is misplaced. Jurisdiction in that case was based on diversity. As the Supreme Court noted in Alyeska, \"A very - different situation is presented when a federal court sits in a diversity case.\" Alyeska, 421 U.S. at 259 n.31. Therefore, federal law governs PCSSD's request for attorneys' fees. Under 42 U.S.C.  1988, a prevailing defendant can recover attorneys' fees only where the plaintiff's claim was frivolous. However, PCSSD is not a prevailing defendant, and even if it were, LRSD's claim was not frivolous. attorneys' fees should be denied. B. Timeliness. Accordingly, PCSSD's motion for Included in PCSSD's fee request is work performed before this Court's Order dated March 16, 1994. PCSSD failed to request attorneys' fees within 14 days of that Order. Consequently, they r:\\horne\\fcrdlcy\\l r.d\\p::114-(oc .bti 4 have waived any right to fees for work performed before the March - 16, 1994. See Local Rule B-3. D. Work on Appeal. Also included in PCSSD's fee request is work performed on the two Eighth Circuit appeals of the pooling issue. In each case, PCSSD failed to timely file a request with the Eighth Circuit to recover attorneys' fees for its work on appeal. A substantial question exists as to whether this Court has authority to award attorneys' fees for work on appeal absent the issue being remanded by the Eighth Circuit. See Eighth Circuit Rule 4 7C. This is currently one of the issues pending before the Eighth Circuit in the State's appeal of this Court's award of attorney's fees to LRSD and PCSSD. See Appellant's Opening Brief, p. 19, Appeal No. 97- 1350, attached hereto as Exhibit A. LRSD prays that this Court stay any award of fees for work on appeal pending the Eighth Circuit's resolution of this issue. Moreover, PCSSD did not prevail on the first appeal of this issue. LRSD appealed this Court's March 16, 1994 order, and the Eighth Circuit vacated the order and directed this Court to \"take evidence regarding the purposes of the clauses at issue.\" See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 60 F.3d 435, 436 (8th Cir. 1995). Even if this Court finds that PCSSD is entitled to a reasonable fee, PCSSD should not be compensated for work on this first appeal in which PCSSD lost. f:\\homeVcndlcy\\Jnd'9c-fec .bri 5 E. Reasonable Hourly Rate. In an Order filed December 12, 1996, this Court awarded attorneys' fees to PCSSD for the work of M. Samuel Jones and Claire Hancock at an hourly rate of $160.00 and $145.00, respectively. See Docket No. 2883. The State has appealed contending that these hourly rates are excessive. See Appellant's Opening Brief, p. 23, Appeal No. 97-1350, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Even so, PCSSD now asks for an even higher hourly rate for the work of attorneys Jones and Hancock. LRSD believes that the hourly rates awarded by this Court in its December 12, 1996 Order are reasonable and, unless reduced by the Eighth Circuit, should be applied in the present case should a fee be awarded. F. Lack of Detail. In Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), the Supreme Court stated that the \"fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.\" The Eighth Circuit has held that \" [ i] nadequate documentation may warrant a reduced fee.\" H.J. Inc. v. Flygt Corp., 925 F.2d 257,260 (8th Cir. 1991). \"Incomplete or imprecise billing records preclude any meaningful review by the district court of the fee application for 'excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary' hours . II The Supreme Court in Hensley noted that \"at should identify the general subject matter expenditures.\" Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437 n.12. least counsel of his time In H.J. Inc., supra, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's 20% fee (;\\hon-c\\fcndlcy\\lnd\\p::sfc,c.bti 6 reduction based on inadequate documentation where the fee applicant's time records included numerous vague entries such as \"legal research\", \"trial prep\" and \"met w/ client.\" Similarly, the vast majority of PCSSD's time entries contain no description of the subject matter on which time was spent. This failure justifies a significant reduction in any fee awarded to PCSSD. II. Prejudgment Interest. As with its argument for attorneys' fees, PCSSD incorrectly relies on Arkansas law and federal diversity cases to support its request for prejudgment interest. Federal law governs whether prejudgment interest may be awarded in federal question cases. See Mansker v. TMG Life Ins. Co., 54 F.3d 1322, 1330 (8th Cir. 1995) (\"The question of whether interest is to be allowed, and also the rate of computation, is a question of federal law where the cause of action arises from a federal statute.\"). Under federal law as interpreted by the Eighth Circuit, PCS SD' s motion for prejudgment interest is untimely and should be denied. See Reyher v. Champion International Corp., 975 F.2d 483, 489 (8th Cir. 1992). In Reyher, supra, the Eighth circuit held that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 apply to postjudgment motions for prejudgment interest. Id. Rule 59 requires that postjudgment motion be filed within 10 days of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). When a motion is untimely under Rule 59 ( e) , \"the district court loses jurisdiction over that motion and any ruling on it becomes a nullity.\" Id. f:\\horne \\fcn:tlcy\\lr'ld\\p:;:N-(ce.bri 7 Judgment was entered in favor of PCSSD on July 30, 1996. Docket No. 2724. PCSSD did not file its request for prejudgment interest until on or about June 5, 1997. Thus, PCSSD's motion for prejudgment interest is untimely under Rule 59 and should be denied. 1 III. Postjudgment Interest. As with the above issues, PCSSD incorrectly relies on Arkansas law to support it claim for postjudgment interest. Post judgment interest on judgments of federal district courts is governed by 28 u.s.c.  1961. LRSD admits that it owes PCS SD post judgment interest on the July 30, 1996 judgment as provided in that statute. LRSD also admits that it has not yet satisfied the July 30, 1996 judgment. LRSD understood that it had an agreement with PCSSD to withhold payment of the judgment until after conclusion of LRSD's appeal. It was understood that postjudgment interest would accrue during this time. PCSSD and LRSD are currently attempting to determine the precise amount owed and are negotiating payment terms. IV. Prayer. LRSD prays that PCSSD's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Prejudgment Interest be denied; that LRSD be awarded its costs and 1PCSSD may argue that Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 governs its request for prejudgment interest rather than Rule 59. However, the Eighth Circuit noted in Reyher that Rule 60 \"cannot be used to impose additional affirmative relief.\" Reyher, 975 F.2d at 489 n.l. Therefore, Rule 60 cannot be used after the fact to award PCSSD prejudgment interest.  (;\\ha-nc\\fcrdlcy\\l r-.d\\pcM-(oc .bri 8 attorneys' fees expended herein; and that LRSD be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. f: \\home \\fcrd le y\\J nid\\pc:u- fee. bri Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 9 O9ristopher Heller (#BlP?3) ~ohn C. Fendley, Jr. (M182) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this X,\"!' day of r , 1997. 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 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 !hJistopher Heller' '\\.o/1n C. Fendley, Jr. f:\\horn::Vcrdlc.y\\Jnd\\pc:u-fcc.bri 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION V. LITTLE ROCK $CHOOL DISTRICT and PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 No. 97-1350EALR APPELLANT APPELL:SES Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Hon. Susan Webber Wright APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF : EXHIBIT SUMMARY A. WAIVER OF ORAL ARGUMENT This appeal arises from the Pulaski County, Arkansas desegregation litigation. In response to motions brought by ihe three school districts in Pulaski County, by order entered January 13, 1995, the District Court found that the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement between the State of Arkansas and the three districts. The District Court's order was affirmed in part and reversed in part by this Court. ~ Little Rock School District v. Pulaski countv Special School District No. 1. et al., 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996), reh'a denied {June 27, 1996). After this Court's mandate issued, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Little Rock School District (LRSD) filed motions in the District Court seeking an award of attorneys' fees and costs. By orders entered December 10, 1996 and December 12, 1996, the District Court awarded PCSSD and LRSD $36,464.00 and $43,083.32 respectively in attorneys' fees and costs. ADE appeals from these two orders. ADE believes that this appeal can be resolved on the briefs alone and therefore does not request oral argument. i TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMM.l\u003e.RY .AJ.\\ffi WAIVER OF O~ZU, ARGUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PRELIMINARY STATEMENT STATEMENT OF ISSUES STATEMENT OF THE CASE SUMM.l\u003e.RY OF ARGUMENT ......................... ......................... ARGUMENT A. B. ................................... Standard of Review The District Court Erred in Awarding Fees to LRSD and PCSSD Under 42 U.S.C. 1988 .............. . C. The District Court Erred in Awarding PCSSD and LRSD Costs and Attorneys' Fees in Connection With Their Defense of ADE's Appeal and Their Prosecution of Their CrossAppeal of the District Court's i ii iii l 2 3 14 15 15 15 January 15, 1995 Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 D. The District Court Abused its Discretion in Awarding Fees to LRSD and PCSSD Based Upon 1996 Regular Hourly Rates Instead of the Discounted Rates Actually Charged the Districts During 1994 Through 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 CONCLUSION ................................... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ADDENDUM ................................... ii 24 25 26 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Aleveska Pipeline co. v. Wilderness Societv, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982) Corder v. Brown, 25 F. 3d 833 (9ti:c Cir. 1994) DeGidio v. Puna, 920 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1990) Delta Special School District No. s v. State Board of Education, 745 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1984) Fogertv v. Fantasv. Inc., 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994) Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116 (5th Cir. 1986) International Travel Arranaers. 1 nc. v. Western Airlines. Inc., 623 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1980) Jenkins v. state of Missouri, 967 F.2d 1248 (8th Cir. 1992) Klein v. Zavaras, 80 F.3d 432 (10th Cir. 1996) Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. , , 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. 1, 83 F. 3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996) Missouri v. Jenkins, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) iii PAGE(Sl 15 20 I 23 15, 22 16 17 15 17 22 17 17 3 5, 19 22, 23 TABLE o~ AUTHORITIES (Cont.) CASES Patrick v. Staples, 780 F.Supp. 1528 (N.D. Indiana 1991) Winter v. Cerro Gordo Countv Conservation Board, 925 F. 2d 1069 ( 8th Cir. 1991) Wvcoff v. Hedcrepeth, 34 F. 3d 614 ( 8th Cir:. 1994) STATUTES Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308 42 u.s.c. 1983 42 u.s.c. 1988 OTHER AUTHORITIES Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(a) Eighth Circuit Local Rule 47C Local Rule B-3 of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts Of Arkansas iv PAGE{Sl 17 15, 23 16 PAGE(Sl 7 16 passim PAGE(Sl 19 19 5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) appeals from orders entered on December 10 and December 12, 1996, by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, the Hon. Susan Webber Wright, District Judge, in the action styled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1. et .al., No. LR-C-82-866. In those orders the District Court ordered ADE to pay a total of $79,547.32 to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) in attorneys' fees and costs. Apx. 56-61. The District Court's jurisdiction was originally invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  133l(a), 1343(3) and (4), 2201 and 2202, 42 U.S.C.  1981, 1~83, 1988 and 2000d, and the Fou~teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1291 in that the District Court's December 10 and December 12, 1996 orders are collateral orders that are final with respect to all issues raised therein. ADE's notice of appeal was filed on January 8, 1997, and hence was timely filed under Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(a) (1). 1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES I. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs to LRSD and PCSSD Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. --42 u.s.c.  1988; --DeGideo V. Puna, 920 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1990);  --Delta School Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 745 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1984); --Wycoff v. Hedgepeth, 34 F.2d 614 (8th Cir. 1994) II. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs to LRSD and PCSSD for Work Performed Defending ADE's Appeal and Prosecuting LRSD's and PCSSD's Cross-Appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 Order. --Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982); --Fed. R. App. Proc. 39(a); --Eighth Circuit Local Rule 47C. III. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Attorneys' Fees To LRSD and PCSSD Based Upon Their Attorneys' 1996 Regular Hourly Rates Instead of the Actual Discounted Rates Paid by the Districts for Work Performed by Their Attorneys During 1994, 1995 and 1996. --Missouri v. Jenkins, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989); --Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982); --Winter v. Cerro Gordo Countv Conservation Bd., 925 F.2d 1069 (8th Cir. 1991) --International Travel Arranaers, Inc. v. Western Airlines. Tnc., 623 F. 2d 1255 ( 8th Cir. 1980) . 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal arising from the Pulaski County, Arkansas school desegregation litigation. The parties to this appeal are appellant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and appellees Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (PCSSD) and the L1ttle Rock School District (LRSD). In 1989 the State of Arkansas, the three school districts in Pulaski County, and two groups of intervenors agreed to settle the remedial aspects of the school desegregation litigation. The parties submitted to the District Court \"comprehensive settlement agreements covering both interdistrict and intradistrict desegregation measures -- agreements referred to by the parties as the 'setclement plans.' They also submitted a separate but related document, called the 'settlement agreement,' settling the financial liability of the State of Arkansas.n Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir. 1990). This Court reviewed and approved the settlement documents and directed the District Court to approve the settlement plans and the Settlement Agreement as written by the parties . .IQ.. at 1394. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the District Court entered an order on January 18, 1991, dismissing the State of Arkansas as a party to the case. 3 A. LRSD's and PCSSD's Motions to Enforce the Settlement Agreement In July of 1994 LRSD filed a motion asking the District Court to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement against the State and ADE. LRSD contended that the State breached the Settlement Agreement by enacting a law that shifted the responsibility for the payment of workers' compensation claims brought by school district employees from the State to each school district in the state. PCSSD joined in this motion. Later, in August of 1994, LRSD and PCSSD filed a second motion asking the District Court to enforce the Settlement Agreement against the State and ADE. In this motion, LRSD and PCSSD contended (a) that ADE improperly treated M-M Transfer students in calculating the amount of \"loss funding\" due the Pulaski County school districts; (bl that ADE improperly excluded certain funds, known as Education Excellence Trust Funds, in a multiplier that determined the amount of \"loss funding\" due the three Pulaski County school districts; and (c) that the manner in which the State planned to implement a statewide public school computer network violated the Settlement Agreement . After a four-day hearing, the District Court, by order entered January 13, 1995, granted in part and denied in part 4 LRSD's and PCSSD's motions to enforce the Settlement Agreement. B. The Appeal and Cross Appeals of the District Court's Januarv 13, 1995 Order The State and ADE appealed the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. PCSSD and LRSD cross-appealed, contending . that the District Court did not grant them full and appropriate relief on their motions. On May 15, 1996, this Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court's January 13, 1995 order . .s.ae. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski countv Special School District No. 1, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). LRSD and PCSSD filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by this Court on June 27, 1996. No party sought from the Eighth Circuit an award of attorneys' fees or costs in connection with the appeal or cross-appeal, and no order awarding costs or fees to any party was entered by the Eighth Circuit. C. PCSSD and LRSD Seek Extensions of Time Within Which to File Motions for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Under Local Rule Local B-3 of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, any motion by PCSSD or LRSD for attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the District Court's January 13, 1995 order was due within fourteen days of the entry of the order, ~, on or before January 27, 1995. On January 26, 5 1995 PCSSD and LRSD filed a motion asking for an extension of time to file such a motion. The District Court extended the time to February 17, 1995. Apx. 66. On February 17, 1995, PCSSD and LRSD filed another motion'for an extension of time; asking that their motions for attorneys' fees not be due until after this court resolved ADE's appeal and the districts' cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. The District Court granted this motion, giving PCSSD and LRSD until \"fourteen days after the appeal is decided or withdrawn\" to file a motion for attorneys' fees. Apx. 71. On May 29, 1995 (fourteen days after this Court announced its decision affirming in part and reversing in part the District Court's January 13, 1995 order), PCSSD and LRSD filed a motion in the District Court asking for a further extension of time within which to file a motion for attorneys' fees. Apx. 72. The District Court granted that motion, giving PCSSD and LRSD until June 28, 1996 to file their motions. Apx. 74. On June 28, 1996 PCSSD and LRSD again filed a motion asking for additional time to submit an attorney fee motion. Apx. 75. On July 1, 1996 the district Court granted the motion, giving PCSSD and LRSD until 30 days after this Court's mandate issued to file a motion for attorneys' fees . Apx. 78. 6 On August 19, 1996 LRSD filed another motion seeking more time within which to file a motion for attorneys' fees. Apx. 79. ADE filed an opposition to this motion on August 22, 1996. The District Court granted LRSD's motion on August 27, 1996. Apx. 82. D. PCSSD's Motion for Fees and costs On August 16, 1996, PCSSD finally filed its initial motion for attorneys' fees and costs. 1 In its motion the only basis PCSSD cited for its fee request was Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308, which permits a court, in its discretion, to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in a breach of contract action. Apx. 83-84. The affidavit filed in support of the motion provided no information concerning the billing rates of or the activities performed by the various persons who allegedly worked on b~half of PCSSD in connection with PCSSD's motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Apx. 85-88. On August 30, 1996, ADE filed its opposition to PCSSD's motion. ADE opposed the motion on the grounds, inter alia, that state law could not form the basis for a fee award to PCSSD, that PCSSD had failed to provide sufficient information to enable the Court to calculate a reasonable 1 While PCSSD's motion purported to seek \"costs\" in addition to attorneys' fees, the motion itself contained no information concerning such claimed \"costs.\" 7 fee award, and that the District Court lacked authority to compensate PCSSD for time its attorneys spent defending ADE's appeal and prosecuting PCSSD's cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. Three weeks later, on September 20, 1996, PCSSD filed a \"Supplemental Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees as to the State Defendants.\" In its \"Supplemental Motion\" PCSSD claimed that it was entitled to an award of fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988. The \"Supplemental Motion\" did not provide any further information concerning the hourly rates or activities performed by the attorneys, paralegals and document clerks that purportedly worked on behalf of PCSSD in connection with PCSSD's motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. On October 4, 1996, ADE filed a response to PCSSD's \"Supplemental Motion.\" In its response ADE argued, among other things, that PCSSD was not entitled to fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988 or any other exception to the \"American rule,\" and that PCSSD's motion must still be denied for its failure to present evidence sufficient to enable the District Court to compute a \"reasonable\" fee award. On November 21, 1996, the District Court entered an order directing PCSSD to submit, within ten days, \"an affidavit documenting the time spent litigating these matters and the position or job title and hourly rates for 8 those who worked on the matters.\" The District Court further specified that \"the affidavit should set forth the activity performed and time spent by each individual.\" Apx. 133-34. On December 2, 1996, PCSSD filed a second affidavit signed by its attorney,  Sam Jones. Apx. 135. \"Attached to the affidavit were billing records that purported to show the time spent by attorneys, paralegals and document clerks on behalf of PCSSD. Apx. 139-170. In the affidavit, attorney Jones stated that his current normal billing rate was $175.00 per hour, but that during 1996 PCSSD was charged only $135.00 per hour for his time. Apx. 136. The affidavit further stated that attorney Claire Hancock's current normal billing rate was $145.00 per hour, but that PCSSD was charged only $110.00 per hour for her time. Apx. 136. The affidavit further stated that the time of Angell Jones, the Manager of the firm's Litigation Support Department, was currently billed at $75.00.per hour during 1996 (Apx. 136); the billing records attached to the affidavit showed, however, that Ms. Jones' time was billed to PCSSD at a rate of $55.00 during 1994. Apx. 139, 147. The billing records attached to the affidavit also showed, among other things, that PCSSD was billed $110.00 per hour for attorney S. Jones' time during 1994 (Apx. 139, 147), and included time spent by attorneys, paralegals and 9 document clerks for work performed in connection with PCSSD's defense of ADE's appeal and PCSSD's prosecution of its cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. Apx. 148-165. E. LRSD's Motion for Fees and costs LRSD filed its motion for fees and costs on August 30, 1996. LRSD's motion sought an award of $42,520 in attorneys' fees (262 hours spent by attorney Chris Heller at a rate of $160.00 per hour and 6 hours spent by attorney Clay Fendley at a rate of $100.00 per hour) and $563.32 in other unidentified \"costs.\" Apx. 89. Like PCSSD, LRSD sought attorneys' fees for its attorneys' work defending ADE's appeal and prosecuting LRSD's cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. Apx. 95-132. The affidavit submitted in support of LRSD's motion stated that attorney Heller's current normal billing rate was $160.00 per hour and attorney Fendley's current normal billing rate was $100.00 per hour. Apx. 89. The billing records attached to LRSD's motion, however, showed that LRSD was only billed $105.00 per hour for attorney Heller's time from June, 1994 through at least November of 1995, and that LRSD was only billed $85.00 per hour for attorney Fendley's time through at least November of 1995. Apx. 103, 122, 125, 127-131. LRSD's motion also sought attorneys' fees for time spent by LRSD's lawyers on appeal. Apx. 125-132. 10 With respect to costs, the billing records attached to LRSD's motion showed that a total of approximately $4380 was billed to LRSD as \"expenses\" during the period from June of 1994 through November of 19952 (Apx. 103, 122, 127-129, 131- 32), but LRSD's motion did not identify which particular items of the total \"expenses\" LRSD wanted the District Court to direct ADE to pay. See generally Apx. 89-132. ADE filed its opposition to LRSD's motion on September 16, 1996. ADE objected to any award of fees for time spent on appeal, ADE pointed out that LRSD's request for $160.00 per hour and $100.00 per hour for time spent by attorneys Heller and Fendley was excessive and would result in a windfall to LRSD in light of the actual hourly rates paid by LRSD, and ADE pointed out that some of the allegedly \"compensable\" time spent by LRSD's attorneys was spent on matters unrelated to LRSD's litigation against the State and ADE. F. The District Court's December 10 and December 12. 1996 Orders On December 10, 1996, only eight days after PCSSD finally submitted an affidavit with billing records to 2 These total \"expenses\" included charges listed as \"binding expense,\" \"deposition expense,\" \"copy charges, 11 \"Lexis computerized research,\" \"messenger expense,\" \"postage,\" \"fax,\" \"express mail,\" \"filing fees,\" \"preparation expense, 11 \"meals,\" \"Westlaw computerized research,\" \"airline ticket,\" \"parking\" and \"taxi.\" 11 support its fee motion and before ADE had filed any response to it, the District Court entered an order granting LRSD's and PCSSD's motions for attorneys' fees and costs. The District Court found that LRSD and PCSSD were prevailing parties entitled to an award of-fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988. The District Court awarded PCSSD $28,854.50 in attorneys' fees. The award was based, among other things, 3 upon billing rates of $110.00 per "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1657","title":"Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) fee petition exhibits","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)","Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1997-06-30"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) fee petition exhibits"],"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/1657"],"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":["121 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Heller, Christopher"],"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 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF FILING RECEIVED !! ii 1 - 1997 I.- '  ~ DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its notice the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. On June 30, 1997, LRSD filed its fee petition with respect to the pooling issues. For the convenience of the court and - the parties, LRSD has prepared the attached summary of its fee petition. 2. During the course of preparing a summary of its fee petition, LRSD discovered additional time entries which should have been deleted from Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Christopher Heller. LRSD has deleted those entries and submits with this notice a substitute Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Christopher Heller. 3. LRSD's brief in support of its fee petition refers to two exhibits: A request by PCSSD for an extension of time in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals; and the Eighth Circuit's order providing additional time for all appellees. Those exhibits were not attached to the brief filed yesterday. They are attached to this notice of filing. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 \") ,.   ..) ~--;. _.,.. . By: ~~--:;;;4,/,;;/~/~~~ Christopher Hell- , v -__ Bar No. 81083 /1/' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 1st day of July, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 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. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham street Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Chri.stophJ~ -- 3 SUMMARY OF EXHIBIT A - INVOICE NO. FEES EXPENSES 1 $ 880.00 $ -o- 2 1,195.00 226.09 3 4,785.00 923.00 4 995.00 5.00 5 575.00 28.50 6 40.00 18.00 7 800.00 8.00 8 8,325.00 4.80 9 7,955.00 555.88 10 12,345.00 19.31 11 10,850.00 3,808.70 12 1,410.00 5.00 13 2,095.00 621.80 14 6,760.00 136.20 15 1,080.00 -o- 16 1,900.00 1,750.00 17 9,960.00 95.00 18 6,830.00 52.10 $ 78,780.00 $ 8,257.88 EXHIBIT A TO AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER HELLER ' FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of IN0IVI0UAI.S ANO PROfESSIONAL ASSCX:IA TIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 31'6-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 CD RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 2/25/94 CJH 4/19/94 CJH 5/05/94 CJH 5/11/94 CJH - 16/94 CJH 5/17/94 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD REPLY RE: POOLING ISSUE LETTER FROM OISTR1CT CLERK - POOLING APPEAL LETTER FROH .6TH CIRCUIT CLERK RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED BRIEFING SCHEDULE PREPARATION OF APPEARANCE FORH PREPARATION OF DESIGNATION OF RECORD; REVIEWED FILE RESEARCHED STAY ISSUE TELEP.HONE CONFERENCE WITH HR. HILHOLLEN I3J - POOLING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: POOLING DRAFTED STIPULATION ANO SUPERSEDEAS BOND TELEPHONE CORFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN (2+ \"i-ELEPHmt~ CtUIFERENGE! RITII TOtJR RE ARQEESS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE VITH BARRY WARD PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .so .25 .25 .25 .25 1.25 .so .so .25 .75 .so TAX I0ENTl~ICATON  71-()25363; l -110294 6/23/94 .000150-cJH CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER TOTAL SERVICES '5\"- st) 5.75 5.75 X 105.00 = $603.75 603.75 'i\u003eW TOTAL THIS INVOICE 5.7s -------------- TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT, THIS INVOCCE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARCiES F'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET IIEEN POSTED. THESE WILL IIE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. AU. INVOICU AIIIC DUI: AND PAYA  I.IC UPON 111:CICIPT, $603.75 4/28/97 CJH 4/29/97 CJH 4/30/97 CJH 4/30/97 JCF 5/27/97 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0IVI0UAI.S ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING .WO WEST CAPITOL LITTtE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 DRAFTED HOTI ON LETTER TO MR GANS LETTER FROM HR GANS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORgER RESEARCH AND DRAFTING - POOLING BRIEF RESEARCH AND PREPARATION OF BRIEF REVIEWED PETITION FOR REHEARING; CONFERENCE WITH CJ~ LETTER FROM MR GANS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED POOLING ORDER TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .25 .25 .25 .25 6.50 7.50 1.00 .25 .25 43.25 TAX I0ENTl~ICATO', 71-Q2S363. 2 -137146 6/18/97 .0001so-cJH $5368.00 -------- ---------- C~RISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN Cl.AYBURN FENDLEY COPY CftARGES 41.75 X 124.98 = 1.50 x 100.00 = LEXIS COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET !!EN !!ILLEO OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET !!EN POSTED. THESE WILL !IE !!ILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICU ARI: DUI: AND PAYA LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. 5211.92 \"-W 1so.oo lSO 8.60 43.50 $52.10 $5420.10 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INOIVIOUAI.S ANO PROfESSIONAl ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTl.E ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST HARKHAH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSO VS. PCSSO 6/27/94 CJH 6/28/94 CJH 6/29/94 JCF 6/30/94 JCF RESEARCHED ISSUES RE: POOLING APPEAL RESEARCHED AND CONFERENCE WITH FENDLEY REVIEWED PLEADINGS; REVIEWED NISWANGER MEMO 't-EI FPWONE CONFERENCE IHTII ATTOP~15 +AYL  R*S DI I ICE. I Eltrn  NL CEINFERENCE lllll PfR:a ~EBERS OFFICE RESEARCHED ENFORCE~ENT OF CONSENT DECREE CONFERENCE WITH CJH; REVIEWED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESEARCHED RULE OF CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION RESEARCHED CONTRACT INTERPRETATION TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .75 1.25 .75 -zs 2.so 1.00 2.00 2.so , 11,.QO TAX I0ENTIFICATO'-, 1 7Hl2SJ6J; l -11108S 7/26/94 .0001so-cJH CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER -------- --------- JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY 2.00 X 105.00 = 9.oo x es.oo = EXPRESS HAIL \"7\u003e. \"K\" 'f.... \\ OJ WESTLAW COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIii INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES f'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET llEEN lllLl.ED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET l!IEEN POSTED. THESE WILL ee l!IILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOIClt\u0026 ARI: DUI: AND P'AYA8\u0026.IC UP'ON RICCICIP'T. 210.00 '5lQ 765.00 \"l\u003e'?S-a. oo 218.09  . ~ ' Sl201.09 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INOIVIOUAI.S ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING '00 WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501 I 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 7/05/94 JCF REVIEWED HEARING TRANSCRIPT RE: ADOPTION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 7/06/94 JCF RESEARCHED RULES OF CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION 7/07/94 CJH 7/10/94 CJH 7/l.0/94 JCF -7/11/94 CJH 7/11/94 JCF 7/12/94 CJH 7/12/94 JCF 7/13/94 CJH 7/13/94 JCF 7/14/94 CJH 7/24/94 CJH PREPARATION OF 8TH CIRCUIT ARGUMENT; REVIEWED RULES RE: PREPARATION BIREF RESEARCHED APPEAL BRIEF PREPARATION OF BRIEF IN POOLING APPEAL RESEARCHED ANTICIPATORY BREACfl RE: DISCHARGING CONTRACT DUTY; PRESUMPTION OF DEPENDENT DUTIES P.REPARATION OF STATEMENT OF THE CASE PREPARATION OF POOLING APPEAL PREPARATION OF sPP~cMENTAL AUTHORITY ~TER IH '1/0THIG R1C.MT'~ ,\\PPl;ilibi CO~IFERENCE WITII FENBLC PREPARATION OF 8TH CiR. BRIEF RE: POOLING; PREPARATIOff OF APPENDIX; CONFERENCE WYTH C3H PREPARATION OF POOLING BRIEF AND APPENDIX PREPERATION OF 8TH C~R. BRIEF RE: POOLING PREPARATION OF POOLYIIG BRIEF; ARPENOIX; PIRED REVIEWED AND REVISED BTR CIR. BRIEF RE: POOLING; PREPARATIOM FOR FILING TELEPHONE CORFERENCE WITH 8Tff CIR. CLERK REVIEWED FILE RE: AP.PEAL TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 2.so 2.25 1.75 1.25 1.25 5.75 4.25 5.50 7.25 3.25 1.25 1.2s .25 .so TAX I0ENTIFICATO1' I 71-0253637 1 -111812 8/25/94 .0001so-CJH $3702.50 .. .. , .. .  ~ '. (CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 TO INSURE PROPER CRECIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT, THIS INVOICE MAY NOT tNCLUCE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILI.EC OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POST0, THESE WILL DE BILI.EC ON A LATER INVOICE, Al.I. INVOICU AIIIIIC DUii: AND PAYAL.11: UPON 111111:CICIPT. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INDIVIDUALS ~D PROFESSIONAi. ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING \u003c100 WEST CAPITOL LlffiE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37\u0026-2011 \\(.o .oo PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY ~-25 X 105.00 = 22.25 X 85.00 = BINDING EXPENSE EXPRESS MAIL COPY CHARGES POSTAGE WESTLAW COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE -:$(4,ic;- TO INSURE P'ROPER CREDIT, P'U:ASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARC:.ES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET !IEEN !IILLEO OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET !IEEN POSTEO. THESE WILL !IE !IIU..EO ON A LATER INVOICE. AL.L INVOICES AIUC DUK AND PAYA  LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. TAX I0ENTIFICATOI. I 71 -(1253637 2 -111812 8/25/94  000150-CJH 63.00 68.90 479.40 17.40 294.30 $923.00 $4625.50 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING ,4()() WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 TAX IDENTIFICAT01' I 71-02S3637 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST HARKf1AH (501) 376-2011 PAGE INV# DATE LI230 l -112794 9/28/94 .0001so-cJH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSO VS. PCSSD 8/17/94 CJH 8/18/94 CJH 8/2.2/94 CJH 8/24/94 CJH 8/29/94 JCF - 0/94 JCF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: BRIEF REVIEWED FILE; SEND DOCUMENTS TO WL\u0026J TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF REPLY LETTER FROM MICHAEL GANS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER LETTER FROM MR. JONES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED APPELLEES BRIEF PREPARATION OF DRAFT REPLY BRIEF TO 8TH CIR. 8TH REVIEWED ANO REVISED CIR. REPLY BRIEF TO TOTAL SERVICES HOURS .zs .25 .25 1.00 .25 .25 .25 .75 1.00 -------- CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY 3.25 8.oo X 105.00 = .r,..75 X 85.00 = HES SENGER EXPENSE TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL \"THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES f'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICES AIIE DUE AND PAYALE UPON RECEIPT. ---------- s.oo ---------- ---------- S750.00 ----------------- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS N-ID PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 9/05/94 CJH RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF REPLY BRIEF; BRIEF 9/06/94 JCF REVIEWED AND REVISED REPLY PREPARATION FOR FILING 9/07/94 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED FINAL REPLY BRIEF - POOLING 9/23/94 CJH REVIEWED APPEAL FILE TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE Ll230 HOURS 2.00 .75 3.50 TAX IDE'-'TIFICATON  71 -025363 7 1 -113619 10/26/94  000150-CJH S352.50 -------- ---------- CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY EXPRESS MAIL 2.75 X 105.00 = .75 X 85.00 = TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE P'ROPER CREDIT, P'U:ASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET IIEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET IIEEN POSTED. THESE WILL IIE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICU Alli: DUI: AND PAYA LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. ~8.7'.5 '-\\40 .f,3 _y:, 1'5\"\" 28.50 $2_!3.50 $381.00 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST HARKHAH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37'6-2011 10/10/94 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAH JONES TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .25 .25 TAX IOENTIFICA TOI.  71-()25363~ l -116162 2/13/95 .000150-cJH $26.25 -------- ---------- CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER FAX .25 X 105.00 = TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL TRIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET IIEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL IHVOICU AIIIII: DUI: AND PAYA  LII: UPON 11111:Cll:IPT, 26.25 C.,C) 18.00 $18.00 $44.25 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INDIVIDUALS ANO PROfESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST NARKHAH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSO VS. PCSSO ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAi. BUILDING .COO WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37'6-2011 cJ PAGE INV# DATE LI230 TAX IDENTIFICATON  71 -025363 7 1 -121629 9/18/95 .0001so-cJH HOURS 8/02/95 8/10/95 8/22/95 8/29/95 CJH CJH CJH CJH RESEARCHED ANO PREPARATION OF POOLING APPEAL REVIEWED MCCUTCHEON EXHIBITS; PREPARATION FOR HEARING RECEIVED t REVIEWED ORDER LETTER TO OR. WILLIAMS TELEPHONE COIJFERENCE lHTH MARG. GREHILLIAN TOTAL SERVICES 1.75 2.50 .25 .25 s.oo CHRISTOPHER JOHN MELLER COPY CHARGES s.oo x 1os.oo = MESSENGER EXPENSE TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAl THIS INVOICE TO INSURE \"'RO,.ER CREDIT, \"'LEASE ENCl.OSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL !IE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE, AU. INVOICU AIIIC DUI: AND P'AYA  LIC UP'ON 1111:CICIP'T, S525.00 52s.oo ~co 3.00 s.oo s0.oo -------$--5--3--3--.--0--0 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0IVI0UAI.S ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COl,O,lERCIAL BUILDING .WO WEST CAPITOL LrTTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS i'Z101 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 9/01/95 CJH 9/05/95 CJH 9/05/95 JCF .06/95 CJH 9/06/95 JCF 9/07/95 CJH 9/07/95 JCF 9/08/95 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. STEELE PREPARATION OF HEARING PREPARATION OF INFORMATION REQUIRED BY COURT; REVIEWED SETTLEMENT DRAFTS ANO HEARING TRANSCRIPTS; CONFERENCE WITH JCF; CALLS TO SAH JONES, ANN BROWN AND J. WRIGHTS DOCKET CLER~; CALLS TO RUTH STEELE CONFERENCE WITH CJH~ REVIEWED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FILES RE: EQUALIZATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL BUDGETS RECEIVED t REVIEWED PCSSD POOLING DOCUMENTS; SUBMISSION ON POOLING; PREPARATION FOR HEARING; CALLS WITH HILHOLLEN: SAM JO~ES: RUTH STEELE; CHIP JONES AND JUDGE WRIGHTS OFFICE REVIEWED PCSSO SUBMISSION; CONFERNCE WITH CJH PREPARATION OF HEARimG; CALL TO J. WRIGHTS OFF~CE; CHYP JONES; RUTH STEELE; HARK HIL~ObLEN: SAH JONES: PREPARATION FOR CROSS EXAHINATI:ON OF DON STEWART; CONFERENCE WITH H~RK HILHOLLEN; CALLS TO LRSD; REVIEWED BUDGET AND BOARD MINUTES CONFERENCE WITH CilH RE: RESEARCH -FOR HEARING RESEARCHED NOVATI N REFORMATION AND MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT PREPARATION AND APPEARED AT POOLING HEARING; CORFERENCE WITH HARK MIUiOLLEN; PREPARATION FOR HEARING CONTINUATION PAGE INV# OAT!: LI230 HOURS .zs 1.00 7.50 2.so 7.75 1.00 8.75 .25 7.50 TAX I0ENTIFICATO,._ f 71-Cl2S3637 l -122801 10/18/95 .000150-CJH (CONTINUED ON PAGE ZJ TO INSURE PROPER CRECIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUCE CHAR\u003coES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET IIEEN IIILLEC OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET IIEEN POSTEC. THESE WILL IIE IIILLEC ON A LATER INVOICE. AL.L IHVOICU ARIC DUIC AND PAYA  LIC UPON IIICCICIPT. 9/08/95 JCF 9/11/95 CJH 9/12/95 CJH 9/13/95 CJH 9/14/95 CJH --9/95 CJH 9/28/95 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUAL.S AHO PROFESSIONAl ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 'I)() WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37\u0026-2011 ATTENDED HEARING CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: CROSS EXAM OF MR. STEWART CONFERENCE WITH KR. HIUHOLIN RE: HEARING PREPARATION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STEVE JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK HILHOLLEN PREPARATION OF HEARING; STEELE AND JONES TESTIMONY; STEWART CROSS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES PREPARATION EOR HEARING TELEPHONE C  lfFERENCE WITH RUTH STEELE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES PREPARATION FOR HEARING LETTER FROH SAH JONES  TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: DEPOSITION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CITT:P JONES RE: DEPOSITION RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: aEARING TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 4.00 .so .75 .25 .25 5.25 .so .75 .so .2s .25 2.00 .25 .so .so .25 . so .25 TAX I0ENTIFICATOt.. I 71 -(125363 ; 2 -122801 10/18/95 .000150-cJH CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOfN CLAYBURN FENDLEY -------- --------- 45.00 X 105.00 = 11.25 X 85.00 = 4725.001'100 956.25 \\ \\\"2..$\"' COPY CHARGES TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIii INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES P'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICES AIII: DUI: AND PAYA LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. 4.50 s~.80 $5686.05 ======= FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PAATNERSHIP Of INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING ' WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST HARKHAH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 10/06/95 CJH 10/09/95 CJH 10/10/95 CJH 112/95 C:JH 10/16/95 CJH 10/17/95 CJH 10/18/95 CJH 10/19./95 A TT RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH SAH JONES RE: DEPOSITIONS TELEPHONE CO!llFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES RE: DEPOSITION PREPARATION FOR TRIAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE COMFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES; PREPARATION FOR JONES DEPOSITION REVIEWED STEWART TESTIHONY PREPARATION OF OUTLYNE OF STEWART TESTIMONY PREPARATION OF POOLING DEPOSITIONS; REVIEWED FILE AND SENT DOCUMENTS TO CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CH'IP JONES; DEPOSITION PREPARATION LETTER FROH sAH JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN OICTATEO OUTLINE OF STATEMENT TESTIMONY; PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITION ANO TRIAL HEHO TO J.C. FENDLEY TELEPHONE COIIFEREWCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN LETTER TO SA~ JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCES WITH CHRIS HELLER; RESEARCflEO YRS7RUCTIONAL BUDGET CASES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 2.25 .25 .25 .25 2.50 .so .so 2.75 1.50 1.75 2.so 2.50 .25 .50 .25 4.50 .2s .25 .so .so TAX I0ENTll'ICATOt, I 71 -0253637 1 -123591 11/15/95 .0001so-cJH (CONTINUED ON PAGE 2J TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT, THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES f'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET IIEEN IIILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET IIEEN POSTED, THESE WILL IIE IIIU.ED ON A LATER INVOICE. AU. INVOICU AIII: DUI: AND PAYA  LI: UPON 1111:Cl:IPT, 10/19/95 CJH 10/20/95 CJH 10/23/95 CJH 10/23/95 JCF 10/2~/95 JCF 10/26/95 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL AS SOCIA TKlNS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37'6-2011 TRAVELED TO DALLAS FOR CHIP JONES DEPOSITION; PREPARATION; CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES; RESEARCHED INSTRUCTIONAL BUDGET TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN LETTER TO DR. WILLIAHS RE: JONES DEPOSITION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE VITH CHIP JONES PREPARATION FOR TRIAL PREPARATION F.OR TRIAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPflONE CONFERENCE WITH J. WRIGHTS DOCKET CLERK REVIEWED SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY OF STEWART; CONFERENCE MITH CJH RE: DEPO. OF CHIP JONES AND RESEARCH NEEDED; RESEARCHED CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ISSUES RESEARCHED INTERPRETATION OF CONSENT DECREE; PREPARATION OF HEMO TO CJH RE: CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ISSUES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED CHIP JONES, DEPOSITION TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 11.75 .zs .2s .25 2.50 2.2s .25 .so .25 s.so 5.25 TAX I0ENTIFICATOI, f 71 -02536:l\u003e 2 -123591 11/15/95 .0001so-cJH ANDREW T. TURNER 42-50 CHRISTOPHER JOHN NELLER JCJ-fN CLAYBURN FENDLEY .so x as.oo = 43.00 X 105.00 = 10.7s x as.oo = 4515. oo \u003cr:,'6W 913.75 \\01~ COPY CftARGES LEXIS COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH PARKING TAXI WESTLAV COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH TOTAL EXPENSES 5.ao 202.50 12.00 13.00 322.58 $-55. .5 .88 ; (CONTINUED ON PAGE 31 TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARC.ES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED, THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. AL.L INVOICU ARI: DUI: AND PAYA  LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUAI.S ANO PROFESSIONAi. ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING .WO WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 TOTAL THIS INVOICE PAGE INV# DATE LI230 TO INSURE l'ROPER CREDIT, l'U:ASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIii INVOICE MAY NOT INCL.UDE CHARGES l\"OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BIL.I.ED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WIL.L. BE BIL.I.ED ON A I.ATER INVOICE, ALL INVOICU AIUI: DUI: AND PAYA l-1: UPON Rl:Cl:IPT, TAX I0EWl~ICATOI. I 71-(12~3637 3 -123591 11/15/95 .0001so-cJH $6027.13 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSO VS. PCSSO 11/08/95 CJH 11/10/95 CJH 11/12/95 CJH 11113/95 CJH 1 20/95 CJH 11/22/95 CJH 11/26/95 CJH 11/27/95 CJH 12/02/95 CJH 12703 /95 CJH 12/04/95 CJH 12/05/95 CJH 12/06/95 C.JH liELEPHQ1\u003e1~ CONFERENCE WITH EIGAI A '1RCUIT ELERlr I.El EPHtmE CONFERENCE WITII SAf4 JON~ ~REP!.RATUJN OF BRAL ARGUHENl:TELEPIISHE EONFEROCE WITII Sidi JOH~ '2-REP:AltATION Hfi BRAL ARGUNer~T' Rf'.IEWEB CASES FOR BRAL ARGUMENT 'KLEPflOPE CONFEltENC:E WI I A Bi A CIR. E-at:IRT OF .t,PP~Ats REVIEWED OLD FILES RE: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND HISTORY LETTER FROM J. WOODS RE: CHIP JONES DEPOSITION RECEIVED t REVIEWED CORRIGENDUM OF DEPOSITION CHANGES PREPARATION F.OR TRIAL PREPARATION F.OR TRIAL PREPARATION FOR TRIAL; REVIEWED DEPOSITION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: POOLING DEPOSITIONS RESEARCHED ANO PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS AND TRIAL REVIEWED TRAISCRIPTS AND PREPARATION FOR TRIAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HII.J-IOLLEN PREPARATION OF TRIAL; CALLS TO SAM JONES ANO COURT REPURTER RE: LESTER AND SECRETARY; REVIEWED EXHIBITS TELEPHONE CORFERENCE WITH DR. STEELE TELEPHONE COIIFERENCE l1 ITH SAM .JONES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS ~ 2.50 .25 2.00 2.00 1.00 .25 1.75 1.75 2.00 .zs 3.25 .zs .25 TAX I0ENTl~ICATO\" I 71-0253637 l -126291 3/22/96 .0001so-cJH (CONTINUED ON PAGE 21 TO INSURE P'ROPER CREOIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUOE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET l!IEEN l!IIU..EO OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET l!IEEN POSTEO. THESE WILL l!IE l!IILLEO ON A LATER INVOICE. AU. IKVOICU AIII: DUI: AKD PAYA  LI: UPON 1111:Cl:IPT, 12/07/95 CJH 12/07 /95 JCF 12/08/95 CJH 12/08/95 JCF 12/11/95 CJH 12/12/95 CJH 12/13/95 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 PREPARATION OF DEPOSITIONS AND TRIAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES AND DON STEWART TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH OR. STEELE PREPARATION OF DEPOSITIONS OF STEWART AND LESTER CONFERENCE ~ITH HARK HILHOLLEN RE: DEPOS. CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: PREPARATION FOR DEPO. OF STEWART PREPARATION OF DEPOSITION OF RUTH STEELE; PREPARATION AND DEPOSITIONS OF DON STEWART AND BOBBY. LESTER ATTENDED DEPOSITION OF DR. STEELE PREOEPOSITIOU CONFERENCE WITH DR. STEELE ATTENDED DEPOSITIONS OF DR. STEWART AND BOBBY LESTER PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS OF OR. STEWART AND BOBBY LESTER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: POOLING; FEE ISSUE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES l2J TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH RUTH STEELE PREPARATION FOR HEAR~NG TELEPHONE COSFERENCE WITH SAH JONES 12) TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WYTH RUTH STEELE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH TRAVIS CREED TELEPHONE CONFERENCc WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER RE: TRANSCRIPTS PREPARATION FOR HEAR\"ING; REVIEWED EXHIBITS; PREPARED EXHIBITS; EXAMINATIONS TELEPHONE COIIIFERERCE MITH HARK HILHOLLEN; CALL TO SAM JONES l2J; CHIP JONES; JUDGE WEIDOWER; REVIEWED ANO OUTUNEO DEPOSITIONS; CONFERENCE WITH WITNESSES; TRIAL PREPARATION PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .2s .zs .2s 1.2s .2s .75 a.so 1.2s 2.00 3.25 1.75 .so .50 .25 1.75 .50 .25 .2s .so .25 3.50 11.75 TAX IDENTll'ICAT01\"  71-0253637 2 -126291 3/22/96  000150-CJH (CONTINUED ON PAGE 3J TO INSURE PROPER CRECIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUCE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET ISEEN ISIU.0 OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET !SEEN POSTEC. THESE WILL IS ISIU.0 ON A LATER INVOICE, ALL INVOICU ARC DUI: AND PAYA  LC UPON 1111:CCIPT, 12/13/95 J CF 12/14/95 CJH 12/14/95 JCF 12/15/95 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROA:SSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTlE R()CI(. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JOHN WALKER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HANK WILLIAMS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES PREPARATION FOR POOLING HEARING PREPARATION OF TR1AL; CONFERENCE WITH WITNESSES; APPEARED FOR POOLING TRIAL; CONFERENCE WITH co=cauNSEL ATTENDED POOLING HEARING PREPARATION FOR POOLING HEARING CONFERENCE WITH CJY RE: PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TELEPHONE COIIFERENCE WITH SAH ~ONES RE: SETTLE HE NT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN RE: SETTLEMENT PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .25 .25 .25 7.50 10.75 6.50 1.00 .25 .so TAX I0ENTl~ICATO1'  71-025363\" 3 -126291 3/22/96 .000150-cJH 91.00 $9070.00 CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY TOTAL SERVICES bZ,CO 66.75 X 24.25 X -------- ---------- 105.01 = 7009.42 q'C\\'20 85.00 = 2061.25 'l-'-1\"2$\"\" LONG D'ISTANCE MESSENGER EXPENSE FAX TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE \"ROPER CREDIT, \"LEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHAR\u003cilES l'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. AU. INVOICU Altl: DUI: AND \"AYA LI: UPON 1111:Cl:IPT. 9.81 s.oo 4.50 $19.31 $9089.31 ----------------- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAi- BUILDING 0l WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKfiAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS PCSSD 12/04/95 CJH 1/04/96 CJH 1/05/96 CJH 1/08/96 CJH -1/09/96 CJH 1/10/96 CJH 1/11/96 CJH l/Ei/9.6 JCF 1/16/96 JCF 1/18/96 JCF 1/19/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH SAM JONES RE: DEPOSITIONS; PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS ANO TRIAL; CALL TO RUTH STEELE; CA~~ TO GAR~ JONES; CALL TO C~IP JONES; CALL TO aAMES ~ENNINGS; OUTLINED JONES DEPOSITION - RE POOLING RESE~RCHED AND REYIEWED FILE RE: POST-TRIAL BRIEF RESEARCHED ISSUES RE: BRIEF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: SETTLEMENT; TRANSCRIPT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER RE: TRANSCRIPT RESEARCHED FOR POOLING POST HEARING BRIEF; CALL TO HILHG~LEN RE: SETTLEMENT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER RE: TRANSCRIPT; BRIEF PREPARATION RECEIVED . REVIEWED POOLING TR~NSCRIPT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HR. HILHOLLEN CONFERENCE WITH CLER~ RE: RESEARCH PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FIND'INGS OF FACT REVIEWED TRAHSCRIPT OF CROSS OF DON STEWART ANO ESTIHOlff OF CHIP JONES REVIEWED RESEARCH MEMO RE: POOLING IS5ES; REVIEWED 8TR CIR. OPINION REMANDING CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: PROPOSED PINOINGS OF FACT PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONFERENCE WITH JCF RE: POOLING PAG= INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 4.25 1.75 2.75 .25 .25 1.50 1.25 1.75 .25 .25 3.00 4.25 .75 .25 1.15 TAX I0ENTl~ICATOI, I 71-0253637 l -128661 6/30/96  000150-CJH ICONTINUED ON PAGE ZJ TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY Wl'ni PAYMENT. 'nilS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARC.ES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILI.ED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. 'niESE WILi. BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICU AIII: DUI: AND PAYA  LI: UPON 1111:CCIPT, 1/19/96 JCF 1/21/96 JCF 1/22/96 CJH 1/22/96 JCF 1/23/96 CJH 1/23/96 JCF 1/24/96 CJH 1/24/96 DKHP 1/24/96 JCF 1/25/96 CJH 1/26/96 CJH 1/26/96 JCF FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0IVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAi. ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING .WO WEST CAPITOL LITTtE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 DOCUMENTS AND ISSUES; REVIEWED FILE; BRIEF PREPARATION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK KILHOLLEN RE: SETTLEMENT REVIEWED TRANSCRIPT OF DIRECT EXAM. OF STEWART; REVIEWED DEP.O. OF LESTER AND STEELE RE: PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JOANN SORN RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF BR~EF PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT REVIEWED RESEARCH DONE BY CLERK RE: CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE lUTH HARK HlLHOLLEN RE: SETTLE!ENT RECEIVED t REVIEWED NEW CALCULATIONS RESEARCHED AND REVISED DRAFT BRIEF; CONFERENCE WITH JCF; REVIEWED TRANSCRIPT PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT REVIEWED AND REVISED BRIEF; REVIEWED RECORD; EIGHTH CIR ORDER PREPARATIO~ OF EXHIBIT NOTEBOOK RESEARCHED CONTRACT EORHATION ANO MUTUAL ASSENT PREPARATIOM OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIEF PREPARATION AND CALLS WITH COUNSEL PREPARATION OF FINAL DRAFT OF PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; REVIEWED CALCULATIONS; CA~L FROM SAM JONES RE: WASHINGTON; CALL TEJ SAM LcTTER TO .JUDGE WRIGHT RE: PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT PREPARED NOT~CE OF FILING DEPOSITIONS OF STEELE AND LESTER LETTER TO JUDGE WRIGHT ENCLOSING DEPOS. PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 4.50 .so 5.25 s.so 1.00 .25 .so 1.75 7.25 1.so .so 1.75 2.75 2.50 .25 .25 TAX I0ENTIFICATOt,,  71-0253637 2 -128661 6/30/96 .000150-CJH ICONTINUEO ON PAGE 3J TO INSURE !'ROPER CRECIT, !'LEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUCE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BIL.LEO OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTEC. THESE WILL BE BILLEC ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INY0ICU AIII: DUI: AND PAYA LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. 1/30/96 CJH 1/30/96 JCF 1/31/96 CJH 2/01/96 CJH 5/03/96 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIOUAI.S AND PROFESSIONAL ASSCX:IA TIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING .6()() WEST CAPITOL LrntE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 OF STEELE ANO LESTER PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDS OF FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSO POOLING \"SECOND SUBMISSION; PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; CONFERENCE WITH JCF REVIEWED PCSSD PROPOSED FINDiNGS AND FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RESEARCHED RE: PCSSD REVIEWED ANO FUTURE RESEARCH RE: PCSSO POOLING AND PLAN BRIEFS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK HILHOLLEN TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV#- DATE LI230 HOURS .25 5.50 2.so .75 1.25 1.25 .25 -------- as.po TAX IDENTIFICATOIS  71-(1253637 3 -128661 6/30/96 .000150-CJH S8Q05.00 CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER DEBORAH K. MOORE JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY 40.00 X 105.01 = .50 X 45.00 = 44.50 X 85.00 = 4200.40 6\u003c.tCO 22.so 3782.50 ~~ DEPOSITION EXPENSE COPY CHARGES TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES l\"DR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICU AIIIIC DUI: AND PAYAaLIC UPON 11111:CICIPT. 3791.50 17.20 $3808.70 $11813.70 3/'Jz./96 JCF '3/05/% CJH 9/U/% CJH SIA % CJH 9/~ 9b CJH q/'JCJ/96 CJH q/U/qb CJH 9/l3/9b CJH q/t5/9b CJH (:J/l7/9t:, CJH 9/24/96 CJH 9/25/96 CJH 9/27 /'H, C.JH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARlHERSHI' OF JNOIYl)\\JAI.S NIJ pRQFESSK)NAI. ASS0CIA llONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BULDING .00 WEST CAPITOL um ROCK. ARl(ANSAS 7Z201 (1501) ,7\u0026-2011 REV!EwED J 1.JOGE  S ~HIORAN0U!\", AtW ORDER TELEPHONE CJNFERENC~ WITH OR. ANDERSON RE: APPEAL RECEIVED t REVIEWED PCSS~ MOTION RE: FEES PREPARATION OF NCTICE CF APPEAL REVIEW (CQNTINUE01 OF SUPPLEMtNTAL PLEAaINGS CALL FROM JOE HAGEN; CALL TO UARRY WARD LETTER FROM MR GANS RECEIVED REVIEWED APP FOR~ ( BRIEf!NG SCHE~ULE "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1633","title":"Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, affidavit and activity statement of John W. Walker; District Court, affidavit of Joy C. Springer; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, affidavit of Christopher Heller; District Court, brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs","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":["1997-06-26/1997-06-30"],"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--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, affidavit and activity statement of John W. Walker; District Court, affidavit of Joy C. Springer; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, affidavit of Christopher Heller; District Court, brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs"],"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/1633"],"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":["99 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Walker, John W.","Springer, Joy C.","Heller, Christopher"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  f\\LED uRT S 01s11~1C\\ ci9p.l(.P,.NSAS u. N 01s1R1c IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT Cdm.~ 2, 6 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS J\\.lN ?.- WESTERN DIVISION _ ,., Mccu~\\11\\Ac\\C-, CLI:. JA N~tS OE.P .CLE.RI(. sv: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. JUN 2 7 1997 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORl\u0026lt: THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOT10'N.FOR''A'N A WARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of an order against the PCSSD defendants, awarding attorneys' fees for the work of their representatives concerning the PCS SD strike issue. The award sought is set forth in Attachment One to this motion. This motion is based upon the affidavits of John W. Walker and Joy C. Springer, the declaration of Robert Pressman, attachments to these documents, 1 the accompanying memorandum, and the following allegations: (1.) On August 27, 1996, the PCSSD defendants filed a motion seeking equitable relief, including an order \"directing that PACT end [a] strike .... \" A 9-page memorandum supported the motion. The court scheduled the matter for a hearing on the following day, August 28, 1996. (2.) On August 28, 1996 the Joshua Intervenors filed a memorandum opposing the relief sought by the PCSSD. Joshua argued in part: \"Moreover, resolution of the contract dispute between 1 These documents are attached to this motion. 1 - the teachers and the District is not a desegregation obligation covered by the settlement agreement\" (at 2); see also at 4 (\"The Joshua Intervenors simply observe that the District has not identified a single provision of the settlement agreement which the union has violated.\") (3 .) On August 28, 1996, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the PCSSD motion, which it treated as a motion for a preliminary injunction. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court \"enjoin[ ed] the teachers from further striking following the Labor Day weekend.\" Transcript, at 18. ( 4.) The Knight Intervenors appealed this court's judgment enjoining the strike. Thereafter, on May 1, 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed this court's judgment. In words echoing those set forth in the memorandum promptly filed by Joshl!:i on August 28, 1996, the court reasoned: \"But we cannot agree that the settlement agreem~nt, even by implication, took away the right to strike, assuming such a right exists under state law, nor can we - find any other source of authority for the action the District Court took\" (Slip Opin., at 5). (5 .) The position taken by the Joshua Intervenors was premised upon two ir.terests of the plaintiff class. First, it sought to focus the attention of the parties and the court, and the use of hearing time, on matters within the scope of the agreements and designed for the benefit of the class members. Second, it sought to avoid a situation where teachers could view class members negatively, because their litigation would be a vehicle for suppressing a tool available to the teache1 s to advance their economic interests. (6.) The Joshua Intervenors are entitled to the fee award sought in this motion against the PCSSD because their representatives' efforts constituted a reasonable post-judgment activity to defend their earlier victory embodied in the approved agreements. Alternatively, and without waiving the foregoing contention, Joshua Intervenors note that they ultimately prevailed in their action to 2 - defend their earlier victory -- and are entitled to the award sought on that basis. (8.) The attachments to this motion, and the accompanying memorandum, show that the time and the rates claimed for the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors, as set forth on Attachment One of this motion, are reasonable. WHEREFORE the Joshua Intervenors move that the PCSSD defendants be ordered to pay )j-{;M.00  the amount of$ --to John W. Walker, P.A., for the work of Joshua Intervenors' representatives in opposing the PCSSD motion. JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman MA# 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion and attachments, as well as the accqf11panying Memorandum, were sent via United States mail to all counsel of record on this c2.f1fl_ day ofJ une ~ 1997. Sb v1J .U/oKo A J~ W. Walker \" 4 ATTACHMENT A SUMMARY OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' FEE CLA AGAINST THE PCSSD REGARDING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE John W. Walker Robert Pressman Joy C. Springer 11 . 7 hours at $ 250\\ hour 5. 75 hours at $ 200\\ hour 10.9 hours at$ 50\\ hour Grand total 5 $2,925.00 $1,150.00 $ 545.00 $4,620.00 FILED RT U.S. DDl~s\\R~~\\ cAi~ANSAS EASTERN ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN 2 6 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION By: OEP.ClERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 Fy r= p..;. F P,' r:! D PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICr/ E~AE':~-t -~, ~ DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JUN ?. 7 1997 INTERVENORS OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORING THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF AN A WARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE A. Introduction This memorandum supports the accompanying motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an award - of attorneys' fees against the PCSSD defendants in connection with the PCCSD st:-ike issue. It discusses the predicate for this award, as well as the time claimed and the rates sought. B. The Predicate for an Award As detailed in the motion, the position taken by the Joshua Intervenors concerning the court's involvement in the PCSSD strike issue was ultimately the one adopted by the Court of Appeals in ruling in the appeal filed by the Knight Intervenors. As also explained in the motion (at paragraph 5), the position taken by the Joshua Intervenors is properly viewed as protecting the value of the court-approved settlement, for class members, in two regards; that is, by focusing the attention of the court r and the parties on the substantive relief gained by intervenors in the settlement;1 and by avoiding a 1 Such an effort was appropriate. The Joshua Jntervenors' motions regarding the incentive schools and ODM recommendations, pending at the time of the August 28, 1996 hearing, were never heard on the merits. The Joshua Jntervenors' motions concerning the Robinson High School and PCSSD discpline were denied tersely, without hearings by the court. situation where the plaintiff class could be scapegoated by the teachers. Alternate grounds support the award sought. The Joshua Intervenors having broadly prevailed in this action by virtue of the settlement, their representatives are entitled to fees for reasonable postjudgment monitoring, including \"defensive [steps], seeking to preserve relief obtained earlier . . . . \" Jenkins v. Missouri, Appeal No. 96-3870 (8th cir. May 22, 1997), Slip Opin. generally and at ---; 2 see also Association of Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008, 1012 (8th Cir. 1996) (defending a victory). We note also, that as to PCSSD, there is no claim of a waiver of fees for monitoring. Secondly, the Joshua Intervenors ultimately prevailed on this matter. They are, therefore, entitled to fees on this matter as a prevailing party. E,\u0026, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1n8. C. The Hours Claimed and the Rates Sought \"The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number - of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.\" Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,433 (1983). This \"lodestar\" amount yields a presumptively reasonable fee. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565 (1986). 1. The Time Claimed The time claimed, totalling ---- hours, was \"reasonably expended on the litigation .... \" Hensley, supra. As this submission shows, intervenors claim only a modest amount of time for the work of lead counsel, Robert Pressman (only on this petition), and Ms. Joy Springer. Intervenors' representatives studied the materials filed by the parties, prepared a memorandum, participated in the hearing on August 28, 1996, and prepared this petition. As it is customary in this market to bill the time of a paralegal separately (J. Springer Aff., para. ---), it is proper to make a sepan.te award for Ms. Springer's time. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288-89 (1989). Indeed, involving Ms. 2 See paragraph beginning \"Another factor that has been considered . ... \" Springer was cost-effective. Id., at 288. 2. The Hourly Rates Sought The rates sought are John W. Walker$ 250 per hour, Robert Pressman$ 200 per hour, and Joy C. Springer $ 50 per hour. These are \"reasonable hourly rate[s]\" for these advocates taking account of the nature of this case and their \"skill[s], experience[s], and reputation[s].\" Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984). In order to avoid repetition, intervenors' argument on rates relies upon the details set forth in the accompanying affidavits. These documents show, among other things, that Mr. Walker has long been active in this case, been lead counsel in a very large number of civil rights cases, and been praised by members of the federal bench for his expertise in this sphere. J. Walker Aff., paras. 3, 5, 7, 9. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit compensated Mr. Walker at the rate of$ 250 per hour for his work on the appeal in the case of Shirley Harvell v. Blytheville School District, 93- 1009EAJ (Order, August 19, 1996). See J. Walker A.ff, para. 8 and attachment. He currently charges fee-paying clients this rate. Aff., para. 9.3 With regard to Mr. Pressman, a district judge familiar with his work during the lengthy Boston school desegregation case compensated almost all of his time for the period October 1988 through June 1993 at the rate of$ 200 per hour. See Morgan v. Gittens, 915 F.Supp. 457, 472-74 (D.Mass. 1996). The affidavits appended to Mr. Pressman's declaration here also support a rate of 3 To be sure, this court in dictim, in an order of September 2 3, 1996, at 9, n. 6, set a rate of $ 200 per hour for lead counsel. However, this rate is inconsistent with the rate established by the Court of Appeals. Moreover, at minimum, lead counsel's rate should not be lower than$ 225 per hour, a rate employed by two other judges of this court on a total of four occasions. See J. Walker Aff., para. 8. $ 200 per hour. 4 The affidavit of Ms. Springer attached to the motion shows that she has considerable experience in civil rights litigation generally, and this case in particular. In Jeffers v. Clinton, 776 F.Supp. 465,470,476 (E.D.Ark.) (2 to 1), a three-judge court utilized rates of$ 40 per hour for local paralegals and $ 50 per hour for out-of-town paralegals in a voting rights case, for work in the period 1989 to 1991. The passage of time since this work was performed justifies the higher rate sought for Ms. Springer's work in this case. We note also the following factors. First. The rates sought are supported by rates approved by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (in instances other than the one cited with regard to Mr. Walker). See McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1460, 1461 (1988) (the court noted its approval in 1986 in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case of the rate of \"$ 200 per hour for a Washington, D.C. 'cooperating attorney who had been in practice approximately thirty years\"' and of the same rate in 1988 in the Kansas City case for \"an experienced civil rights attorney for his services in [that] school desegregation case ... \"); Planned Parenthood, Sioux Falls Clinic, v. Miller, 70 F.3d 517, 520 (1995) (rates ofup to$ 260 per hour for attorneys based in Chicago); see also the Declaration of Thomas I. Atkins, former General Counsel of the NAACP, attached to the Declaration of Mr. Pressman. Second. The rates sought here are supported by the reasoning of the Court of A~peals for the Eighth Circuit, which has emphasized the connection between the rates employed in cases like this one and fulfilling the goal of facilitating civil rights enforcement, which underlies the fee statutes on 4 Recently, in this case, the LRSD did not challenge a rate of$ 200 per hour for Mr. Pressman/or work in opposing the termination of jurisdiction as to the LRSD and preparing the related fee petition. This court then granted the full award sought by the Joshua Jntervenors, in an order entered on May 16, 199 7. which the plaintiffs rely. See Casey v. City of Cabool. MO, 12 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir. 1993). Conclusion There is no basis for departing from the lodestar amount here. Therefore, an award should be made to John W. Walker, P.A. in the amount of $4i~O-OO Respectfully submitted, JOHNW. WALKER, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman MA# 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion and attachments, as well as the accAmpanying Memorandum, were sent via United States mail to all counsel of record on this MdayofJune~ 1997. ~/-.~ J~er IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. WALKER STATE OF ARKANSAS) )SS. COUNTY OF PULASKI) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Comes now the affiant, JOHN W. WALKER, who submits the following affidavit under oath: Educational and Professional Qualifications 1. I graduated from Arkansas AM\u0026N College in Pine Bluff, Arkansas in 1958 with a major in Sociology. In 1960, I was awarded a John Hay Whitney Opportunity Fellowship which I used to obtain a Master's Degree from New York University in Education (Human Relations) in 1961. In 1961, I enrolled in the Yale University Law School from which I received my law degree in 1964. At Yale Law School, in 1964, I was a finalist in the Thurman Arnold Appellate Moot Court Competition. I have studied further at Fisk University (the Race Relations Institute) and at many legal training seminars which focused upon the subject of civil rights law in particular. 1 In 1964, I was admitted to practice before the Bar of Arkansas. Subsequently, I was admitted to, and still practice before, the United States Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals for the 2. Eighth, Fifth, Eleventh, and Tenth Circuits, the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, and the United States District Court, Eastern and Western District of Arkansas. 3. I completed a legal training internship in New York City with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) in September, 1965. In 1965, I opened a private general law practice in Little Rock which emphasized civil rights law. In 1968, Norman Chachkin (now of the LDF) and I opened one of the first integrated law firms in the South. That law firm has continued to be operated on an integrated basis since that time although it has undergone several name changes. My own work continues to emphasize civil rights legal activity. 4. I hold membership in the American and National Bar Associations, and the W. Harold  Flowers and Pulaski County Bar Associations. From 1976 to 1982, I was a member of the Arkansas Board ofExaminers. I have served as a member of the Federal Rules Advisory Committee of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am a member of the Board ofDirectors of the LD F b New York. 5. The following is a partial listing of major cases where I have been lead counsel: Employment Paxton v Union National Bank, 688 F. 2d. 522, 574 (8th Cir. 1982); Maney v Brinkley Municipal Water Works, 802 F 2d. 1073, 1076 (8th Cir. 1986); Rogers v International Paper Co., 423 U.S. 809 (1975); Powell v Georgia Pacific Paper Company, Civ. Nos. 73- C-l and E.D. 73-C-3 (Ark. 1993); Williams v Anderson, 562 F 2d. 1081 (8th Cir. 1977); Clark v Mann, 562 F 2d. 1104 (8th Cir. 1977); Parham v Southwestern Bell, 433 F 2d. 421 (8th Cir. 1970); Robinson v Klassen, Civ. No LR-C-73-301 (E.D. Ark. 1981); 2 McFadden v Arkansas State Hospital, Civ. No. LR-C-78-153 (E.D. 1989; 1994); Taylor v Jones, 653 F 2d. 1193 (8th Cir. 1981); Hollowell v Gravett, Civ. No. LR-C-86-600 (E.D. Ark. 1989); and Perryman v Johnson Products, 698 F 2d. 1138 (11th Cir. 1983); Hollowell and Day v. Randy Johnson, E.D. Ark., October 30, 1995 .. Education Clark v Board of Education, 705 F 2d. 265 (8th Cir. 1983); Dowell v Oklahoma City Board of Education, 890 F 2d 1483 (10th Cir. 1989); Arvizu v Board of Education of Waco, Texas, 296 F 2d. 1309 (5th Cir. 1974); Kemp v Beasley. 389 F 2d. 178 (8th Cir. 1972); Raney v Board of Education of Gould, Arkansas, 381 F.2d 252 (8th Cir. 1967); Kelley v Altheimer, 378 F 2d. 483 (8th Cir. 1967); Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F 2d. 1296 (8th Cir. 1987), cert den., 102 L. Ed. 2d. - 146 (1988); Smith v Board of Education of Morrilton, 365 F 2d. 770 (8th Cir. 1966); and Sherpell v. Humnoke School Dist. No. 5.; Rusk v. The Stuttgart School District,_ F.Supp. ___J E.D. Ark. (1994). Housing Williams v Matthews, 499 F. 2d. 819 (1974). Criminal Justice Winters v Beck, 407 F 2d. 125 (8th Cir. 1969). Public Accommodations Daniel v Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969). Voting Rights Sherpell v Humnoke, 814 F.2d 538 (8th Cir. 1989); Harvell v Ladd, 931 F. 2d. 226 (8th 3 - Cir. 1992); Harvell v Ladd, __ F. 3d. __ (8th Cir. 1994); Williams v City of Texarkana, 32 F. 3d. 265 (8th Cir. 1994). 6. I have served as Chairman of the Board of the Arkansas Opportunities industrialization Center (OIC). the Center for Law and Education (Cambridge, Mass.), and the Leadership Roundtable (Little Rock, Arkansas). In 1968, I was a member of the Arkansas Constitutional Revision Study Commission. In the early 1970's, I was a member of the Land Use Study Commission of the Southern Governors Conference. I have served as a member of the Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education. I have spoken or lectured at several annual meetings of the National Bar Association; the American Bar Association; other bar associations; many public colleges and many high schools regarding many subjects but primarily upon the subject of Civil Rights Law. I have also received numerous awards for my representation of civil rights causes and cases. 7. I have participated actively in this case and the predecessor litigation since the 1960's. 8. The foregoing recitations establish my educational and professional qualifications. It is my opinion that the bar of first rank with comparable qualificaitons in other fields of law command the highest hourly rates for their work. Those rates range between $150.00 and $300.00 per hour in this market. The State of Arkansas has contracted for legal services in the range of $150.00 per hour for experienced counsel. In an Order dated August 19, 1996, in the case of Harvell v. Blytheville School District, Appeal No. 93-1009 EAJ, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit compensated my time at the rate of $250.00 per hour for a successful appeal in a voting rights case. See the papers attached to this affidavit. My time has been compensated at the rate of $225.00 per hour on at least four occasions in the Arkansas District Courts. These cases are as follows: (a) Ashford v. City of Hamburg. C.A. No. 93-1032 (W.D. Ark.) (Order 1/19/95) 4 - (Judge Barnes); (b) McFadden v. Arkansas State Hospital, C.a. No. LR-C-78-153 (Order, 4/18/95) (Judge Howard); (c) Davis v. Franks, C.A. No. 88-4082 (Order, 5/16/96) (Judge Barnes); (d) Day and Hollowell v. Johnson. C.A. No. LR-C-94-849 (Order 9/27/96) (Judge Howard) (stayed ... r pending outcome of substantive appeal). 9. In Taylor v. Jones, Circuit Judge Richard Arnold described me as a member of the bar of the \"first rank.\" In April, 1995, in the aforementioned Order in McFadden v. Arkansas State Hospital. cited in paragraph 8., Judge George Howard, Jr. wrote: \"The Court notes that Walker is one of the most preeminent civil rights attorneys in the State\" (at 3). 10. The fee which I request herein of $250.00 per hour is my usual and customary fee which I routinely charge fee paying clients. The total time for which this fee is sought is 11. 7 hours. 11. Counsel and co-counsel herein have taken great care to prevent their submission from - reflecting duplicate and non-productive efforts. I have reviewed the submissions of all representatives of the intervenors and believe they are accurate. correct and reasonable. 12. A statement and activities for which I claim compensation is attached hereto. The foregoing statement is true and correct to the bestof my knowledge, records, information and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ~ay of 199 ~~LQ. ~Lll MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 9/11/ZfJJ') IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS DATE - 8/27/96 8/27/96 8/ /96 9/09/96 9/11/96 9/14/96 6/25/96 ACTIVITY STATEMENT OF JOHN W. WALKER ACTIVITY Conference with JCS re: PCSSD special board meeting; Attended meeting Review and study of PCS SD Motion and Memorandum; drafted and finalized Joshua Intervenors' Response to Motion; preparation for hearing Prepare for hearing and hearing before Judge Wright on Motion Review and study of Knight Motion for TRO and Brief Review and study Knight Response to PCS SD Motion (Response and Memorandum) Review and study PCS SD Reply to Knight Response, including Brief Review draft Fee Petition Total Hours Expended Hourly Rate Total Fee Requested HOURS 1.3 3.5 6.5 .3 NC .1 NC 11.7 $ 250.00 $2,925.00 Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. Civil Action No. LR-C-82-866 Declaration of Robert Pressman Robert Pressman swears under penalty of perjury that the following information is truthful: A. Employment in Civil Rights Division (1). Following my graduation from the Columbia Law School in June 1965, I worked as an attorney in the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, from August 2, 1965 through July 31, 1970. The Division enforced civil rights laws concerning voting rights, access to public facilities and public accommodations, school desegregation, equal employment opportunity, and freedom from mistreatment by police personnel. My work at various times involved each of these areas. It encompassed giving guidance to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on investigations of possible civil rights violations and compiling factual material and analyzing complex fact patterns, as well as legal research. (2.) For roughly the first two years of my tenure in the Division, I was assigned to work on problems arising in the northern part of Mississippi. During this period, I frequently travelled to Mississippi and, among other things, made appearances in the Carroll County school desegregation case. I also investigated the status of school desegregation in other systems, including Lee County, Pontotoc County, Tunica County, and the City of Corinth. In 1967, the Division was reorganized and my work shifted to Illinois. There, I developed facts concerning school segregation in School District 151 of Cook County, Illinois. The Department's suit against that district was its first northern case. I participated in the trial. See United States v. School District 151, 286 F. Supp. 786, 787 (N.D. Ill. 1968); 301 F. Supp. 201, 205 (N.D. Ill. 1969). My Illinois work also included school segregation issue in Cairo, East st. Louis, and Madison County, Illinois. (3.) In 1969, the Division was again reorganized, this time along subject matter lines. I was assigned to the education section. From October 1969 through my departure from the Division at the end of July 1970, I worked principally on Alabama school desegregation issues, particularly on Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, a statewide case involving 100 local - districts, as well as state officials. Efforts were underway in this period to secure implementation of plans satisfying the standards of Green v. County School Board. I prepared written comments on issues arising in more than 30 Alabama districts and appeared frequently before the three-judge court (Judges Richard T. Rives, Frank M. Johnson, and R.H. Grooms). I also appeared before Judge Johnson in the separate Montgomery County school desegregation case and prepared for the Department briefs in two appeals from the decisions of the three-judge court in the Lee case. See, for example, Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 448 F.2d 746, 747 (5th Cir. 1971). (4.) On December 15, 1969, I received a Certificate of Award for outstanding work, in the Attorney General's Twentieth Annual 2 Awards Ceremony. Four of the Division's ninety attorneys were given this award at that time. B. Employment at the Center for Law and Education (5.) In August 1970, I began working at the Center for Law and Education (CLE), a component of the federally-funded program of legal services for low-income persons, administered since 1975 by the Legal Services Corporation. As the \"national back-up center\" on education issues for the entire legal services program, the Center's principal role was to promote throughout the program strong representation of clients experiencing education problems. The work consisted of providing advice to local legal services personnel on particular client problems; conducting training programs; writing publications and articles; - engaging in administrative advocacy; and participating as cocounsel in some cases. My employment at the Center ended as of September 15, 1995, due to lay off, because the Congress chose to eliminate funding for national support programs like CLE. (6.) In 1972, upon its filing, I began working on the Boston school desegregation case as co-counsel for the plaintiff class of Black parents and students. My involvement has continued to the present, although the case is largely inactive with only a few orders remaining in place. See, for example, Morgan v. Hennigan, 379 F. Supp. 410, 414 (D.Mass. 1974) (liability ruling) and Morgan y, McDonough, 540 F. 2d 527, 528 (1st Cir. 1976) (argued appeal in which the court affirmed the placing of the operation of a high school in receivership). 3 (7.) In the 1970's I also did some work in the Detroit school desegregation case, Bradley v. Milliken, and more than 1000 hours of work on behalf of the plaintiffs-intervenors in the Omaha school desegregation case, United States v. School District of Omaha. See for example 521 F.2d 530 (wrote brief for successful appeal with the court's opinion reflecting to a substantial degree the factual portion of the brief). (8.) During the 1970's, I played a role at CLE in the development of a racial discrimination theory ultimately employed successfully in securing a delay in the Florida program of denying standard high school diplomas to students failing a \"competency test.\" See Debra P. v. Turlington, 474 F. Supp. 244 (M.D. Fla. 1979), aff'd, 644 F.2d (5th Cir. 1981). In the Debra - I:..._ litigation, I participated briefly in the trial (due to an illness in the family of a CLE colleague) and wrote a portion of the trial memorandum setting forth a theory accepted by the courts (denial of standard high school diploma based upon competency test result perpetuated earlier intentional discrimination against black students who began their educations in segregated and unequal elementary schools). (9.) In 1986, I wrote two memoranda on racial discrimination claims for use in the legal services program. (a) The first, focusing on racial discrimination in school discipline and curricula, contained the following headings: \"Typical Problems,\" \"Gathering Information About a Discrimination Problem,\" \"The Legal Bases of Racial Discrimination Claims\" (including 4 constitutional and Title VI claims), \"Other Material re Disparate Discipline,\" \"Material Regarding Discrimination in Curriculum,\" and \"Remedial Principles.\" (b) The second memorandum is titled \"Discriminatory Allocation of Resources within a School District\" (14 pages). I first used this document in a training program for legal services attorneys in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1986. (10.) I participated during my tenure at CLE, as a trainer or lecturer, in a minimum of 40 sessions on education issues for legal services workers, parents, and\\or students. One such session in Colorado during the late 1980's for legal services attorneys concerned ways to monitor consent decrees and other judgments in institutional reform cases. I prepared for this event a 34-page memorandum titled \"Materials on Monitoring and - Enforcement of Judgments.\" c. Work on the Ayers Case (11.) In January 1987, the North Mississippi Rural Legal Services Program asked me to join their staff members providing representation to the named plaintiffs and the plaintiff class in the case then styled Ayers v. Allain, Civil Action No. 4:75CV009- B-O, Northern District of Mississippi. Ayers concerns the nature of the obligation of Mississippi officials to eliminate racial disrimination and segregation from the operation of the Mississippi system of public universities. I have played an active role in the case since that time. My work in Ayers through March 1995, totalled in excess of 6,000 hours, and involved, inter alia, framing and responding to discovery requests; taking 5 depositions; identifying and preparing exhibits; preparing exhibit lists and other materials required as part of the standard pre-trial submission; participating in settlement efforts; making an opening statement; presenting and crossexamining witnesses and otherwise participating in two lengthy hearings (with the second exceeding 40 days of trial); preparing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; preparing appellate briefs; arguing before three panels of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as well as that court sitting en banc, 1 and supporting the efforts of my brother and sister cocounsel. o. Court Appearances (12.) During the course of my legal career, I have made - appearances in the following federal courts: M.D. Ala., S.D.Ala., E.D. Ark., M.D. Fla., S.D. Fla., N.D. Ill., D. Mass., N. D. Miss., E.D. Mich., D. Neb., D. N. H., and D. S. Car.; Court of Appeals for the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits (filed briefs and argued); United States Supreme Court (filed briefs). E. Work in this District Court (12.) In September 1995, I began to assist John W. Walker 1 See Ayers v. Allain, 893 F.2d 732 (5th Cir. 1990); Ayers v. Allain, 914 F.2d 676, 677 (5th Cir. 1990) (en bane) (argued in each instance). A fresh appeal followed the district court's March 1995 decision. See Ayers v. Fordice, 879 F. Supp. 1419. I later argued in March 1996 before a panel considering a stay of a part of the district court's order and on November 4, 1996 before the panel hearing the matter on the merits. See Ayers v. Fordice, 111 F.3d 1183, 1188 (5th Cir. 1997). 6 and other persons in his firm with various facets of their work. My many projects have included: several fee petitions; work on a large number of issues in the Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. case; participation in the Honorable v. North Little Rock Sch. Dist. student discipline case in this court; preparation of the appellees' brief on appeal in Day and Hollowell v. Johnson, a case in which Judge Howard invalidated in part on the basis of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 and Title VII, the attempt by the newly elected sheriff to discharge two African American captains; support to an attorney in the Walker firm in the ongoing MOPAC case involving Title VII issues, as well as work on other employment discrimination issues; and preparation of the complaint and discovery efforts in Young v. City of Little - Rock, alleging the wrongful arrest and detention of a black resident of Little Rock. F. The Current Fee Petition (13.) Attachment One to this Declaration, which is incorporated herein by reference, sets forth my time and activities in working on this particular petition. It is based upon records prepared on a daily basis. An award is sought  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1645","title":"Court filings concerning PCSSD motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issues, motion to extend time, and cross-petition for attorneys' fees","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":["1997-06-05/1997-06-19"],"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--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning PCSSD motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issues, motion to extend time, and cross-petition for attorneys' fees"],"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/1645"],"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":["54 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Jones, Sam"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issues; District Court, brief in support of motion for attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest; District Court, affidavit of Sam Jones; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to extend time; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to extend time; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply in further support of its cross-petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply brief in further support of its cross-petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to extend time; District Court, response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to extend time; District Court, order  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  JUN (i - 1997 OFFICE Cr DESEGREGAT!O~J MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JA~Ats.w. McC,ORMAC~. CLERK By. ~1 ~ Ll... l U \".. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No, LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District for reconsideration of this Court's Order approving the 1996-97 budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. There has been no timely response to the motion. The Court finds that the motion should be granted. 1 1 See doc. # 2983. DEP CLERK' ., .. :,-._ O O 1: The Court hereby modifies it Order of May 6, 1997 to clarify that the Order applies only to the 1996-97 ODM budget. The Pulaski County school districts are free to present evidence on all issues concerning the adequacy of state funding of future ODM budgets. Also before the Court is the motion of the Knight Intervenors for an extension of time within which to respond to the PCSSD's petition for attorneys' fees. The motion is granted. The Knight Intervenors have until and including June 10, 1997, within which to file their response to the PCSSD's petition for attorneys' fees. IT IS SO ORDERED this -5~ay of June 1997. a, ,g,J ~' \\ 'Hd f0 UNITED A ES DIST JUDGE - i,1s DOCUMENT ENTERED ON OOCKETSHE:ETIN .- MPUANCE Wl\"'[H RULE~ ANL(a) FROP :N __ {:,~/2/!l_~ey V  ~ - ~ r - 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RJECEI''~\"' DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. ~.q ,,cf_ ]; .I W!!;.U DEFENDANTS -e.,,. Vr.,., d MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. JUN S-1997 INTERVENORS Y-'Gl'ti KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. p..., _ INTERVENORS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MON/TO PCSSD MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS'ffi~ES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST AS RESPECTS THE POOLING ISSUES The PCSSD for its motion states: 1. The PCSSD is the prevailing party as regards the pooling - dispute. 2. Pursuant to both Arkansas Code Annotated 16-22-308 and 42 U.S.C.  1988, the PCSSD is entitled to payment of its reasonable attorneys' fees. 3. The PCSSD is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees of at least $45,723.50, all as more fully set out, explained, and supported in the brief and affidavit which accompany this motion. 4. Under the particular circumstances of this case, the PCSSD is entitled to both pre- and postjudgment interest pursuant to Arkansas law. 5. This Court's order of July 30, 1996, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, ordered the LRSD to pay over the pooling sums within 60 days of that date. The opinion of the Court of Appeals - dated March 31, 199~ is attached as Exhibit A. To date, LRSD has paid nothing. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court awarding reasonable attorneys' fees together with pre- and postjudgment interest. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 ones O) for ski County District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June _5 , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 03/%8/97 17:36 US COURT APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-3333 Little Rock School District, * * Appellant, * * Lorene Joshua; Intervenor Plaintif!s, * Servicemaster Management Services;   *  Intervenor,  Appeal from the United States * District court ror the Anne Mitchell; Bob Moore, Pat * Easte~ District of ~kansas. Gee; Pat Rayburn; Mary J. Gage;* North Little Rock Classroom * Teachers Association; Pulaski * A.,sociation of Classroom  Teachers; Little Rock Classroom* Teachers Association; Alexa  Armstrong; Karlos Armstrong;  Ed Bullington; Khayyam Davis; * Janice Dent; John Harrison,  Alvin Hudson; Tatia Hudson;  Milton Jackson; Leslie Joshua; : Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua;  Katherine Knight; Sara  Matthews; Becky McKinney; * Derrick Miles; Janice Miles; * John M. Miles; NAACP; Joyce * Person; -Brian Taylor; Hilton * Taylor, Parsha Taylor; Robert * Willingham; Tonya Willingham; * Intervenor Plaintiffs, v. North Little Rock School District; Leon Barnes; Sheryl Dunn; Mac Faulkner; Richard A. * *  * * *  * EXHIBIT I A OJ1281i7 li:3i 'OJH 5Ja 31145 Giddings; Marianne Gosser; Don  Hindman; Shirley Lowery; Bob  Lyon; George A. Mccrary; Bob * Moore; Steve Morley; Buddy  Raines; David Sain; Bob * Stender; Dal Ward; John Ward;  Judy Wear; Grainger Williams; * * Defendants, *  Pulaski County special School * District;   Appellee, *  State of Arkansas;   Defendants,   Office of Desegregation Monitor;*  Claimant,  * Horace A. Walker, F. A. * Hollingsworth; Kenneth G. * Torrence; Phillip E. Kaplan;  Janet Pulliam, John Bilheimer; * Dale Charles; Robert L. Brown,  Sr.; Gwen Hevey Jackson; Diane * Davis; Raymond Frazier;   Plaintiffs, * V.   Pulaski Cowity Board of  Education; o. G. Jacovelli, * individually and as President * of the Board of Education of  the Little Rock School District;* Patrici~ Gee, individually and  in her official capacity as a * member or the Board or  Education of the Little Rock  School District, a public body;* Dr. George Cannon, individually and in his official capacity * as a member of the Board or  Education of the Little Rock  -2- '61JUU.i 03/28li7 17:38 'Et3H 53i JU5 US COliRT APP.EALS School District, a public body;  John Moore, individually and in his official capacity as a  member of the Board o!  Education o! the Little Rock  school District, a public body; Dorsey Jackson, individually  and in his official capacity * as a member of the Board ot  Education of the Little Rock  School District, a public body;  Dr. Katherine Mitchell, indivi-  dually and in her official * capacity as a member of the  Board o! Education ot the * Little Rock School District, a  public body; W. D. Hamilton,  individually and in his o!!icial* capacity a~ a mexiwer of the  Board of Education ot the  Little Rock School District, a  public body; Cecil Bailey, * individually and in his  official capacity as a member  of the FUlaski County Board of  Education, a public corporate;  Thomas Broughton, individually  and in his official capacity  as a member or the Pulaski  County Board of Education, a  public corporate, Dr. Martin  Zoldessy, individually and in  his official capacity as a  member of the Pulaski County  Board of Education, a public  corporate; *  Defendants,  Submitted: February 25, 1997 Filed: March 31, 1997 l(illOOi Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chid Judge, and HEANEY and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge~. -3- 03/%8/97 17:40 !!314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS ilJ 007 HF.ANEY, Circuit Judge. Little Rock School District (LRSD) appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District o! Arkansas requiring it to pay the Pulaski County School District (PCSSD) $345,294 pursuant to a settlement agreement in the interdistrict desegregation case. We a!!irm. the order or the district court essentially tor the reasons stated in its opinion. At issue in this appeal is the entitlement to majority-tominori ty [M-to-M] payments and the amount each school district would receive pursuant to the settlement agreement. Paragraph oot the settlement agreement provides in part: [A]ll M-to-M payments generated by Interdistrict School students paid by the State to LRSD and PCSSD (including payment to each district as sending district and receiving district), except transportation payments, will be pooled for the education of all Interdistrict School students. The instructional budgets ot the Interdistrict Schools will be equalized. This provision does not change each district's obligation to construct and maintain the Interdistrict Schools within its boundaries. (Settlement Agreement, II, 1 0(3) .) Pursuant to this court's. instructions, the district court judge conducted an evidentiary hearing and subsequently ordered: [F]or each school year, the amount of LRSD's and PCSSD's financial contribution to the pool is calculated in accordance with Paragraph O of the Settlement Agreement. [There is no dispute as to the methodology for calculating these amounts.] The total amount of fwids in the pool for a given year is then divided by the total -4- 03/ZS/97 17:41 US COllRT APPEALS number or M-to-M students in the interdistrict schools in both districts to arrive at an equalized, per-student dollar amount for educating them in the interdistrict schools. For each school district, the equalized perstudent dollar amount is then multiplied by the number of M-to-M students hosted by that district in its interdistrict schools to deteanine the amount of the pooled funds to which each district is entitled. Little Reck school Dist, Y, Pulaski Cty, Special Schgol Dist, Ne. l, LR-C-82-866, at 3 (E.D. Ark. July 30, 1996) (citations omitted). ijooa On appeal, LRSD argues that the district court erred in dividing the pool based on the number ot M-to-M transter students; rather, it asserts that the court should have divided the pool based on the total number of students in the interdistrict schools. Under LRSD's method o! calc~lation, PCSSD would owe LRSD - Sl,270,839, instead o! LRSD's owing PCSSD $345,294 as ordered by the district court. We review the factual findings ot the district court under a clearly erroneous standard and its interpretation ot the Settlement Agreement de ngyg. The district coUit's interpretation of paragraph O is an acceptable one: it is just, it will promote voluntary interdistrict transfers to interdistrict schools, and it will provide a financial incentive to both districts to receive Mto- M tra.nster students. ~ Little Bock School Dist, Y, Pulaski Cty, Special School Dist No, 1. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). We recognize that LRSD spends more per pupil to educate its students in the interdistrict schools than PCSSD does and that the district court fonnula will not fully equalize these costs, but we do not believe that these differences are sufficient to release LRSD from its pooling obligation. Such a release would certainly -5- OJ12819i li:4J liS COl,;RI Af'f'\u0026u..S inhibit efforts to provide an integrated education to many student~, the principal objective of the school integration propo.!al. Nor are the differences sufficient to justify the alternative method of equalization suggested by LRSD. The practical problems in that approach were found by the district court to be insurmountable and we are not prepared to say that the district court erred in making that assessment. The judgment of the district court is attirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -6- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") submits this brief in support of its motion for attorneys' fees in connection with its motion to enforce the \"pooling\" agreement. Without doubt, PCSSD was the prevailing party in this contract dispute and, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308, this Court may award reasonable fees. Alternatively, this Court may award fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988. PCSSD is further entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest on this Court's award of $345,294 to PCSSD. BACKGROUND By motion dated January 7, 1994, PCSSD sought to enforce the Settlement Agreement, requiring the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") to reimburse the PCSSD for monies owed pursuant to the \"pooling\" agreement of the parties regarding Majority-to-Minority (\"M-to-M\") payments received from the State of Arkansas. LRSD opposed PCSSD's motion, and this Court entered an order on March 16, 1994 granting PCSSD's motion. The Court of Appeals vacated this Court's March 16, 1994 order by opinion dated July 12, 1995, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. 1 Pursuant to the Eighth Circuit's order, this Court held an evidentiary hearing on September 8, 1995, and again on December 14, 1995. Both parties filed post-hearing briefs addressing the issues raised in the Eighth Circuit's opinion and this Court again, on July 30, 1996, granted PCSSD's motion and ordered the LRSD to pay over these sums within sixty (60) days. To date, LRSD has paid nothing. LRSD appealed the pooling order to the Eighth Circuit once more. Reviewing the district court's factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard, and its interpretation of the Settlement Agreement de novo, the Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court's order on March 31, 1997, finding the district court's interpretation of Paragraph O (the \"pooling\" agreement) to be just and in furtherance of implementation of the Settlement Agreement. 2 This petition is timely pursuant to this Court's order of August 16, 1996, giving the PCSSD until thirty (30) days after return of the Eighth Circuit's mandate to present this petition. ARGUMENT I. THE PCSSD SHOULD BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES A. PCSSD Is Entitled to Fees Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  16-22- 1 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Cty Dist. 1, 60 F.3d 435 (8th Cir. 1995). 2 Opinion, p. 5. A copy of the Eighth Circuit's March 31, 1997 opinion is attached to PCSSD's motion as Exhibit A. 2 PCSSD is entitled to request reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308, which provides that a prevailing party in a breach of contract case may be allowed reasonable fees to be assessed by the court and collected as costs. This statute may be utilized by a federal court in awarding fees on breach of contract claims brought in federal court. TCBY Systems, Inc. v. RSP Co., 33 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 1994). There is no fixed formula or policy to be considered in arriving at the amount of the attorneys' fees. There are, however, pertinent considerations w~ich the courts regularly evaluate in exercising their discretion to determine the amount of such award. These factors include (1) the attorneys' judgment, learning, ability, skill, experience, professional standing and advice; (2) the relationship between the parties; (3) the amount or importance of the subject matter of the case; (4) the nature, extent and difficulty of services in research; (5) the -preparation of the pleadings; (6) the proceedings actually taken and the nature and extent of the litigation; and (7) the time and labor devoted to the client's cause, the difficulties presented in the course of the litigation and the results obtained. Crockett \u0026 Brown, P.A. v.Courson, 312 Ark. 363, 849 S.W.2d 938 (1993) (under Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308); see also Chrisco v. Sun Indus., Inc., 304 Ark. 227, 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990). 3 An evaluation of the above considerations in this action makes clear that PCSSD is entitled to a reasonable attorneys' fee in the amount of at least $45,723.50. 1. The Attorneys' Judgment, Learning Ability, Skill, Experience, Professional Standing and Advice This Court is well acquainted with the PCSSD's attorneys' judgment, learning ability, skill, experience, professional standing and advice. Mr. Jones has represented the PCSSD in this matter since its inception in 1982. 2. The Relationship of the Parties In this long standing action, PCSSD has been required to litigate funding claims against both the State and the other Districts. In this particular instance, PCSSD has litigated the - pooling issue twice before this Court and twice before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The hard fought nature of the pooling dispute is a relevant matter for this Court to consider in fixing the appropriate fee. 3. The Amount and/or Importance of the Subject Matter of the Case This Court ruled that, pursuant to the pooling agreement, the PCSSD is entitled to $345,294 for FY 1991-91 through FY 1994- 95. Equally significant to the monetary award, this Court determined that the pooling agreement interpretation urged by PCSSD -- and adopted by the Court in its order -- would give effect to the meaning the parties attached to the agreement and in a manner that will promote voluntary interdistrict transfers, particularly to interdistrict schools. The operation of the 4 - agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable is considered by the Eighth Circuit to be a crucial element of the Settlement Agreement, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. 3 Thus, PCSSD achieved not only a substantial monetary award but also a substantial success in the continued implementation of the Settlement Agreement toward the goal of desegregation. 4. The Nature, Extent and Difficulty of Services in Research PCSSD was required to research and submit briefs and supplemental briefs to this Court and to the Eighth Circuit on the pooling issue on multiple occasions. To do so required considerable legal and factual research in order to present the applicable law and facts to this Court and the Court of Appeals. 5. The Preparation of the Pleadings PCSSD respectfully submits that the quality of its pleadings were equal to the results obtained. 6. The Proceedings Actually Taken and the Nature and Extent of the Litigation PCSSD submitted numerous briefs to this Court both before and after remand by the appellate court, participated in two full days of hearings before the Court, and submitted multiple briefs to the Eighth Circuit on two separate appeals of the same pooling issue. With regard to the overall nature and extent of this 3 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991). Similarly, on the second appeal of the pooling issue, the Eighth Circuit found that the District Court's interpretation was \"just\" and would promote voluntary interdistrict transfers to interdistrict schools. March 31, 1997 Opinion of the Eighth Circuit, at p. 5. 5 - litigation, this Court is well familiar with all matters related hereto. 7. The Time and Labor Devoted to the Client's Cause, the Difficulties Presented in the Court of the Litigation and the Results Obtained The time and labor devoted to the client's cause was plainly substantial, and is particularized in the Affidavit which accompanies the motion requesting fees. The results obtained for the PCSSD -- and the additional benefit to the overall Settlement Plan -- were surely positive. B. Alternatively, PCSSD Is Entitled to An Award of Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1998 The pooling agreement is an integral part of the Settlement Agreement, which embodies the remedy of the various parties in - this desegregation case. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) PCSSD, by its motion to enforce the pooling portion of the Settlement Agreement, sought to defend that remedy and, as prevailing party, may recover attorneys' fees. Jenkins v. Missouri, 73 F.3d 201, 204 (8th Cir. 1996) (fees available to permit school desegregation plaintiffs to defend remedy); see also Jenkins v. Missouri, 967 F.2d 1248 (8th Cir. 1992) (services devoted to reasonable monitoring of the court's decrees, both to ensure full compliance and to ensure that the plan is indeed working to desegregate the school system, are compensable services); LRSD v. PCSSD, (E.D. Ark. Dec. 10, 1996) (districts 6 - entitled to attorneys fees from State of Arkansas for enforcing financial terms of settlement agreement). This Court found, and the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, that not only was PCSSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement the correct one, but that interpretation would give effect to the Settlement Agreement in a manner that will promote voluntary interdistrict transfers, especially to interdistrict schools. Once again, the operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools is a crucial element of the Settlement Agreement. Consequently, PCSSD -- by seeking further to effectuate the desegregation remedy through enforcement of the settlement agreement -- is entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. II. PCSSD IS ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST PCSSD brought its motion asking this Court to interpret the pooling agreement in January 1994, at which time the damages PCSSD sought for LRSD's breach of the pooling agreement were capable of determination. Indeed, PCSSD has consistently, since the inception of the pooling agreement, made the calculations in accordance with the formulae/interpretation adopted by the Court and affirmed by the Eighth Circuit. The law of the state where the cause of action arises governs whether a party in a federal action is entitled to 7 - prejudgment interest. Jennings v. Dumas Public School Dist., 763 F.2d 28, 33 (8th Cir. 1985) (citing Bauer v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 630 F.2d 1287, 1290 (8th Cir. 1980). The standard for assessing whether prejudgment interest may be awarded was articulated by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Lovell v. Marianna Fed. Savings and Loan Assoc., 267 Ark. 164, 166, 589 S.W.2d 577 (1979) -- the test is \"whether there is a method of determination of the value of the property at the time of injury.\" The Lovell decision was clarified in Wooten v. Mcclendon, 272 Ark. 61, 612 S.W.2d 105 (1981), by indicating that what must be ascertainable is the \"initial measure of damages\" as distinguished from the precise amount that plaintiff would claim in his complaint or from the amount that the finder of fact would - ultimately award. Under either case, however, the requirement remains only that damages be determinable immediately after the loss. Pre-judgment interest is justified for obvious reasons: an injured party is entitled to have use of his money from a particular date. When deprived of that use, he suffers damages for which he should be granted relief in the form of interest. As a general rule, interest on an improperly disallowed insurance claim accrues from the date the amount due should have been paid under the policy. Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Fodrea, 185 Ark. 155, 46 S.W.2d 638 (1932). Arkansas courts have uniformly awarded six per-cent (6%) prejudgment interest in contract 8 - disputes. Wilson v. Lester Hurst Nursery, Inc., 269 Ark. 19, 598 S.W.2d 407 (1980). PCSSD's injury -- the amount it should have received from LRSD pursuant to the pooling agreement since 1991 -- has been capable of determination, indeed readily ascertainable, from the outset. As such, it meets the test of Lovell and its progeny. Accordingly, PCSSD should be awarded prejudgment interest on the award of $345,294. 4 III. PCSSD SHOULD BE AWARDED POST JUDGMENT INTEREST By Arkansas statute, a judgment on a contract is to bear interest at the contractual rate or ten percent (10%), whichever is greater. Ark. Code Ann.  16-65-114. Because the pooling agreement does not contain a provision setting the rate of interest, the statutory rate of 10% is applicable. Further, this post-judgment interest is appropriately awarded not only on the judgment, but also on the amount of pre-judgment interest to provide total compensation for the loss of use of the money prior to -- as well as subsequent to -- the date of the judgment. Hopper v. Denham, 281 Ark. 84, 661 S.W.2d 379 (1983). PCSSD is entitled to payment from LRSD pursuant to the pooling agreement but, to date, LRSD has paid not one cent. This Court's order of July 30, 1996 required the LRSD to pay over 4 PCSSD is calculating the interest it claims and will submit its calculations to the Court at the appropriate time, unless, of course, agreement can be reached with the LRSD regarding the accuracy of the calculations. 9 - these sums within sixty (60) days; this has plainly not been done. The award of post-judgment interest, including post judgment interest on any prejudgment interest awarded, is certainly warranted in this instance. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, PCSSD respectfully urges this Court to award it reasonable fees for the prosecution of its Pooling motion, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest on the award of $345,294. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ft-) V \u003c:;:,._kc______ ,,--- ~ Samuel. Jones /II (76060 ) Claire S ws Haficock (95013 ) Attorne for Pulaski County Se  School District 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June~, 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 11 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jones, I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO . LR -C - 8-2 - 8 6 6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEHlED f/4'7,!- \" , , ., 14.1, ve,--e' JUN 5 - 1997 4- 30 I' ,v} OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING AFFIDAVIT OF SAM JONES PLAINTIFF ' DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS My name is Sam Jones and I represent the Pulaski County Special School District in this litigation and have done so since its inception. Attached as Exhibit A are the billing records representing time reasonably expended in pursuit of these claims against the LRSD beginning September 13, 1993 and continuing through June 2, 1997. This file has been separately maintained as regards this claim and all time and expense entries relate only to the pooling claim. It is my professional belief that the narratives submitted as Exhibit A reasonably reflect time actually spent and devoted toward the pooling orders. Please note that the time entries are kept in tenths of an hour units as opposed to other firms whose time is recorded in units of one quarter hour. Because of the financial circumstances of the PCSSD, we have represented them in this matter at reduced hourly rates. My - standard rate for clients on January l, 1993 was $150.00 per hour; 1 January 1, 1994 was $160.00 per hour; January 1, 1995 was $170.00 per hour; January 1, 1996 was $175.00 per hour and is now $180.00 per hour. However, during 1996, I have represented the PCSSD in this matter for $135. 00 per hour. I have been a partner since January 1, 1981. Claire Shows Hancock has been a licensed attorney practicing primarily in New York City where her last standard hourly rate was $245.00 per hour. Her normal hourly rate in Little Rock is now $155.00 an hour as compared to $145.00 an hour 1996, and she is also a partner. She too has represented the PCSSD in this matter at the reduced hourly rate of $110.00 an hour. Angell Jones was the Manager of our Litigation Support Department. That department evolved because of the instant case - and several other complex cases involving the creation of databases and the management and retrieval of hundreds of thousands of documents and pleadings. Her hourly rate during 1996 has been $75. 00 an hour and that is her normal hourly rate. In 1993 her hourly rate was $55.00 as it was in 1994. It rose to $60.00 an hour in 1995. Valerie Bryant is a paralegal in the Litigation Support Department. She is primarily charged with maintaining this litigation database as well as with the management of the hundreds of thousands of documents that this case involves. Her normal hourly rate is $60.00 an hour and that is what she was paid by the PCSSD during 1997. Her rate in 1994 was $45.00 an hour, and was $55.00 an hour in both 1995 and 1996. 2 Sherry Murphy is a paralegal in the Litigation Support Department. Ms. Murphy's hourly rate is $60.00 an hour, up from $55.00 an hour in 1995. I respectfully submit that a total fee award of hours multiplied by standard 1996 rates would be appropriate in this matter, as reflected on the attached fee statement. These rates are consistent with those commonly found within the community for this type of work. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI \\ - .. ,.. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a notary public, this day of __: _ .-_,'-_~_ _ , 1993/- My Commission Expires: .- .) ) No t--iry Public Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 722 01-3699 (501) 371-0808 By '-----77i . M. Samuel AJc'torneys Special S '----- 3 J nes III jl76060) for Pcrlaski County ool District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE / On June _) , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons of record:. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( 4 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Dr. Donald Stewart Pulaski County Special School District Post Office Box 8601 North Little Rock, AR 72216 Re: Little Rock School District: Pooling Issues FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: Date Timekeeper 09/13/93 09/14/93 09/20/93 09/29/93 - /30/93 10/01/93 10/01/93 10/01/93 10/01/93 10/07/93 10/08/93 12/14/93 12/15/93 12/22/93 01/03/94 01/03/94 01/05/94 01/07/94 ._107/94 . /07/94 MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III A Jones MS Jones, III A Jones MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III Telephone conference with Don Stewart regarding pooling agreement Telephone conference with Don Stewart Telephone conference with Chris Heller and Don Stewart Confer with Mr. Milhollen, Mr. Malone, Mr. Heller and Dr. Stewart Organize transcripts regarding settlement agreement for attorney review Telephone conference with Don Stewart for pooling Review old transcripts to agreement issue Computerized search of transcripts for references to settlement agreement approval Organize transcript references regarding settlement agreement approval for attorney r "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1637","title":"Court filings concerning motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats, motion for taxation of costs, cross-petition for attorneys' fees, and enlargement of time","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":["1997-05"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","North Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","School improvement programs","Employee rights"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats, motion for taxation of costs, cross-petition for attorneys' fees, and enlargement of time"],"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/1637"],"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":["86 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, motion for taxation of costs; District Court, brief in support of motion for taxation of costs; District Court, order; District Court, opposition of Joshua intervenors to motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats; District Court, motion for reconsideration; District Court, motion for additional enlargement of time; District Court, motion for reconsideration regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT's) motion for taxation for costs and PCSSD's cross-petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) cross-motion for attorneys' fees; District Court, two orders, District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motion for additional enlargement of time  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 DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAYO o 1997 JAMES '(ii. Mc.fORMACK, CLERK By: '{._~t, /\\ N'\u003ei L':-\u003e _ OEP CL.ERK Intervenor. * MAY 7 \\997 * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * OFFICE OF * DESEGREGATION MONITORING Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * ORDER Before the Court is the motion of 111 school districts throughout the State of Arkansas to intervene for the purpose of appealing this Court's Order of April 22, 1997, regarding health insurance matching. The motion is granted. appeal. The applicants may intervene in this case only for the purpose of prosecuting the DATED this {a~ay of May 1997. ~.~~,y UNITEDSTA DICJUDGE fl-IS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN co~ WITH RULE. 5e AND,100 79(a) FACP ON ~ 6-7 IV 1Jt:: 2974 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTIUCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * ORDER f5l~D u s o:sr:.:cr couRr EASTERN DISTR!CT ARKANSAS MAYO 6 1997 JAMOS '/1. McGU~ACK, CLERK By: \\i ' \\.lJ\\ f\\J~ ~ DEP CLERK In November 1996, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") submitted its proposed 1996-97 budget to the Court for approval. The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), the Joshua Intervenors, and the Arkansas Department of Education (\" ADE\") filed objections to the budget. For the reasons that follow, the Court hereby .. approves the budget. 2975 I. The ODM is funded through contributions from the three Pulaski County school districts and the State. The State's share is $200,000.00, which is based on the amount that the State was paying the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative in 1989, the date of the desegregation Settlement Agreement. Each district's share is determined on a per-pupil prorated basis. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Counry Special School District No. 1, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1165 (E.D. Ark. 1989). The 1996-97 budget submitted by the ODM shows a marked increase in the Benefits category, from a budgeted amount of $49,613.00 in 1995-96 to a budgeted amount of $120,109.00 in 1996-97. The ODM states the increase is due to changes in the State's method of handling health insurance premiums and teacher retirement. In the past, the State directly - funded teacher retirement matching and health insurance payments for the State's school districts. Employees of the ODM were included in the list of employees the LRSD sent to the Teacher Retirement System, and the State paid contributions into the Retirement System on behalf of ODM employees. The State also paid 50% of the health insurance. Under the new State funding formula, no school district receives any money fnm the S;:ate that is specifically earmarked for the payment of teacher retirement and health benefits. Rather, Arkansas school districts are required to fund health insurance and teacher retirement out of state equalization funding or local funds. 1 1As applied to the three Pulaski County school districts, the Court recently found that the new funding scheme for teacher retirement and health insurance benefits violates the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the State and the settling districts. See doc. 2930 \u0026 doc. 2967. The ruling on teacher retirement is now on appeal to the Eighth Circuit, and the Court uooerstuxls the ruling on health insurance benefits also will be appealed.  2 The PCSSD objects to the budget, asserting that the State's decision to terminate the payment of teacher retirement and health insurance benefits for ODM employees results in an increased contribution by the PCSSD to the ODM budget. The PCSSD asks the Court to direct the State to increase its base level of support for the ODM to the same level that it supports educational cooperatives. The ADE objects to the ODM's proposed budget, contending that the State is not responsible for paying retirement or health benefits for ODM employees and that ODM employees were and are ineligible to participate in the teacher retirement system. Finally, the Joshua Intervenors object to the ODM budget because they believe the ODM should employ three additional monitors in order to handle and investigate complaints of discriminatory treatment of black students. II. In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1165 (E.D. Ark. 1989), Judge Woods directed the ADE to apply \"the amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative\" toward the budget of the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor (\"OMS\"). The court further authorized the Supervisor to employ a professional staff of up to four people and stated: \"In addition to each district's portion of Mr. Reville' s salary, it should add an amount equal to its portion of fringe benefits (e.g. hospitalization insurance), using the percentage used in calculating fringe benefits for the highest ranking person in that district. This 'fringe benefit' amount will apply toward offsetting the penalty Mr. Reville will suffer by leaving the New York pension program prior to the expiration of his six-year contract in Buffalo.\" .. 3 In December 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals replaced the OMS with the . ODM, see Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990), and in February 1991, this Court found that the State was obligated to continue funding ODM according to its previous obligation. See doc. 1442 (Order filed on February 28, 1991). In July 1991, the Court directed the LRSD, \"in the interest of administrative efficiency,\" to \"provide payroll services to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) for all ODM staff designated by the Desegregation Monitor.\" See doc. 1480. The employees of ODM have been listed as LRSD employees in reports submitted to the Teacher Retirement System for purposes of teacher retirement payments, and the State has been paying contributions into the Retirement System for at least the past five years on behalf of ODM employees. The State now argues that it is not and has never been obligated by order or agreement to pay retirement or health benefits for ODM employees or to permit ODM employees to participate in the teacher retirement system. The State claims that employees of ODM have been participating in the Teacher Retirement System and the State has been paying retirement 3Jld health insurance benefits for them without authorization under State law or an order of this Court. The ADE asks the Court to permit it to end and reverse any unauthorized participation by ODM employees in the Teacher Retirement System and provide guidance as to the disposition of any funds that may have been erroneously paid into the Teacher Retirement System by the State on behalf of \"ineligible\" ODM employees. 4 III. \\ The Court finds that the employees of the ODM are entitled to receive teacher retirement and health benefits as other employees of the three Pulaski County school districts. When Judge Henry Woods recused in this case on July 6, 1990, he stated that if members of the OMS wished to return to their jobs with the school districts from which they came, the school districts must reinstate them. Judge Woods further barred the districts -from retaliating against these employees. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 740 F. Supp. 632, 633 (E.D.Ark. 1990). This Court reiterated that in an Order dated January 17, 1991. See doc. 1418. Thus, the Court did not intend that the employees of the OMS/ ODM suffer as a result of moving from positions within the school districts to the OMS and its successor, the ODM. In addition, in spite of the State's claim that it did not know that ODM employees were receiving retirement and health benefits funded by the State, there is no indication that the arrangement with the LRSD was hidden from the State. The Court sent counsel for the State a copy of the proposed 1990-91 budget of the OMS and asked for any objections. See doc. 1391. The ADE did not object to tne budgeted amount for berefits. See doc. 1397. When in December 1990 the Eighth Circuit directed the Court to vacate the order creating the OMS and replace it with the ODM, the appeals court stated the office should be staffed by a monitor and such additional personnel as the Court deemed appropriate. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). In addition, the Court noted in September 1991 that the Arkansas Legislative Joint Auditing Committee would conduct annual audits of the ODM, and copies of the audit would be available to the parties. 5 See doc. 1510. Previously, the attorneys for the State were present, at this Court's request, for an August 7, 1991 hearing, at which the' Court discussed the ODM's budget and made reference to the audit by the Arkansas Legislative Audit Committee. See doc. 1507 at 10, 19. The Court finds that while the State may not have been aware that the employees of the ODM were being counted as employees of the LRSD for purposes of retirement and health benefits, this arrangement was not improper as a method of securing those benefits for ODM employees. See doc. 1480 (LRSD to provide payroll services to the ODM for all ODM staff designated by the Desegregation Monitor). Nor was the information unavailable to the State as the Legislative Audit was conducting annual audits of the ODM. The Court therefore finds that the objections of the ADE are without merit and will not require any repayment of funds previously applied. The Court, however, rejects the PCSSD's request that the State be required to provide teacher retirement and health benefits to the ODM employees as it does the educational cooperatives. Additionally, the Court finds no authority or suggestion in the record justifying an increase in the State's share of the ODM budget. Therefore, the Court will not order the State to increase its contribution to the ODM: budget. The Cot!.,1 expects the three districts to share the expense of the benefits package for the ODM employees in the same manner that they contribute to the ODM budget. 6 IV. With regard to the objections of the'Joshua Intervenors, the Court does not now intend to direct the ODM to employ additional monitors for the purpose of investigating complaints of discriminatory treatment in the disciplining of black students. Should the ODM determine that additional staff are necessary to carry out its obligations, the ODM may make such request to the Court. V. The Court having carefully reviewed the budget and the objections received thereto, see doc. 2870, 2885, 2886, the Court finds that the proposed 1996-97 budget for ODM should be and hereby is approved in its entirety . . -fl.._ IT IS SO ORDERED this \u0026 day of May 1997. ~l~~~ff UNITED STAT ms CJUDGE 7 MAY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION ? 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. NOTICE OF APPEAL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Arkansas Department of Education appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the District Court's order, filed April 22, 1997 and entered on the docket sheet on April 23, 1997, granting summary judgment in favor of the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District \"on the issue of state fundLTJ.g of the public school employee insurance program.\" Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General ~  TIMO ~tio19 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 6th day of May, 1997, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 3 John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. THOMPSON \u0026 LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 RECE~VED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL litr-id- W-Yen J !.'./.\\)' 8 1997 \u003c/:~,,,,,., OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MDrJliORING MOTION TO RELEASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL KINDERGARTEN SEATS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its motion to release incentive school kindergarten seats, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD encouraged parents who reside in the incentive - school zones to register their children for kindergarten during the registration process. Many black parents have registered their children but those children cannot be assigned because of the number of seats which have been reserved for white students. These are the only parents in the district who are presently unable to receive assignments. 2. The LRSD engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts during the 1996-97 school year as it prepared for registration for the 1997-98 school year. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a partial listing of those recruitment efforts conducted by the district. Additionally, the information contained in the district's quarterly program planning and budget documents status reports and project management tools serve to supplement this listing. 3. Although the recruitment efforts yielded positive results, seats still remain vacant at the kindergarten level in the incentive schools. 4. Taking into consideration the importance of reserving seats for the recruitment of white students, the LRSD made special efforts during the recruitment season to register as many new white students as possible into these programs. The seats that still remain vacant should now be released to black students who can benefit from the educational opportunities which will be provided. 5. Attached to this motion as Exhibit 2 is a copy of the LRSD incentive school kindergarten assignments for the 1997-98 school year as of April 22, 1997. LRSD seeks permission to fill the - vacancies shown on Exhibit 2 with students from the waiting list. 6. LRSD is not seeking to release four-year-old program seats at this time. The district will continue its effort to recruit white parents for the four-year-old program and, to the extent seats remain vacant, will petition the court at a later date for release of those seats. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District moves for an order permitting it to release the vacant kindergarten seats at the incentive schools for the 1997-98 school year to students on the waiting list. {:\\bomc\\btll),llne!moe.- Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 B~ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of Incentive School Kindergarten following by depositing copy of this 8th day of May, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 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. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (:lliomolb1l,yllndlnao.- the foregoing Motion To Release Seats has been served on the same in the United States mail on 3 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 4 - April 21 , 1997 To: ~ancy Acre, Director of Student Assignmen1 From: Bed..-y Rather. Essie Middleton. Parent Recruiters Re: Recruitment efforts for third quaner 96-97 January edition of Little Rock Family Magazine published Public School Issue as a results of our involvement. Jan. 2 Worked with Dawn Jackson in planning neighborhood parent meeting. Jan. 6 Provided packets to Rector Phillips Morse Realtors Jan. 6 Mailed 15,000 Home and School Connection newsletters informing parents of registration. Jan. 6 Mailed registration packets to: I 3 5 Childcare centers 44 Homeowners Associations 210 Special Interest Patrons of Little Rock 88 Ministers Jan. i Gave presentation to HlPPY staff Jan. IO Held registration training meeting with all school secretaries. Jan.. IO Taped promo for Channel 11. \"Always Kids, Educated Choice\" Jan. 13 ?resented aI (?- grade transition evening meeting at Crystal Hill Jan. 13-14 Show and Tell in all schools sponsored and advertised through . .\u003c\\!Hance for Our Public Schools Jan.. 14 Attended PTA Council meeting aI Pulaski Heights Elementary Jan. 14 Presented at Early Childhood meeting Jan_ 14 Presented at evening HIPPY parent group meeting Jan. 16 Sent flyers home with elementary children on registration Jan. 16 Mailed letters to all P-4s on v.-aiting list to encourage kindergarten registration. Jan. 16-17 Posted flyers throughout the city on registration. Jan.. 16 Attended evening parent meeting in private home of Dawn Jack.son. Jan.. 17 An.ended 6~ grade orientation aI Dunbar Jan. 17 Mailed 400 brochur~ to PCSSD on Incentive Schools Jan.. 18 Panicipated in Saturday Mall show Jan. 2 I Registration begins through Jan. 3 L Jan 21 Open House, Elementary magnets Jan. 21 Provided information to Christ Temple Church Jan_ 24 Assist Steve Pintor Realtors Jan. 27 Assist Rainey Realty Jan. 27 Opai House. Incentive and Interdistria Jan. 28 Open House. Elementary Area and Secondary Magnet Jan.. 30 Participate in Arlc:ansas Legislative Day on Education with PTA Jan. 30 Open House, Secondary Area Jan. 31 Assist McNeil Smith Realtors Feb . 3 Evening presentation to network of Exeaitive Women Feb. 4 Presentation to Charlotte John Realty Feb. 4 Report of Biracial Committee Feb . 6 Presentation of Superintendents Student Council al Hall High Feb. 6 Parent Involvement meeting Feb. 7 Work with CARE office Feb. 8 Anend Sarurday, Title l Parent Involvement program Feb IO Open House, Metropolitan Feb IO Chili Supper at Mabelvale Junior High Feb 11 Attend PTA Founders Day luncheon Feb 11 Report 10 Early Childhood board on 4-year--old registration Feb 12 HIPPY board meeting Feb 17 Meet with Southwest Jr. High Recruitment team Feb I 8 Assist in assigning magnet students Feb 19 Attend Kids Count Coalition at Children's Hospital Feb 20 Meet with PCSSD PTA parents Feb'.? 1 Worlc with McKay Realry Feb 24 Meet with Janet Jones Realty Feb 2A Meet ,1,ith ~1LR PTA parents Feb 24 An.end HIPPY Black History Celebration Feb 26 Participate in Parent Involvement Workshop for Secondary Vice Principals Feb 28 Participare in parent Involvement Workshop for Elementary Vice Principals Mar 3 Assist Byer Agent Realtors Mar 4 Mail assignment letters Mar 4 Report to Biracial Committee Mar S -~ ho-well Realtors Mar 9 Desegregation application opened through Mar. 28 Mar 10 Worked with T omado victims in reassignment or transpOrtarion Mar 10.As.sembly for Success Mar 11 Anend PT A Council at mcClellan ~-1ar 1.2.Anend Friends Day at King Mar 13 Assisted Grobmyer Realty Mar 13 Requested labels from PCSSD to assist Hall High with recruitment Mar 18 Presentation to Janet Jones Realty Mar 19 Spent afternoon with Lisa Woodrow. new relocation specialist for RPM Realty :Mar20 Compiled Recruinnent Survey Results \\far 25 HIPPY Parent Appreciation Mar 26 Worked with Barbara Sumpter. new relocation specialist for Entergy Mar 27 Early Childhood Parent Involvement meeting.. Pro\";ded 80 packets for mailouts Pro\\;ded 31 tours to individual families during this guaner December 19, 199-j- To: From: Nancy Acre, Directo\u0026 of Student Assignment .\"'{! J ;,- / ~ ~\"-13,ecky Rather \u0026 ~;,i,t(ddleton, Parent Recruiters Re: Recruitment Report, 2nd Quarter, 96-97 OCTOBER 2 Attend Youth Suicide Planning Meeting 3\u00264 Held Recruitment Workshops for all Principals and individual school recruitment teams. 5 Participate in Youth Suicide Conference 7 Met with LR Fa.1nily Magazine on story ideas for public school issue. 7 Met with Booker recruitment team 8 Attended PTA Council at Rightsell 8 Assisted UALR with maps 8 Assisted with Garland PrA recruitlllent 9 Met with Junior High principals and Dr. Anderson on planning transition meeting 10-11Delivered recruitment packets to schools not attending recruitment workshops 11 Prepared Program Budget Document Report 14 set up dates to meet with HIPPY 15 All school level recruitll1ent plans due 17 Attend Parent Involvement Advisory committee meeting 21 Send PYI to all elementary principals on 6th grade transition meeting 24 Met with Alliance for Our Public Schools 24 Attend Kids Count meeting 24 Mailed 216 letters to churches and homeowners associations about transition meeting 28 Mailed transition meeting letters to all 6th grade parents in the District 28 Delivered 600 transition flyers to PCSSD 28 Met with Eddie Collins and Susie Roberts at PCSSD about meetings on recruitment to incentive schools 31 Attended PUblic Education Forum 31 Met at Henderson about Jr. High meeting 31 Met with HIPPY advisory board NOVEMBER 1 Sent newly developed recruitment survey in tablet form to all schools to have parents fill out and return to parent recruiters. 1 Held meeting with communications on registration 7 Participated in evening meeting with Southwest Little Rocle United for Progress 10 Tour with 15 6th grade parents from Cathedral School at Mann, Dunbar and Pulaski Heights 12 Mailed letter to 6th grade private school letters - - 12 12 13 14 14 15 17 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 2S 25 25 26 27 inviting to transition meeting Attended regional PTA meeting with parents from all school districts Attended PTA Council at Badgett Attended meeting in Pine Bluff on school vouchers Sent flyers home with all 6th graders about meetings Prepare agenda, survey, and last minute details for Sunday meeting Schools first Bi-monthly recruitment survey due Held 6th grade transition meeting attended by approximately 600 parents Assisted with two tours at Cloverdale Jr. High Assisted with two tours at Dunbar Jr. High Meet about registration Mailed 100 evaluations to parents who attended transition meeting Assist at parent meeting on Adolescents Assisted with two tours at Forest Heights Assisted with t~o tours at Henderson Assisted with two tours at Mabelvale Jr. Assisted with two tours at Mann Jr. Met with Alliance for Our Public Schools about registration Assisted with two tours at PHJH Assisted with two tours at Southwest Met with Geyer Springs recruitment team Attended local meeting on charter schools Mailed Thank You notes to transition participants DECEMBER 2 3 4 4 6 6 9 10 11 12 12 13 16 17 17 17 17 18 19 20 Attended meeting with Hall High School parents Parent Open House at PH.JH Met with. principal at Hall High Met with committee on incentive schools Attended 90th birthday party at Rightsell Met with new principal at Mitchell on recruitment Parent open House at Forest Heights Made presentations on registration and legislation at PTA Council at Geyer Springs Attended luncheon for realtors at Forest Heights Attended Legislative meeting Attended Parent Involvement ~eeting Participated in planning meeting for PTA Founders Day Prepare mailouts for ministers, daycares and Housing Authority for registration Mail transition meeting evaluation results to schools Request private school labels for recruitment Met with Connie Whitfield on Rightsell and Mitchell recruitment Make Biracial Cot:llllittee report Attend celebration at Martin Luther King Attend meeting for legislative Advocates for Kids Attend ~eeting with Alliance for Our Public Schools The parent recruiters toured 48 families during the second quarter (Oct.-Dec.) of 96-97. Each family tour includes between one and six schools, depending on the grade level of child and availability of seats. At the special tours for 6th grade parents, the 16 tours at the junior highs ranged from 1 set of parents at one tour to approximately 80 at another. November 25, 1996 To: From: Re: JULY Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment Becky Rather \u0026 Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Recruitment Report, 1st Quarter, 96-97 1-31 Developed ad for Kid's Directory featuring Incentive Schools, CARE, 4-year-old program and registration dates. Ad was distributed trhoughout month of July 2 Met with Suellen Vann a.bout new Incentive School brochures 10 Met with Mable Donaldson for information on Gifted/Talented in schools 10 Mailed letter to all white students on 4-year-oid waiting lists offering available seats 12 Met with Parent Involvement Administrative Team about new District Parent Involvelllent Policy 14 sent memo to communications outlining agreed upon plans for Incentive Schools 17 Presented recruitment plans for the year to Director of Student Assignment 17 Met with Alliance for OUr Public Schools 19 L.~D 96-97 calendars ready for distribution to Realtors, prospective parents, etc. 19 Registration letters and flyers mailed to 156 churches and childcare providers in the city. 22 Attended monthly meeting of Parent Involvement Administrative Team 23 Met with Janet Jones Realty to provide new calendars 24 Work with new principal at Chicot on recruitment for school 24 Met with Pat Price on Parent Involvement workshop 25 Sent OERFs to McClellan and Henderson for recruitlllent efforts 25 Met with Ark. Co!!lIIlunity Fou.ndation 25 Julie Wiedower represented office in Magnet Meeting 29 Mailed calendars to all LRSD households informing them of registration, school opening dates, etc. 29 Participated in Principal Workshop on Parent Involvement 30 Attended Parent Involvement Conference with State Dept. 31 Attended Nuts \u0026 Bolts on Planning 31 Developed new letter to newcomers AUGUST 1 Press releases distributed on registration dates l Hold Secretaries inservice on registration \" - - 1\u00262 3 5 7\u00268 12 13 14 15 23 26 26 27 27 29 JO Distributed registration posters throughout city in grocery stores, housing projects, medical offices, youth centers, Department of Human Services, etc. Meet with McKay Realtors Worked on CARE closing at several schools Registration in Schools Attend Early Childhood meeting Attend PTA Council Workshop at Ro~ine Met with Alliance for our Public Schools Nancy Acre met with ODM, PCSSD, NLR Sent letter to Communications about Incentive brochure Interdistrict schools open houses Magnet elementary schools open houses Area schools open houses Incentive schools open houses Mann, Dunbar, Metro open houses contact Sterling Ingran on extended day information SEPTEMBER 3 3 4 5 9 10 10 12 12 16 17 18 23 23 25 25 26 JO Assist Henderson Pl'A Ju..~ior High open houses Acre met with Bowles, Collins, Acklin, Jackson High school magnets open houses Area high schools open houses PTA Council ueeting Board Room Report to Biracial Co11I111ittee Attend Parent Involvement Administrative Team meeting Assist Henderson in Recruitment Attend Department of Education retreat Talked to Fa1nily Magazine about prOl:lotional stories due day - Gathered lists of names of recruitment team members from each school Worked with Sweeney Realty Review incentive school brochure Held meeting on planning 6th grade orientation Attended Kids Count meeting at Arkansas Children's Hospital Assist McCaskell Realty Attend Amendment One meeting at Governor's mansion The parent recruiters toured 16 families during the first quarter (July-Sept.) of 96-97. Each family tour includes between one and six schools, depending on the grade level of child and availability of seats. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ASSIGNMENTS AT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1997-98 AS OF 4/22/97 ENROLLED WAITING LIST SCHOOL BL W/0 TOTAL VACANCY %BL BL AZ* W/0 CAPACITY Franklin 52 6 58 22 89.7% 33 13 0 80 Garland 23 3 26 14 88.5% 14 2 0 40 Mitchell 20 3 23 17 87.0% 36 13 0 40 Rightsell 20 2 22 18 91.0% 29 13 0 40 Rockefeller 28 26 54 6 52.0% 49 0 0 60 TOTALS 143 40 183 77 78.1 % 161 41 0 260 BL - Black Students W /0 - White and Other Students AZ* - Students who live in the attendance zone *The attendance zone students on the Incentive Schools' wa1tmg list registered during the initial registration period in January. These students were unable to be assigned to their zone schools due to rising P4 students who filled all seats available for black students. These students were the ~ students who registered during January that could run be assigned to their attendance zone school. I' 'V I , FILED U.S. DISTRICT COU\"'l' EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSA8 1,:f\\ I .I. ;_ 1997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT MAY 1 4 1997 CFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LR-C-82-866 NOTICE OF APPEAL By: __________ _ OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Notice is hereby given that the Intervenors, 111 Arkansas School Districts, listed on Attachment 1, as Defendants in the above case, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the District Court's Order entered in this action on April 23, 1997. Respectfully submitted, INTERVENING SCHOOL DISTRICTS, DE.f\"C...NDANTS THOMPSON AND LLEWELLYN, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-818 Telephone: 501-785-2867 Facsimile: 501-782-8046 r. #66040 THE NITED ST A TE DISTRlCT CO RT EASTERN DI TRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISlON i,i,'.\\ Y 1 5 1S97 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT av: -------,o~E\":,\"\";:,_rcLIEE~Ri\u003c PLAI TIFF V. 0. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COU TY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 0. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. ~'Av l : o::n f 'I, J .., lvv, OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MOTIO FORT AXA TION OF COSTS DEFENDANTS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS ll\\TER.VENORS Knight, et al. , Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, ROA CHELL LAW FIRM, for their Motion for Taxatio "}],"pages":{"current_page":22,"next_page":23,"prev_page":21,"total_pages":46,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":252,"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}}]}}