{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1664","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to motion to add parties; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, two orders; Court of Appeals, petition for rehearing by the panel","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":["1997-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Arkansas. Department of Education","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","School employees","School management and organization","Education--Economic aspects","Insurance","Student assistance programs","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to motion to add parties; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, two orders; Court of Appeals, petition for rehearing by the panel"],"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/1664"],"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":["119 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 OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT R ECEIVEr.APPELLANT v. NO. 96-3333 APR 1 4 1997 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OF.71CE OF DESEGREGArior~ MONJTORit,GAPPELLEE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD's deadline for filing a petition for rehearing by the panel is April 14, 1997. Because of the time necessary for a public body such as LRSD to determine a course of action, and because of the press of business, LRSD requires additional time within which to file its petition for rehearing by the panel. 2. Mr. Sam Jones, counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District, has stated that he does not oppose this motion. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD requests an order extending the time within which it may file a petition for rehearing by the panel of fourteen (14) days, to and including April 28, 1997. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 501/376-L.J.j-'T\"-- sas Ba CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time has been served on the following on this 11th day of April, 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 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown 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 l:lhomo~J.at ~ 2 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 APR l 1 1~~7 OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INT ERVEN ORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO ADD PARTIES For its response, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The Joshua Intervenors have asked this court for permission to add as defendants the Little Rock Municipal Court and the Police Department of the City of Little Rock. Joshua has not provided the court any authority to support the proposition that these parties can be brought into this case at this time. This court has found that \"with the entry of the settlement agreement, the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter.\" March 11, 1996 Memorandum and Order, p.a. The police department and the municipal court are not parties to the settlement agreement. Joshua has provided the court no basis for enforcing a consent decree against entities which are not parties to that decree. 2. Joshua has not even discussed the issues inherent in asking a federal court to interfere with the operations of another court or a police department. This court should not consider adding parties without requiring more from Joshua. 3. The primary basis for Joshua's motion was the issuance by the municipal court of a standard \"no contact order. \" Joshua complains that the no contact order \"effectively restrains a black school child from attending Hall High School.\" The no contact order has been amended to insure that the student who is the subject of the order will be able to attend classes at Hall High School without violating the order. Therefore, in addition to being unfounded, Joshua's motion is moot. 4 . A copy of the order amending the municipal court no contact order is attached to this response. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Joshua's \"Motion to Add Parties\" should be dismissed. 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 B~~ Bar No. 81083 2 ------ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of Little Rock School District's Response to Motion to Add Parties has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 11th day of April, 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 istopher 3 Ll\u003cl'U UtltlJllVt UIV IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS ST ATE OF ARKANSAS vs. NO. 97-2313 DANTE MILES ORDER TO AMEND NO CONTACT ORDER r. u~ l. It is ordered that the No Contact Order issued in the case of Dante Miles, defendant, in the name Patricia Bona, victim, be amended to state that Mr. !v1iles is authorized to go peacefully and directly past room 612 at Hall High School before and after third period in order to go to and from class. 2. This amendment does not alleviate Mr. Miles duty to refrain fro any contact with Patricia Bona. Approved as to Form and Acknowledged: Defense Attorney .. f':30 Time 04/02/97 WED 13:56 [TX/RX NO 6528) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK HUIICHIEL H , F\"IDAY (1822-1184. WILLIAM H. IUTTON, P . A . JAMEi W. MOOftE IY,.ON M . USEMAN. J\"   , . A . JOIE 0. IElL. r.A . A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN C , ECHOLS , , . A . JAMES A . IUTTRY, r . A .  ICIC 8 . U\"SIERY , , . A . \"ZELERE, r . A . C E. DAVIS, JR . P. A. , JA 8 C. CLA\"\"-  JR ,, , . A . THOMAS,. , LEGGETT, P .A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P . A . PAUL I . BENHAM Ill , P. A . LAftftY W. BURKS , P.A . A . WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR ., P . A . JAMES EDWARD HARRIS , P. A . J . PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A . JAMES M . SIMPSON , P. A. JAMES M. SAXTON, l' . A. J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill , P. A . OONA.LOH . IA.CON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS IAXTER , P. A . WALTER A . PAULSON 11 , P. A . IA\"\"y E. COPLIN , P.A . IUCHARO 0 . TAYLOR , P. A . JOSEPH B. HURST , JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY , P. A . CHftlSTOrHER HELLER, P. A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P. A . ROBERTS . SHAFER, P. A. WILLIAM M . GRIFFIN Ill, P.A . MICHAELS . MOORE, P. A. DIANE 6 . MACKEY , P. A . WALTER M . EBEL 111, P.A. lEVIN A . CRASS , P. A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR ., P. A . Mr. Michael E. Gans 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 601-37e-2011 FAX NO. 601-37e-2147 April 22, 1997 RECEIVED APR 2 3 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING United States Court of Appeals U.S. Court \u0026 custom House 1114 Market Street st. Louis, MO 63101 Re: Court of Appeals No. 96-3333 Dear Mr. Gans: SCOTT J , LANCASTER , P. A. M. GAYLE CORLEY , , . A . ROBERT 8 . IEACH, Jlll . , P . A . J . LEE BROWN, P, , A . JAMES C . BAICER , JR ., P, ,A . HARRY A . LIGHT, P. A. SCOTT H. TUCKER , P. A . JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH . P. A . GUY ALTON WADE, P. A . PRICE C . GARONE\", P. A . TONIA P. JONES , P. A . DAVID 0 , WILSON . P. A . JEFFREY H . MOORE. P. A . ANDREW T . TURNER, P. A . DAVID M . GRAF, P. A . CARLA G . SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR . ALLISON GRAVES JONA.NH C . ROOSEVELT R. CHllllSTOPHEfl LAWSON GREGORY 0 . TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRANC . HIClMAN BETTY J. DEMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W. SMITH r CLIFFORD W. PLUHlETT DANIEL l. HERRINGTON ALLISON J . CORNWELL TOOO A. GREER ELLEN M . OWENS OF COUNHL WILLIAM J . SMITH 8.8 . CLARK WILLIAM l. TERRY . P. A . WILLIAM l. PATTON. JR , P. A . JUTEll\"S OI IIECT NO. (601) 370-1606 I have enclosed for filing the Little Rock School District's Motion For Extension of Time in the above-referenced matter. CJH/k Enc. Yours very t Christ er. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLANT V. NO. 96-3333 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD requested and was granted an extension of time of fourteen ( 14) days to April 28, 1997 within which to file its petition for rehearing by the panel. It has now become necessary for LRSD to seek an additional four (4) days, to and including May 2, 1997, within which to file its petition for rehearing. 2. This second request is necessary because of the unanticipated amount of time counsel has had to spend dealing with emergency issues which have arisen in the school desegregation case and due to the unanticipated amount of time counsel has lost in the aftermath of a traffic accident. 3. Mr. Sam Jones, counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District, has stated that he does not oppose this motion. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD requests an order extending the time within which it may file a petition for rehearing by the panel of four (4) days, to and including May 2, 1997. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 501/376-z.u,,H:--- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time has been served on the following on this 22nd day of April, 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 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr . . Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown 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 f:lbcmc~\\3333.cxl 2 - FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. OIS,iliCT COURT EASTERN ~i:,TR iC 1 AA..; . .-,;.,SA:3 APR 2 2 1997 LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. 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. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 APR 2~ 1997 OFFICE oi:: DESEGREGATION MONITORING MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District for summary judgment on the issues of state funding of the public school employee insurance program (health insurance matching), state funding for special education students, and loss funding. The State of Arkansas, Arkansas Department of Education, has responded to the motion, and other Arkansas school districts have joined in filing an amicus curiae response in opposition to the 2 9 6 7: motion. 1 Upon careful consideration of the motion, responses, statements of facts, briefs, and exhibits, the Court finds that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part. I. In 1995, the Arkansas General Assembly passed Acts 917 and 1194, legislation that changed the method the State uses to distribute aid to school districts. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-301 et seq. (Michie 1995 Supp.) (\"Equitable School Finance System Act of 1995\"). Prior to 1996-97, the Arkansas Department of Education distributed the majority of state aid as Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). In addition, the State funded other programs such as Transportation Aid and At-Risk Grants by formulas or based on need. The State also paid Teacher Retirement Matching and Health Insurance Matching on behalf of school districts. The calculation for MFPA included add-on weights for various categories such as Special Education, Isolated School Districts, Consolidation Incentives, Vocational Education and Centers, Gifted and Talented Students, and growth and loss funding. See Arkansas Budget System, Agency Program Commentary for the 1997-1999 Biennium(\" ABS\") [Doc. 2896, Ex. C, p. 29]. Under the new funding scheme, no school district will receive money from the State specifically earmarked for health insurance matching. Also, State Equalization Funds are now distributed to districts based on the number of students, Average Daily Membership (\" ADM\"), 1In reply to the State's response, the Pulaski County Special School District filed an additional affidavit of Donald Stewart [ doc. 2950]. The State filed a motion to strike the affidavit and for leave to file a sur-reply [doc. 2954]. The Court finds that the motion to strike should be granted. The Stewart affidavit serves only to point out differing interpretations of the new funding formula and raise questions of how the formula will operate. The State's motion for leave to file a sur-reply is denied as moot. 2 equalized by the wealth of the district. Weighting for special education and loss funding is eliminated from the State Equalization funding formula. The three Pulaski County school districts urge the Court to find that these changes to the funding formula violate the desegregation Settlement Agreement. II. The Settlement Agreement obligates the State to continue to pay the settling districts \"[t]he State's share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funding.\" See Settlement Agreement II, 1 E. The Agreement also provides that the \"State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate.\" See Settlement Agreement  II, 1 L. The Agreement goes on to state that \"[f]air 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.\" Id. In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996), the Eighth Circuit held that direct state funding of workers' compensation costs is a \"program\" for purposes of the Settlement Agreement. It further held that the State's decision to change the law to require individual school districts to provide their own coverage did not violate the Settlement Agreement because it was an equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts. 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.'\" Id. at 1018. \"So long 3 as that change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement.\" Id. The Eighth Circuit went on to hold, however, that when the State disbursed \"seed money\" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation insurance, the formula, which was based upon enrollment rather than number of employees, created a disparity between the Pulaski County school districts and other school districts. \"This results in precisely what the anti-retaliation 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 moment that the State reached this result in a mathematically consistent manner.\" Id. A. The three Pulaski County school districts move for summary judgment on the issue of state funding of health insurance, arguing that requiring them to pay health insurance costs from state equalization funding or local funds violates their desegregation Settlement Agreement with the State. For the same reasons the Court granted summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching, see doc. 2930, the Court grants the motion for summary judgment on the issue of funding of health insurance matching. This Court found that direct funding of teacher retirement matching contributions by the State was a program in existence at the time of the Settlement Agreement, and that funds for programs such as teacher retirement and health insurance, which under the old scheme were not a part of the funding formula but were distributed directly by the State, were included in state funds to be distributed according to the new formula. This Court further found that the distribution of teacher retirement contributions through the new funding scheme worked to, the detriment of the employee-heavy settling districts because they, to a certain extent, are not 4 in a position to control their teacher retirement costs due to the many added obligations under the settlement plans. Because of the settling districts' added obligations, this Court found that the new funding scheme, which does not consider the number of eligible employees, is not ufair and rational.\" While the State may contend that the settling districts will receive more formula money under the new funding scheme, the Court finds 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 ufair and rational\" adjustment to the funding formula. B. Concerning the issues of funding for special education students and loss funding, the Court finds that summary judgment is not warranted. Under the old funding formula, the calculation for MFPA included add-on weights for various categories, including special education and loss funding. That weighting system has been eliminated and no district receives any identifiable money for special education or other high cost students or for loss funding'. The three Pulaski County school districts argue that because they have extraordinarily high special education expenses compared to other school districts, the new funding scheme is not fair and rational because it does nothing to recognize these costs or factor them into the formula. They also contend that they will suffer more from the elimination of loss funding because they lose students at a higher rate than other school districts. The settling districts argue that because the new funding scheme does not recognize . 5 the added costs of special education or loss funding, they are penalized unfairly and irrationally. The State says that under the new funding scheme, districts will continue to receive funding for the highest cost special education students, those requiring treatment at residential facilities. The State has historically reimbursed districts on a per diem basis equivalent to the actual charges made by these facilities. The new fund distribution method, the State says, as was the case under the distribution method in effect prior to the 1995 legislation, is a pure funding \"pass through\" in which residential treatment facilities do not bill school districts in excess of the amount of state funding provided to the district. The State, it appears, has determined to appropriate less money during the 1996-97 school year for this program, and has advised school districts that the reimbursement rate will be approximately $44.00 per day, down from average per diem reimbursement of $57.00 during the 1995-96 school year. The settling districts acknowledge that many institutions have reduced their charges to reflect this new rate; however, they express concern that this will be only a temporary arrangement and predict that the rate eventually will be raised. The Pulaski County districts also complain that elimination of weighting for special education students in determining formula funds violates the Settlement Agreement because they have a higher proportion of special education students. With regard to loss funding, depending on how the settling districts' M-to-M students are counted, which apparently has not been determined, the Pulaski County Special School District, for example, may or may not be eligible for growth funding. Student growth fundin\u0026 provides school districts additional funding for first quarter growth in the number of students 6 over the previous year's ADM. Act 917 retained student growth funding as a feature of state aid for districts with expanding enrollments. In addition, under Act 917, school districts' 1996-97 state aid is based upon the prior year's ADM, and thus there is a one-year adjustment period for districts with declining enrollment. See Wilhoit Dep., Ex. 2, ADE's Resp. Mot. Summ. J. Unlike teacher retirement and health insurance, where the costs for those programs are directly impacted by the obligations imposed by the desegregation settlement plans, the alleged disproportionately high number of special needs students in the settling districts is a circumstance that was not created by the settlement plans. Similarly, the loss or gain of students is not the result of obligations under the settlement plans. Further, it is unclear whether in these two areas the State has made an \"adjustmenf to the funding formula which has \"general applicability\" which is \"fair and rational adjustment. Even though the Settlement Agreement provides that the \"State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate, it also provides that \"[f]air 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. See Settlement Agreement  II, 1 L. Thus, the Court finds that the evidence indicates there are unresolved questions of interpretation as well as questions about how the new funding formula will operate and how the settling districts will be impacted. Because the Court finds that there remain genuine issues of material fact in dispute, the motion for summary judgment on the issues of special educatio~ and loss funding is denied. 7 III. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment [doc.# 2906] is granted as to health insurance and denied as to special education and loss funding. DATED this ~~ay of April 1997. ~ )Mi;;f~vr UNITED sii l)lsTRic 1unaE 8 ... ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT us~,{ktJlRr EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASH:,,\\; .::;s-:-;\"~ c, AR,-.;,,,c:, \"' WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 2 1997 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. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * QRDER OFFICE o:OESEGREGATIO:~ f!.OfJiTOh11 w.- Upon motion of the State of Arkansas, Arkansas Department of Education, the Court hereby orders that Special Assistant Attorney General Tim Humphries and Assistant Attorney General Timothy G. Gauger be, and are hereby substituted for Elizabeth Boyter Turner, as attorneys for the Arkansas Department of Education. Also before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors to add as defendants the Little Rock Municipal Court and the Little Rock Police Department to which the Little Rock School District has filed a response.  I t ,  I I I I t I  t   t 2 9 6 8 The Little Rock Municipal Court and the Little Rock Police Department are not parties to the settlement agreement and the Joshua Intervenors have provided the Court with no authority for enforcing a consent decree against entities which are not parties to that decree. 1 In addition, it appears that the issue behind the filing of the motion is moot. . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to substitute attorneys [doc. 2964] is granted and the motion to add parties [doc. 2962] is denied. ~ DATED this # day of April 1997. 1The Court points out that while ServiceMaster Management Services was not a party to the settleme~t agreement, it asked the Court for leave to intervene in order to protect its contract rights. See doc. 2547. 2 APR 2 2 1997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURffiMl:S w. i,1cu.Jrti,1ALr-., CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By: -------;::D-;:;EP:;-:.C;::;LcE\"RK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF APPEAL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS RECEive~. APR 2 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONliORf fJG Notice is hereby given that the Joshua Intervenors do hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the District Court's order, entered on March - 24, 1997 (DOCKET NO.2959). Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-37i,-37 _/) ~ j \" : By: \\ ~ ~jt,7)(7~ Walker - #64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby acknowledge that a document was sent to all counsel of copy of the foregoing th's 22nd day of April, 1997. Ye~ I J UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas Office of the Clerk 600 West Capitol, Room 402 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 April 23, 1997 Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63103 Case No. LR-C-82-866 Re: LRSD vs. PCSSD Dear Sir: Enclosed please find in duplicate, copies of the following in the above case: Notice of Appeal [certified] Joshua Intervenor., Docket Entries [certified] Order filed 3/24/97 l\\lemorandum Opinion and Order filed 9/23/96 Sincerely, James W. McCormack, Clerk Doris Collins, Deputy Clerk cc: w/encs. All Counsel of Record Waunzell Petre - Court Reporter - APR 2 ~ 1997 Off\\CE Of DESEGREGA110N MONl10RING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION FILED UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. 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 U 5 DISTRICT COURT .,.., EASTERN DISTRICT ARKAN-APR 2 8 t991 JAMES~ORMACK. ClERK By: U{.~- ' ~ DEP Cl.RK No. LR-C-82-866 Before the Court is the motion for reconsideration filed by the Joshua Intervenors on February 21, 1997 to which the Pulaski County Special School District has responded. The Joshua Intervenors seek reconsideration of the Court's Order dated February 20, 199:7, in which the Court dismissed the Joshua Intervenors' motions to require ODM monitoring or in the alternative for the Pulaski County Special School District to show cause concerning a teacher at Oak Grove Elementary School. Upon consideration of the motion and response, the Court finds that the motion should be denied. In support of their motion, the Joshua Intervenors submit an exhibit which contains a number of letters and memoranda which they contend support to their contention that there are serious problems regarding the discipline of minority students in the PCSSD. The Joshua Intervenors ask the Court to direct the ODM to monitor the PCSSD's compliance with its discipline plan or, in the alternative, hold the PCSSD in contempt for violating its student discipline plan. In its response, the PCSSD has demonstrated its attention to and resolution of the specific conflicts about which the Joshua Intervenors complain. As stated in the February 20, 1997 Order, the Court believes these are matters that should be and are being addressed by the PCSSD. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (doc. 2940) is hereby denied. DATED this ~y of April 1997. '.22~ Jtlf\u0026~ UNITED STADISCTGE 1141 m11EN'1 ENI ERED ON DOCKET a\u0026T _. Calll\"IJAIICE Willi AUlf 58 AN~ 7e{a) FRCP ~ - OM i--;; 8~qvz av ,~ \u003c.. 2 - FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 9 1997 JAMES_ \\fl. McCRRMACK, CLERK Br- v , Q:l~b I\\ W 1\\.. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenor. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, Intervenor. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * QRDER No. LR-C-82-866 RECE]VED APR 3 0 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OEl'CURI( Before the Court is a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors on September 27, 1996, requesting attorney's fees for the work of their counsel in successfully opposing the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") to end federal court jurisdiction regarding the LRSD. In that motion filed on May 17, 1996, the LRSD argued that it had agreed to an implementation period of six years, that the six-year period had expired, and that it was in substantial compliance with the settlement plans. On September 23, 1996, the Court denied the LRSD's motion. The , Joshua Intervenors then filed their motion for attorney's fees. 2 9 7 0, The LRSD moved for reconsideration of the Court's September 23, 1996 Order denying its motion and also moved for an extension of time to respond to the Joshua Intervenors' motion for attorney's fees. The LRSD asked that it not be required to respond to the motion for attorney's fees until after the Court ruled on its motion for reconsideration. The LRSD additionally stated that it should it not receive relief from this Court on its motion for reconsideration, it intended to appeal to the Eighth Circuit and requested that any response to the Joshua Intervenors' motion for fees be delayed until the issue was resolved, if necessary, by the appeals court. The Joshua Intervenors responded in opposition, arguing that the LRSD's requested extension was too long and that the LRSD should not be allowed to wait until after a ruling by the Eighth Circuit before responding to the attorney's fee motion. Subsequently, the LRSD filed a motion on December 6, 1996, asking the Court to approve a plan development period, during which time the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD could work together in preparing proposed plan modifications. The LRSD also filed a motion to withdraw its motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order regarding federal court jurisdiction. On December 27, 1996, the Court granted the motion for a plan development period and also granted the LRSD's motion to withdraw. The Court has determined that in the interest of judicial efficiency and fairness the Joshua Intervenors' motion for attorney's fees should be resolved. The Court is mindful that tire parties ..,._ are engaged in a period of discussion regarding proposed modifications to the settlement plans and the Court does not wish to place the parites in an adversarial position. However, the Court 2 finds that it is in the interest of justice to address the motion for attorney's fees. Therefore, the Court denies the motion for extension of time ( doc. 283 7) and directs the LRSD to respond to the motion for attorney's fees within ten days from the date of entry of this Order. 1 SO ORDERED this .,,2..i~ day of April 1997. n-ug DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPU~~ RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) f=ACP ON L 9J IY :et:: 1The resolution of the issue of attorney's fees will not defeat the LRSD' s right to refile its' motion for reconsideration as set forth in the Court's Order of December 27, 1996. 3 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY lt1221tl4J WILLIAM H. SUTTON, f' .A . JAMES W. MOOJU IYflOH M. EISEMAN. JR , , f' . A. JOE O. IELL, f' . A . JOHN C. ECHOLS, f' . A . A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW JAMES A. IUTTflY . f' . A. FREOEIIICIC S. UflSEIIY, f' . A . H. T. LAIIZHERE. f' .A. OSCAR . OAVIS. Jfl ., f' . A . JAMES C . CLARK, Jfl . , f' . A . THOMAS f' . LEGGETT . f' . A . JOHN DEWEY WATSON, f' . A . f'AUL I , IENHAM Ill, f' .A. LAlllltY W. IUflCS , f' . A . A. WYCCUFF NISl(T. JR ., f' . A . JAMES (OWAIIO HAIIRIS. f' . A . J . ,.HILLlf' MALCOM . ,. A . JAMES M. SIM,.SON, f' . A . JAMES M. SAXTON , f'.A . J . SHEPHEIIO flUSS(ll Ill.  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1655","title":"Court filings concerning ADE's objections to and motion to strike the ''counter-affidavit'' of Donald Stewart, Joshua motion for reconsideration, and Court of Appeals, judgment","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)","United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1997-03"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Little Rock School District","Educational planning","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning ADE's objections to and motion to strike the ''counter-affidavit'' of Donald Stewart, Joshua motion for reconsideration, and Court of Appeals, judgment"],"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/1655"],"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":["81 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Stewart, Donald"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for enlargement of time; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for enlargement of time as to Joshua motion for reconsideration; District Court, two orders; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) objections to and motion to strike the ''counter-affidavit'' of Donald Stewart or, in the alternative, for leave to submit a sur-reply; District Court, brief in support of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) objections to and motion to strike the ''counter-affidavit'' of Donald Stewart or, in the alternative, for leave to submit a sur-reply; District Court, two notices of appeal; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) objections to and motion to strike the ''counter-affidavit'' of Donald Stewart or, in the alternative, for leave to submit a sur-reply; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua motion for reconsideration; District Court, order; District Court, motion to add parties; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; Court of Appeals, judgment  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  /MAR 1997 Ut~~~~tQR}, c:.,~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT co~s-~;; C:  l i.,; EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS MAR 3 'i997 WESTERN DIVISION D~ GA iQ,.; ,.,,nmroR1~. LITTLE RO~ SC..,H OOL DISTRICT ~ . cCOR \\ACK. CL~nK JM,\\b  tv, PLAINT I FF By:~ V. NO. LR-C-r8-2 - 8 6 6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. REr~11 ~~ MAR  !{ 11q7 MOTION FOR l ~~ ~~NITO/YNG ENLARGEMENT OF TIME DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS '. INTERVENORS This Court entered its order regarding teacher retirement on February 18, 1997. Theoretically, a fee petition by the districts could be due on March 4, 1997 in respect of the teacher retirement order. Counsel for the districts and the State have agreed to ask the Court to enlarge the time to file this or any other fee petition. Matters remain pending before this Court which ~nvolve additional claims and the parties believe that efficiency can best be accomplished by postponing the due date for any fee petition until and including 15 days after this Court rules on all pending motions for summary judgment embodying claims against the State. WHEREFORE, the Pulaski districts seek an enlargement of time to pursue and file any fee petition until and including fifteen (15) days after this Court adjudicates all of the pending motions for summary judgment. 1 Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By _ 7\"\"\"'-:__-::'-c'-----=-,,.:--J=:...__----: _ _ M. County ec t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On March .3 , 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 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 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, Suit~ 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 041997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: -------- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO., ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. REc~n l11'2 . ::: DEFENDANTS .,, INTERVENORS MAR - 0 l9J7 OFFICE OF lfSEGfifGATJOti MONITORING PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME AS TO JOSHUA MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION INT ERVEN ORS INT ERVEN ORS The Pulaski County Special School District for its motion states: 1. on February 11, 1997 Joshua filed a motion regarding an incident which occurred at one of the Oak Grove schools. Pulaski County Special School District responded and the Court dismissed Joshua's motion because it involved a personnel matter. 2. Joshua replied on February 20, 1997 and filad its motion for reconsideration on February 21, 1997. The motion for reconsideration contains multiple Joshua memos and correspondence. 3. Pulaski County Special School District needs an enlargement of time until and including March 24, 1997 to respond to the motion for reconsideration. The Pulaski County Special School District relies upon the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for this requested enlargement. WHEREFORE, the Pulaski County Special School District prays that it be granted an enlargement of time until and including March 24, 1997 to respond to the Joshua motion for reconsideration. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By_-V-IL..f\u0026.:;..:::~~~~-.,\u0026./.----M. S~~.,._ Attorneys for County Special 2 60) Pulaski School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On March 4- , 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 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 Sout~ 18th Street P. o. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 r:pm,1194.nuj 3 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 - RECEIVED MAR 7 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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., * .).\u003e.. . * Interve:nor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRQER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MARO 5 1997 JAMESfaV. ~ORMACK, CLERK By: ~, ~V.,/)J,A ~ C\\ oep CLERK'\"\u003c.....__ \"' Before the Court is the motion of the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") to add eight (8) classrooms at Seventh Street Elementary School. The NLRSD states the additional cla.sswow:s are necessary to accommodate those elementary students at Redwood Elementary who will be displaced by the NLRSD's plans to convert Redwood into a specialized preschool program for four-year-old students. There have been no timely responses, and the Court finds that the motion should be g'ranted. 2 95 2 While the Court will continue to closely watch all proposed school capacity alterations to determine the effect on desegregation and whether there is a pattern of closing schools in areas largely inhabited by black citizens while increasing capacity of schools in areas largely inhabited by white citizens, Seventh Street Elementary is located in a predominantly black neighborhood. In addition, the NLRSD argues convincingly that its plan will have a positive impact on desegregation goals as well as provide enhanced early educational development services to at-risk children. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to add classrooms at Seventh Street Elementary (doc. # 2928) is granted.  ,,.. _--1h_ :. ~--- DA TED this ~ day' of March 1997. n-us DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WiTH RULE 5a ANOOR 7S(a) FRCP JN 3/S-/97 IV tl?-  2 RECEI\\IED FilcD US OIST:llCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS A MAR 7 1997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS MARO 5 1997 JAMES 't/, Mc~MACK, CLERK OFFICE OF WESTERN DIVISION By: ~ .,, ~ \\ \\ [\\ \"\"cV'- DESEGREGATION MONITORINr, LITT[E \"l~OCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * oeP CL.ERK - * 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 an extension of time within which to file a fee petition. The motion [doc. 2947] is granted. Any fee petition in connection with the teachers' strike must be filed within thirty days from the date of the return of the Eighth Circuit mandate in this matter. Also before the Court is the motion by the Pulaski County school districts for an enlargement of time within which to file a fee petition concerning the teacher retirement order. The motion [doc. 2949] is granted. The districts must file any fee petition regarding the teacher retirement issue within fifteen (15) days after the Court adjudicates pending motions for summary judgment embodying claims against the State. Finally, the Pulaski County Special School District moves for an extension of time within which to respond to the Joshua Intervenors motion for reconsideration. The motion [doc. 2951] is granted. The PCSSD has until and including March 2-1-, 1997, within which to file its response to the motion for reconsideration. -1A. SO ORDERED this~ day of March 1997. :HIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKETSH9:TIN ;( ,MPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(8), FRCP ,it ::\u003eN 3/5791 BY-...,_.;.---- 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION MAR 1 J 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGJiEGATtON MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS ARKAl~SAS DEPARTMEitt OF EDUCATION~s OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE \"COUNTERAFFIDA VIT\" OF DONALD STEW ART OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT A SUR-REPLY The Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") hereby objects to and moves to strike the \"Affidavit of Donald M. Stewart, Ed.D.\" (\"Stewart Affidavit\"), which was served on March 3, 1997. In the alternative, should the Court decide not to strike the Affidavit in its entirety, ADE requests leave to file a sur-reply to address the issues raised in the Affidavit. The motion is made on the following grounds: i. Portions of the Stewart Affidavit refer to matters (Exhibit \"A\" to the Districts' January 13, 1997 motion for summary judgment) that constitute inadmissible hearsay that is not subject to any exception to the hearsay rule. 2. The Stewart Affidavit contains testimony that is not within the affiant's personal knowledge, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). 1 3. Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor this Court's local rules authorize the filing of \"reply briefs,\" \"reply affidavits,\" or \"reply counter-affidavits\" in support of a motion for summary judgment, and it is improper in any event to use a reply brief or affidavit to introduce new evidence or argument. 4. . The grounds for the motion are more fully explained in the brief served and filed herewith. Wherefore, ADE requests that the Stewart Affidavit be stricken in its entirety and not be considered in ruling on the Districts' motion for summary judgment. In the alternative, should the Court deny the motion to strike in whole or in part, ADE requests leave to file a sur-reply in response to the Stewart affidavit and the evidence and argument contained therein. . Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant Attorney eneral 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served this 6th day of March, 1997, by first-class mail, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 425 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 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 ~~ Timothy G.Ga ~ ~ 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REcr~~ 7~sJ MAR 1 0 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS BRIEF IN SlJFPORT OF ARKANSAS DEPARTl\\1\"\"ENT OF EDUCATiON'S OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE \"COUNTERAFFIDA VIT\" OF DONALD STEWART OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT A SUR-REPLY I. INTRODUCTION On March 3, 1997, three weeks after ADE filed its opposition to PCSSD, LRSD and NLRSD's motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, loss funding and special education, PCS SD filed an \"Affidavit of~ Donald M. Stewart, Ed.D.\" (hereinafter referred to as the \"Stewart Affidavit\"). The Stewart Affidavit is presumably submitted as a \"reply\" to ADE's opposition to the Districts' u1.otion. As discussed below, the Stewart Affidavit should be stricken from the record in whole or in part and should not considered by the Court in ruling on the Districts' motion for summary judgment. Should the Court decline to strike the affidavit in its entirety, this Court should give ADE the opportunity to file a \"sur- - reply\" to address the issues raised in the Stewart Affidavit before ruling on the summary judgment motion. II. ARGUMENT A. Exhibit \"A\" To The Districts' January 13, 1997 Motion For Summary Judgment And References To It In The Stewart Affidavit Must Be Stricken As the Court will recall, Exhibit \"A\" to the Districts' January 13, 1997 motion for summary judgment is a photocopy of a newspaper article that was published sometime in mid-1996, and was offered by the Districts to prove state school funding for 1996-97 as compared to 1995-96. Exhibit \"A\" to the Districts' January 13, 1997 motion and all references to that Exhibit in the Stewart Affidavit 9 should be stricken because the Exhibit constitutes inadmissible hearsay. See, e.g., I Dowdell v. Chapman, 930 F.Supp. 533,541 (M.D. Ala. 1996). B. Paragraph 13 Of The Stewart Affidavit Must Be Stricken Because It Does Not Comply With Fed. R. Civ. P, 56(e) Federal_ Rule of Civil Procedure 56( e) requires that supporting affidavits \"be made on personal knowl~dge.\" In paragraph 13 of his affidavit Dr. Stewa...11: purports to give testimony \"[ u ]pon information and belief.\" 2 It is well-settled that an affiant's testimony based upon \"information and belief' does not meet the 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) states that affidavits in support of a motion for summary judgment must \"set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence.\" 2 At the conclusion of his Affidavit Dr. Stewart similarly states that the matters set forth in the affidavit are \"true based upon [his] best information and belief.\" - \"personal knowledge\" requirement of Rule 56(e). See Automatic Radio Mfg. Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 94 L.Ed. 1312, 1317 (1950).3 C. Neither The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Nor This Court's Local Rules Authorize The Filing Of \"Reply\" Affidavits, And In Any Event It Is Improper To Introduce New Evidence Or Argument By Way Of Reply Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor this Court's local rules provide for the filing of \"reply\" briefs or \"reply\" or \"counter\" affidavits in support of motions for summary judgment. Moreover, to ensure fairness to the nonmoving party, courts have uniformly held that it is improper to submit new evidence or raise arguments for the first .time in a reply brief. See, e.g., CIA. Petro/era Caribe, Inc., v. ARCO Caribbean, Inc., 754 F.2d 404, 408-410 (1st Cir. 1985) (trial court erred in considering reply brief and affidavits in ruling on motion for summary judgment); Hall v. Cropmate, 887 F.Supp. 1193, 1199 (S.D. Ind. 1995) (new argument may not be advanced for the first time in a reply brief); Hartley v. Wisconsin Bell, Inc., 930 F.Supp. 349, 352- 53 (E.D.Wis. 1996). Wh'!re, as here, the motion at issue is one for summary judgment, it is error for a court to consider new evidence or argument contained in 3 See also Bank Melli Iran v. Pahlavi, 58 F.3d 1406, 1412-13 (9th Cir. 1995) (\"information and belief' declarations do not satisfy personal knowledge requirement); Price v. Rochford, 947 F.2d 829,832 (7th Cir. 1991) (verification stating that testimony was based upon the witness' \"own personal knowledge or upon his information and belief' was insufficient under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)); Gore v. GTE South, 917 F.Supp. 1564, 1570 (M.D. Ala. 1996). - reply papers without at least giving the non-moving party an opportunity to respond: The District Court therefore had two choices when it was informed that defendants had filed a reply brief: it could strike the brief or grant ... the nonmoving party the opportunity to respond to it. Certainly, after discovering that use of the information contained in the tardily served brief and affidavit would be helpful to its opinion, the district court should then have provided the nonmoving party with an opportunity to respond. CIA Petrolera Caribe, Inc., supra, 754 F.2d at 410; see also Povenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) ('\"[w]here new evidence is presented in a reply to a motion for summary judgment, the district court should not consider the new evidence without giving the [ non-]movant an opportunity to respond.\"') ( quoting Blackv. TIC Inv. Corp., 900 F.2d 112, 116 (7th Cir. 1990). Paragraph 10 of the Stewart Affidavit should be stricken because it contains new factual assertions concerning residential treatment centers that could have and should have been submitted along with the Districts' initial moving papers.4 Paragraphs 11-14 and Exhibits D through F of the Stewart Affidavit, concerning Fiscal Crisis Relief Funds, should also be stricken. No mention of Fiscal Crisis \"Paragraph 10 of the Stewart Affidavit is also contrary to representations made in the Districts' brief in support of their motion for summary judgment. In their brief filed on January 13, 1997, the Districts did not even argue that any residential treatment facility in the County was charging any District in excess of the existing per diem state aid rate. Rather, the Districts stated only that \"many of the major institutions have reduced their charges to reflect the newly reduced daily reimbursement.\" Relief Funds were made in any of the Districts' previous motions or filings, and this issue was certainly not raised in ADE's response to any District submission. ill. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, ADE respectfully requests that the Stewart Affidavit be stricken in its entirety. In the alternative, should the Court decline the strike the Stewart Affidavit in its entirety, ADE requests leave to file a sur-reply in response to the Stewart Affidavit and the new evidence and argument contained therein. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General ---' -~~ ~ BY: I ~  -;;;--]'c,,...--~ TIMOTHY G~ER;95019 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served this 6th day of March, 1997, by first-class mail, 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 425 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JAC~ 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 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 ~~ Timothy G. ~ RECE;VEE. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION MAR 1 8 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LI1TLE 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 TIIA T the Arkansas Department of Education appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the District Court's order, entered February 18, 1997 (docket no. 2930), 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 funding for teacher retirement matching contributions.\" Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant Atto ey General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Lh.tle Rock, Arkansas 72201 (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 / 71'4.day of March, 1997, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones m WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE b. CLAR. \"..f ( 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 .I RECEIVED - MAR I 8 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DOCKETNO. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS - EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPELLANT'S FORM A Appeal Information From To Be Filed With the Notice of Appeal Style Of Case: Cc!msel: Nrur~, Addr'!ss, and tdephon'! number ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APPELLANT vs. TIMOTHY G. GAUGER Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-2007 -------------------------- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEES 1 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 200 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 425 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 722201  Date of District Court Judgment: February 18, 1997 Basis of: District Court Jurisdiction: Federal Question Appellate Jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. 1291, Final Collateral Order Jurisdictional Isssue, If any: None Is this case suitable for consideration in this Court's Settlement program? LJ Yes. (_X_) No. If no, state why: Case concerns interpretation of consent decree. Appropriate Standard of Appellate Review: De Novo. List !s~ues on Appe~l: (List below): Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District on the districts' claims that changes in the State of Arkansas' public school funding laws violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement between the State and the school districts. Does this Constitute Your Statement oflssues under FRAP 10(b)(3)? (__) Yes. (_X_) No. Submitted by:~~!- Signature' u V 1 Copy - Send to Appellee (together with an uncompleted Form B) 2 Copies - Send to Clerk, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 1 Copy - Retain lorettap\\forms-July 31, 1996 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 ( 1 t.: day of March, 1997, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones Ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 400 W. Capitoi, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 7220 I 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 7220 I John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREET 410 W. O:.pitoi, 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 ~J:_ ~ - Timothy ger 3 DOCKET NO. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS - EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPELLEE'S FORM B Appeal Information Form STYLE OF CASE: IS THE ALIGNMENT OF PARTIES, NAMES, ADDRESSES, AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS CORRECT ON APPELLANT'S FORM A? L_) YES. L_) NO. If no, list corrections below. IF YOU WISH TO CLARIFY THE JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT OR GENERAL STATEMENT, LIST THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES OR COMMENTS: DO YOU BELIEVE THIS CASE IS SUIT ABLE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS COURT'S SETTLEMENT PROGRAM? L_) YES. L_) NO. Ifno, state why. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL COMPLETING THIS FORM: Submitted by: ________ _ 1 Copy - Send to Appellant 2 Copies - Send to Clerk, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 1 Copy - Retain lorettap\\forms-August 6, 1996 FILED U.S. 018T~ICT OOUlff EASTE\"N OIS'ffllCT AIU(ANSAS IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR 1 8 N97 JAMES W. McCORMACK. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKl COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LR-C-82-866 NOTICE OF APPEAL 8t:AIN LIFF 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 OEP CLEllK - Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered in this action on February 18, 1997. Respectfully submitted, INTERVENING SCHOOL DISTRICTS, DEFENDANTS 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 Byfamres iM.U LlewJell~yj~# 66040 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James M. Llewellyn, Jr., do hereby certify that I have on this I 7 day of March, 1997, caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing NOTICE OF APPEAL to be mailed first class, postage prepaid, to: Timothy G. Gauger ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 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 425 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 425 West Capitol Ave., Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 7220 I John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 l Richard Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Alma School District Alread School District Altus Denning School District Ashdown School District Barton-Lexa School District Batesville School District  Beebe School District Bentonville School District Bergman School District Berryville School District Biggers-Reyno School District Black Rock School District Blevins School District Blytheville School District Booneville School District Bradford School District Bright Star School District Brinkley School District Bryant School District Buffalo Island School District Caddo Hills School District Carthage School District Center Point School District Charleston School District Clarendon School District Corning School District Cotton Plant School District County Line Public School Crossett School District Cutter-Morning Star School District Decatur School District Dermott School District Dewitt School District Dollarway School District Dumas School District Elaine School District Fordyce School District Foreman School District Fort Smith School District Fountain Lake School District Gillett School District Glen Rose School District Gosnell School District Grady School District Green County Technical Schools Green Forest School District Greenland School District Greenwood School District Guy-Perkins School District Harrisburg School District Hamburg School District Holly Grove School District Hoxie School District Huttig School District Jackson County School District Jonesboro School District Junction City School District A TI ACHMEi'IT 1 Kirby School District Lakeside School District Lavaca School District Lead Hill School District Leslie School District Lewisville School District Magazine School District Malvern Special School District Mammoth Spring School District Manila School District  Marion School District Marshall School District Mayflower School District Maynard School District McGehee School District Mountainburg School District Nettleton School District Newport School District Oden School District Ola School District Ozark School District Paragould School District Parkin School District Plainview-Rover School District Pleasant View School District Pocahontas School District Prairie Grove School District Quitman School District Rural Special School District Saratoga School District Searcy School District Smackover School District South Conway County School District Southside School District #2 Bee Branch Spring Hill School District Stamps School District Stephens School District Strong School District Stuttgart Schooi District Turrell School District Valley Springs School District Van Buren School District Waldron School District Warren School District Watson Chapel School District Weiner School District West Fork School District West Memphis School District White Hall School District Wickes School District Winslow School District W onderview School District Wynne School District Yellville-Summit School District UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas Office of the Clerk 600 West Capitol, Room 402 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 March 20, 1997 Mr. Michael g_ Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63103 Case No. LR-C-82-866 Re: LRSD vs. PCSSD ET AL Dear Sir: MAR 2 1~ 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed please find in duplicate, copies of the following in the above case: Notice of Appeal [certified] by intervening School Districts Docket Entries [certified] Memorandum and Order filed 2/18/97 Sincerely, James W. McCormack, Clerk Doris Collins, Deputy Clerk CC: w/encs. All Counsel of Record IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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. PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO ADE'S OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE \"COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT\" OF DONALD STEWART OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT A SUR-REPLY The PCSSD for its response states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VENO RS MAR 2 O 'i897 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONffORING 1. The PCSSD has no objection to the State filing a surreply, assumes that the State is at work upon a sur-reply, and suggests that a limited period of time be permitted by this Court for the filing of any sur-reply authorized by the Court. 2. The PCSSD did not set forth the residential treatment center charg "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1646","title":"Court filings: District Court, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), Little Rock School District (LRSD), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) statement of material and undisputed facts with respect to issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding","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":["1997-02-10"],"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","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School employees","Employee rights","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), Little Rock School District (LRSD), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) statement of material and undisputed facts with respect to issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding"],"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/1646"],"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":["50 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.  .. RECE~VED FILED FEB 181997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT co~\"0AfJ~~~l./,~~,~::,c:A~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FEB '1 0 1997 DESEGREi~~: ~tNITOR!NG WESTERN DMSION JAr..'.[:i W. NICvlJrtMnul'\\, liL~RK 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 By: ____ -:;::;;-;:;-;;-;;;;- oEP CLERK FEB 1 ::- 10 OFFiC2 ..,, DESEGREGATIOt~ MONITORJNG DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD, LRSD AND NLRSD'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS WITH RESPECT TO ISSUES OF HEALTH INSURANCE, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND LOSS FUNDING The Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") responds to PCSSD, LRSD and NLRSD's \"Statement of Material and Undisputed Facts\" with respect to issues of health insurance, special education and loss funding as follows: Fact No, 1: State EquaHzation Funding - Act 917 of 1995 changed the method the State uses to distribute aid to school districts. Prior to 1996-97 the Department of Education distributed the majority of state aid as Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). In addition, the state funded other programs such as Transportation Aid and At-Risk Grants by formulas or based on need. The ' I  State also paid Teacher Retirement Matching and Health Insurance Matching on behalf of school districts. The calculation for MFP A included add-on weights for various categories such as Special Education, Isolated School Districts, Consolidation Incentives, Vocational Education and (sic) Centers, Gifted and Talented Students, and growth and loss funding (Arkansas Budget System, Agency Program Commentary for the 1997-1999 Biennium, (\"ABS\") p. 29). Act 917 now requires State Equalization Funds to be distributed to districts based on the number of students, Average Daily Membership (ADM), equalized by the wealth of the district. The purpose of this funding is to equalize the disparities of property wealth throughout Arkansas (ABS p. 29). ADE's Response: It is undisputed that the Districts have accurately quoted the ABS. However, the statement that the purpose of Equalization Funding is to \"equalize the disparities of property wealth\" between districts is an oversimplification. The formula for calculating Equalization Funding takes into account local assessed property values, miscellaneous funds, the amount of funds available for Equalization Funding, and the number of students in the State and in each district. See generally Sections 4(d), 4(n), 4(s) of Act 917 of 1995 (Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-203(4), (14) and (19)). More precisely stated, the purpose of equalization funding is to reduce the disparity of total state and local funds available to school districts for the education of children. 2  I Moreover, the Districts inaccurately state that the quoted passage from ABS comes from the \"Agency Program Commentary\" section. In fact, the quoted passage comes from the section entitled \"Analysis of Budget Request,\" which is drafted by the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, and not ADE. Fact No. 2: Prior to this fiscal year, the _$tate distributed formula aid utilizing weighted average daily memberships (\"W ADM''). ADE's Response: It is undisputed that W ADM was one of several factors used in the calculation of Minimum Foundation Program Aid for school districts prior to fiscal year 1996-97. See generally Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-306 (b) (Michie 1995 Supp.) (Repealed effective July 1, 1996). Fact No. 3: The previous Arkansas school funding formula (Act 34) used W ADM to determine the amount of money a school district received. The formula added weights to account for the high cost of educating certain students and provided more money for those students. The add-on weights included: special education, gifted and talented, vocational education, isolated district, consolidation incentive funds, growing district, loss funding, and vocational centers. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 8) ADE's Response: It is undisputed that WADM was one of several factors used in the calculation of Minimum Foundation Program Aid for school districts prior to fiscal year 1996-97. See generally Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-306 (b) (Michie 3 - 1995 Supp.) (Repealed effective July 1, 1996). It is also undisputed that the calculation of W ADM included weights for special education, gifted and talented, vocational education, isolated district, consolidation incentive funds, growth funding, loss funding, and vocational centers. Fact No, 4: It was not clear that the add.-on weights that were assigned were sufficient to meet the needs of the students. For 1994-95, the W ADM was approximately 505,000, of which 435,000 was actual students and 70,000 was addon weights. The percentage of add-ons in districts ranged from 6% to 40%. There were some students who, because of their high need, generated three times the SBER (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 9) (Gooden p. 17). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 5: Any aid distributed for health insurance matching this fiscal year will be distributed on an \"equalized\" ADM basis and will not consider employee costs or numbers of employees. ADE's Response: Disputed. There is no appropriation for \"health insurance matching\" for school district employees in Act 1194 of 1995 for 1996- 97, and there are no identifiable or earmarked \"health insurance matching\" dollars distributed to school districts as state equalization funding. Rather, under Section 14 of Act 1194 of 1995 the responsibility for paying the health insurance contribution rate for eligible employees has now been shifted to school districts 4 throughout the State. A school district may satisfy this obligation in total or in part with moneys received from the State as state equalization funding, and it may satisfy this obligation in part or in whole with local revenue. Moreover, the statutory formula for the distribution of state equalization funding does not \"equalize\" ADM. Rather, the formula \"equalizes\" or \"adjusts\" the amount of money distributed per ADM to each district based upon a district's local wealth. See response to Fact No. 1. Fact No. 6: The State has terminated its payment of health insurance matching for the employees of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No. 7: The responsibility for funding health insurance matching for employees of the ODM has now become the responsibility of the three school districts in Pulaski County and their contributions to the budget of the ODM have been increased accordingly. ADE's Response; Disputed. The obligation for paying for health insurance matching for ODM employees now rests with ODM. The total ODM budget is funded by contributions from the three Districts and the State. Fact No. 8: For 1994-95, $36,315,000 was budgeted for public school employee insurance which was paid (by the State) to Blue Cross Blue Shield for insurance for teachers. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 24(8)). 5 ADE's Response: Disputed. The $36,315,000 budgeted for public school employee insurance was budgeted for the payment of health insurance matching for all eligible employees who elected to participate in the Public School Health Insurance program. The pool of eligible employees included teachers and other eligible \"non-teacher\" school district employees~ Fact No. 9: Public School Employee Insurance - provides for health insurance contributions for employees of the Cooperative Education Service Areas, Vocational Centers and the school operated by the Department of Correction. The priority request of$36,030 in FY98 and $74,222 in FY99 allows for a 6% growth in rates of employees (ABS p. 13). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 10: Public School Employee Insurance - This program pays the health insurance contribution rate established by the State Board of Education for employees of the Cooperative Education Services Areas, Vocational Centers, and the school operated by the Department of Correction (ABS p. 32). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No. 11: Any aid distributed and thus available for special education costs this fiscal year will be distributed on an \"equalized\" ADM basis and will not consider the costs of educating special education students. (Rossmiller, p. 99) 6 ADE's Response: Disputed. The cited testimony of Dr. Rossmiller concerned the formula for calculation of state equalization funding. While Act 1194 contains appropriations for 1996-97 for, e.g., Special Education Services and Early Childhood Special Education, there is no general \"special education\" appropriation for distibution to school districts, and there are no identifiable or eannarked \"special education\" dollars distributed to school districts as state equalization funding. School districts may fund special education programs in whole or in part with moneys received from the State as state equalization funding, from local revenue, or from federal funds. Moreover, the statutory formula for the distribution of state equalization funding does not \"equalize\" ADM. Rather, the formula \"equalizes\" or \"adjusts\" the amount of money distributed per ADM to each district based upon, among other things, a district's local wealth. See response to Fact No. 1. Fact No, 12: School districts located in urban centers with extensive medical services available can anticipate a high concentration of high cost special education students. (Gooden, p. 17) ADE's Response: Disputed. The Districts have not produced any evidence that they have such a \"high concentration\" of such \"high cost\" students. School districts with small enrollments may have a higher percentage or 7 - concentration of severely disabled students than school districts located in urban areas. Sydoriak Deposition at 62: 17-63 :8. Fact No, 13: At page 14 of the ABS, the ADE has commented in part concerning residential centers that: \"Students are the responsibility of the district where the facility is located.\" ADE's Response: It is undisputed that these Districts have accurately quoted page 14 of the \"ABS.\" However, the statement is not accurate. The District where the facility is located is responsible for the children if it is known at the time of placement that the placement will be for more than 60 days. If it is not known at the time of placement that the placement will be for more than 60 days, the district from which the child originated is responsible for the first 60 days, and the district in which the facility is located is responsible for the child beginning with day 61 of placement. Sydoriak Deposition (attached hereto as Exhibit 1) at 8:22-9:5. Fact No, 14: Residential Centers - This is a special education program to provide reimbursement to school districts for educational costs associated with students in approved residential tre.atment facilities. Prior to 1996- 97, the ABS asserts, the program was funded as an add-on weight through the minimum Foundation Aid program. The 1995-96 reimbursement of approximately 8 $6 million funded 710 beds in 8 approved residential treatment facilities. The Department has budgeted $6,512,000 for FY97 (ABS p. 27). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 15: The priority request of$856,662 in FY98 and $908,062 for FY99 is to provide additional funding for anticipated growth in student placement at approved residential treatment facilities and/or juvenile . detention facilities (ABS p. 27). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 16: For the 1996-97 school year, the special education specialists at the Arkansas Department of Education calculated that an appropriation in excess of $12,000,000 would be necessary to fund the costs for residential education. ADE's Response: Disputed. In May of 1996 the administrator for grants and data management for ADE's Special Education division calculated that approximately $12 million would be necessary for funding of students in residential treatment facilities under the fund distribution method that existed prior to the enactment of Act 917 of 1995. At the time the calculation was made, the individual who made the calculation was unaware that the method of distribution had been changed by Act 917. Sydoriak Deposition at 15:19-17:23. The new fund distribution method, as was the case under the distribution method in effect prior to 9 - the enactment of Act 917, is a pure funding \"pass through\" in which residential treatment facilities do not bill school districts in excess of the amount of state funding provided to the district. The amounts distributed under the prior and new law are therefore, by definition, \"adequate.\" Sydoriak Deposition at 39:11-40:12. Fact No, 17: For the 1995-96 school year, the State reimbursed school districts approximately $57 per child per day for treatment in residential treatment facilities. For this school year, those school districts, including the districts in Pulaski County, have been advised that this per diem reimbursement has been reduced to just over $44 per child per day for the same treatment. ADE's Response: Undisputed. It is also undisputed that no treatment facility, including the facilities located in Pulaski County, is charging any school district in excess of the state's current per diem reimbursement rate. ~ response to Fact No. 16. Fact No, 18: Pursuant to Act 1194, there was no line item appropriation for student growth funding for the previous fiscal year but the line item appropriation for this fiscal year is $29,000,000. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Under the school funding statutes in effect prior to July 1, 1996, student growth funding was not a separate line item appropriation but rather was generated through a ''weight\" as part of Minimum 10 -' . .1 Foundation Program Aid. See Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-302(1) (Michie 1995 Supp.) (Repealed effective July l, 1996). Fact No, 19: Student Growth - This provides school districts additional funding for first quarter growth in the number of students over the .. previous year's ADM. Prior to 1996-97, student growth was part of the Minimum Foundation Aid calculation (ABS p. 25). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 20: In 1995-96 the state funded growth of approximately 7,400 additional students times the State Base Equalization [sic] (SBER) of $2,754 for a total of $20.3 million. For 1996-97 growth funding is calculated as the Base Local Revenue Per Student (\"BLRPS\") (currently $3,759) times .4 plus $1,500 for a total of $3,003 per student This rate is then multiplied by the increase in the district's ADM for the first quarter over the previous year's ADM. For FY97 the Department has budgeted $22.6 million for Student Growth (ABS p. 25). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 21: Act 917 retained student growth funding as a feature of state aid for districts with expanding enrollments. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Student Growth funding for 1996-97 is provided from available funds in a line-item appropriation within the Public School Fund. See Sections 3(b )and 4(u) of Act 917 of 1995, Ark. Code Ann.  6- 11 - - 20-303(21), 6-2~307(a). All districts with inar.asing ADM, including PCSSD, LRSD and NLRSD, will receive growth funding for the 1996-97 school year. See Declaration of Tristan Greene in Opposition to 1his Motion (\"Greene Declaration\"), 12 and Exh. A Fact No, 22: Subsection (b )( 4) foDd that there were 24,166 students in kindergarten through Grade 12 in the state's largest school district. ADE's Response: As written, this \"f.acf' is unintelligible. Assuming the Districts are referring to Section 2(bX4) of Act 917 of 1995, it is undisputed. Fact No, 23: The state's largest school district is the Little Rock School District. ADE's Response: Assuming this .. fact' refers specifically to a comparison of school districts by the.ir Average Daily Membership, it is undisputed. If this \"fact\" refers to geographic area, it is disputed. FactNo.24: In fiscal year 1995 State funds for public schools totaled approximately $1.2 billion, of which $941 million was distributed through the Minimum Foundation Program Aid Formula (\"MFPA\") and approximately $300 million was distributed outside ofMFPA (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 6) ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 25: School districts received money outside the Act 34 MFPA formula to help offset the costs of transportation. The Act 34 formula took 12  into account the size of a district, the number of students to be transported and the age and size of the buses used. Under the Act 34 formula the state used to disburse transportation funds, some districts received more money than they actually spent on transportation and some districts did not receive enough money to cover their actual costs of transportation. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 28) ADE's Response: The school funding statutes in effect prior to July 1, 1995 contained no formula for distribution of transportation funds. Transportation funds were distributed based upon a formula contained in Rules and Regulations promulgated by the State Board of Education. With the foregoing qualification, Fact No. 25 is undisputed . Fact No, 26: Transportation aid was eliminated under Act 1194 as a separate line item and incorporated into the new school funding formula (ABS, p. 32). ADE's Response: It is unclear what is meant by the term \"incorporated into.\" It is undisputed that Act 1194 contains no specific line-item appropriation for Transportation Aid for 1996-97. It is also undisputed that Act 917 includes \"Transportation Aid\" in the definition of \"Student Needs Funding.\" See Section 4(v) of Act 917 of 1995 (Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-303(22)). However, to the extent the Districts claim that there is some identifiable amount of\"Transportation Aid\" being distributed as state equalization funding, the fact is disputed. There are no 13 identifiable or earmarked \"transportation aid\" funds in state equalization funding. School districts may pay their transportation costs in whole or in part with funds received from the State as state equalization funding or in whole or in part with local revenue. See Section 3(a) of Act 917 (Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-309(a)). Fact No. 27: Page 14 of the ABS_contains a new request by the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") for $10,000,000 each fiscal year \"to assist districts with high cost transportation.\" This is a \"priority request\" of the Arkansas Department of Education. ADE's Response: Undisputed. ADE has requested an appropriation of $10 million for fiscal years 1997-98 and 1998-99 to assist districts with high transportation costs. The Executive Recommendation, however, is for a total of $10 million dollars for each year to be used for assisting districts with high transportation costs and for funding safety training for school bus drivers and mechanics. So that the Court will not be misled, \"priority request\" is a tenn of art that simply means a request for an appropriation that is in excess of Base Level. All such requests are called \"priority requests\" in the ABS. Fact No, 28: For 1994-95, the State of Arkansas forecasted general revenue at $2,527,765,452, including Education Excellence Trust Funds. Of that amount 48.8%, or $1,233,546,155, was spent on the Public School Fund. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 23). 14 -' -'  . 1 __ .. - .. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 29: The Public School Fund provides the primary state financial assistance to Arkansas public elementary and secondary schools. For FY97, the Public School Fund is projected to receive General Revenue funding of $1,261,159,912. The Educational Excellence Trust Fund forecast for the Public School Fund will provide an additional $142,454,921. For FY97, the Public School Fund will receive approximately 47% of the State's Revenue Stabiliz.ation allocations. With Educational Excellence included, the Public School Fund is scheduled to receive 49% of the State's General Revenues (ABS p. 23). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 30: Money is not the only factor which affects the quality of a student's education. Factors other than money which affect the quality of education include (1) the education level of the family, (2) the socioeconomic level of the community, (3) the curriculum, (4) the teachers, (5) the percentage of money going into the classroom as compared to other costs, such as administration and capital expenditures, and ( 6) the course-taken patterns of the students. The Arkansas school funding formula (Act 34) did not take these factors into account in determining the amount of aid available per student. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 130) 15 ADE's Response: Undisputed. While the formula for calculating MFPA did not take these factors into account for purposes of calculating MFP A, other statutes, funding programs and rules and Regulations of the State Board of Education took into account these factors. Fact No, 31: Neither Act 917 nor ,Act 1194 take into account the factors set forth in paragraph 31. ADE's Response: Disputed. Among other things, the new funding scheme includes teacher salary requirements that can affect the \"percentage of money going into the classroom.\" Moreover, because the distribution of equalization funding takes into account the local wealth of the district, it roughly takes into account the \"socioeconomic status of the community.\" Further, as was the case prior to July 1, 1995, there are other existing statutes and rules and Regulations of the State Board of Education that take into account the listed factors. Fact No, 32: There have been no studies to show how much it costs per pupil to provide a \"general, suitable and efficient\" educational opportunity to Arkansas school children. The amount of money spent on a student's education in Arkansas is directly related to the amount of money available to be spent. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 132) ADE's Response: Undisputed. 16 Fact No, 33: Equality does not necessarily mean equal dollars spent per student because some students have greater needs and require more money to educate. Equality means equal access to programs. Differences in money should depend on the cost and the need. High cost students should receive more money. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 133). ADE's Response: To the extent the third and fourth sentences of this \"fact\" are understood to be reffering to the total amount of state, local and federal funds available to and expended by school districts, it is undisputed. Fact No, 34: As part of Act 917, the three districts in Pulaski county will be required to expend state and local revenue on special education students \"in accordance with existing federal and state laws and department regulations\" and based further upon criteria including a formula derived from a three year average percentage. The three districts in Pulaski County have three year average special education expenditures which are more than double those required by Act 917. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 35: Neither the expenditure requirements of Act 917 for special education nor the distribution of aid that could be utilized for special education factor in the actual education expenditures of these three school districts. ADE's Response: This \"fact\" is unintelligible and is therefore disputed. 17 Fact No. 36: Act 917, at Section 3, established four categories of State funding. The first is State Equalization Funding for students. The last category, Category 4, is Student Needs Funding. Section 3 prohibits funding Category 4 until Categories 1, 2 and 3 are fully funded. ADE's Response: Undisputed. ... . Fact No. 37: During its last session, the Arkansas Legislature appropriated $250,000,000 for students (sic) needs funding. However, Section 29 of Act 1194 authorized the Director of the Department of Education to transfer funds from one category to another. The Director has transferred all $250,000,000 from Category 4 to Category 1. There will be no distribution of student needs funding during 1996-97. ADE's Response: Section 29 of Act 1194 authorizes the Director of ADE to request appropriation transfers and other budget-related adjustments with the approval of the Chief Fiscal Officer of the State and after review by the Arkansas Legislative Council. With that qualification, Fact No. 37 is undisputed. The transfer of $250,000 from Category 4 to Category 1 was done because Category 1 was not fully funded and, pursuant to Section 3(a) of Act 917, the $250,000 appropriated for Student Needs Funding could not have been distributed to school districts at all unless it was moved to Category 1. 18  Fact No. 38: Act 917, at Section 4( v) defines Student Needs Funding to include \"[T]he amount of state financial aid provided to each Local School District from available Special Education funding.\" ADE's Response: Undisputed. However, section 3(i) of Act 917 (Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-309(a)) expressly permits school districts to expend Category 1 funds for \"student needs funding.\" Fact No, 39: There are three ways to identify at-risk children within a district: (I) low test scores, (2) the number of children receiving free or reduced lunches within a district, and (3) the number of households below the poverty level within a district. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 137) ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No. 40: At page 13, the ABS contains the following commentary by the Arkansas Department of Education: \"State Equalization Aid the priority request of$79,255,218 in FY98 and $157,750,338 in FY99 provides for a 6% increase each fiscal year and for the continuation of $5,203,218 budgeted from FY97 fund balances for potential desegregation cost.\" ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 41: At-Risk Grants and Training - Act 917 of 1995 (The Equitable School Finance Act of 1995) and Act 1194 of 1995 (Appropriation Act for the Public School Fund) eliminated at-risk funding as a separate line item and 19 - combined approximately $30 million into the State Equalization Funding fonnula. The Department is requesting that this be established as a line item once more at $17,100,000 each year (ABS p. 23). ADE's Response: Disputed. While the Districts have accurately quoted page 11 of ABS, the statement is incorrect. There are no identifiable or earmarked \"At-Risk Grants and Training\" dollars distributed as state equalization funding. Fact No. 42: Acts 917 and 1194 for 1995 eliminated all at-risk funding from the Department of Education's budget and shifted approximately $30,000,000 into State equalization aid (ABS p. 11) ADE's Response: Disputed. While the Districts have accurately quoted page 11 of ABS, the statement is incorrect. There are no identifiable or eannarked \"At-Risk Grants and Training\" dollars distributed as state equalization funding. Fact No, 43: Act 1194, at Item 28, reflects a $30,000,000 appropriation for at-risk grants and training for 1995-96, the last year that Act 34 operated. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 44: Page 44 of the ABS reflects actual expenditures for at-risk grants and training in 1995-96 of $29,784,239. ADE's Response: Undisputed. 20 . - Fact No, 45: Act 917 defines at-risk funding as \"Financial aid provided to Local School Districts based upon the number of students with low test scores, the number of children receiving free or reduced price lunches, the number of households below the poverty level, or the number of children with limited English proficiency.\" ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 46: Act 1194 appropriated $34,000,000 for at-risk grants and training for 1995-96. There was no appropriation for this category for 1996- 97. ADE's Response: Disputed. See Section 1, Item (28) of Act 1194 of 1995. Fact No, 47: Grants to School Districts - These payments are made to Missouri for educating students in North Arkansas who can't get to their assigned district because Bull Shoals Lake separates them from their district, and it would require a round trip of more than 35 miles. This program was incorporated into the school funding formula, but the Department is requesting a separate line item of$27,000 for the 1997-99 biennium (ABS p. 34). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 48: In Act 1194, $27,000 was appropriated for \"grants to school districts\" for 1995-96, the last year of operation of Act 34. 21 . . # ' . - -- ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 49: Mr. Charles Dyer is Superintendent of the Alma School District. Mr. Dyer was Superintendent of the Alma School District when Alma v, Dupree was tried. It is Mr. Dyer's understanding that moneys previously distributed as MFP A, transportation funds, teacb\"er retirement payments, and health insurance payments, all as previously made under Act 34, were put into one large pool to be distributed pursuant to Act 917. ADE's Response: It is undisputed that Mr. Dyer testified that this is his \"understanding.\" Mr. Dyer's \"understanding,\" however, is incorrect. Moreover, because Mr. Dyer is not a legislator or a state official his ''understanding\" has no probative value concerning the intent of the Arkansas Legislature, and does not bind or estopp the State. Fact No. 50: It is Mr. Dyer's understanding that together with additional money of approximately $60,000,000, that all of this added up to the appropriation of $1,300,000,000. ADE's Response: It is undisputed that Mr. Dyer testified that this is his ''understanding.\" Mr. Dyer's ''understanding,\" however, is incorrect. Moreover, because Mr. Dyer is not a legislator or a state official his ''understanding\" has no probative value concerning the intent of the Arkansas Legislature, and does not bind or estopp the State. 22 Fact No, 51: It is the sworn testimony of Dr. Bobbie Davis that the total dollars that previously went to public schools under Act 34 were all consolidated into equalization funding under Act 917. (Davis deposition, pp. 6-7). ADE's Response: Disputed. The cited testimony related specifically to transportation aid, and Dr. Davis also testified iliat there are no specifically earmarked or identifiable funds for transportation being distributed as equalization funding. Davis Deposition, pp. 6-7. Fact No, 52: 1996 is accurate. Exhibit \"F\" to the Districts' reply dated December 23, ADE's Response: Disputed. See Greene Declaration,~ 2 and 7 and Exh.A. Fact No, 53: Even though the Newark School District will not receive state equalization funding, it will nevertheless receive State aid in the form of additional base funding so that its expenditures per student will be at the minimum level required by the State. ADE's Response: Disputed. The Newark school district will receive additional base funding for 1996-97 because, due to a \"quirk\" in Act 917, Newark's total state and local revenue per ADM for 1996-97 is less than the minimum state and local revenue per ADM as defined by Act 917. See Section 3(e) of Act 917 of 1995 (Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-308). As a result of the 23  enactment of Amendment 74 to the Arkansas Constitution, Newark will receive no additional base funding for 1997-98. See Greene Declaration, ,i 3. Fact No. 54: In terms oflocal wealth, Newark is either the richest or second richest school district in the state. ADE's Response: lfthe Districts are defining \"local wealth\" as base local revenue per student calculated at a millage rate of 25 mills, Fact No. 54 is undisputed. Fact No. 55: Newark votes a millage of23.6 mills. This millage rate does not result in an amount of money per student sufficient to satisfy present state expenditure per student requirements. ADE's Response: Disputed. Newark's millage for purposes of 1996-97 state funding was 19.28 mills, and as a result Newark's total state and local revenue per ADM for 1996-97 was less than the minimum state and local revenue per ADM as defined by Act 917. See Section 3(e) of Act 917 of 1995 (Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-308). As a result of the ratification of Amendment 74 to the Arkansas Constitution, however, Newark's maintenance and operation millage has been increased to 25 mills and it will receive no additional base funding for 1997-98. See Greene Declaration, ,i 3. Fact No. 56: The three Districts in Pulaski County all vote millages approximately 20 mills higher than the Newark School District. 24 ADE's Response; Disputed, particularly after the effect of millage rollbacks and Amendment 74 are taken into account. See Greene Declaration,, 4. Fact No, 57: The three Districts in Pulaski County vote millages that are among the highest in the State. Only four other districts exceed the millage rate voted in LRSD-and PCSSD. ADE's Response: Disputed. See Greene Declaration,, 4. Fact No, 58: The Umpire School District has one of the smallest student bodies in t "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1662","title":"Court filings concerning summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding, requiring the ODM Monitoring monitoring, NLRSD motion to add classrooms at Seventh Street Elementary School, and LRSD 1996-97 second quarter status report","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":["1997-02"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Pulaski County Special School District","North Little Rock School District","Seventh Street Elementary School, (North Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","School facilities","School buildings","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration","Teachers","Student assistance programs","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding, requiring the ODM Monitoring monitoring, NLRSD motion to add classrooms at Seventh Street Elementary School, and LRSD 1996-97 second quarter status report"],"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/1662"],"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":["114 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) brief in opposition to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), Little Rock School District (LRSD), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding; District Court, declaration of Tristan Greene in opposition to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), Little Rock School District (LRSD), and NLRSD's motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding; District Court, motion to require Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to motion to require Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to motion to require Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion to add classrooms at Seventh Street Elementary School; District Court, memorandum; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, joint motion to postpone argument; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District?s (PCSSD's) request for extension of time; District Court, reply of the Joshua intervenors to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua intervenors' motion to require Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, alternatively, for the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, order; District Court, judgment; District Court, order; District Court, motion for reconsideration; Court of Appeals, motion to dismiss; Court of Appeals, opposition to motion to dismiss; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1996-97 first quarter status report addendum program planning and budget document for desegregation programs and Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1996-97 second quarter status report program planning and budget document for desegregation programs; District Court, two notices of appeal; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, further motion to enlarge time  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FEB 1 S 1897 FILED - - _JLS....OISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CMURllJ DISTRICT ARKANSAS Qfr1Cf. OF DESEGREGATiON MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FEB 1 O 1997 WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: PLAINTIFF DEP. CLERK v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. FEB 1 8 1997 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PCSSD, LRSD AND NLRSD's MOTIONOc\"EGREGAOFFJIOICtl N~FO NITO . FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUES OF 1.:i 1 1 RING HEALTH INSURANCE, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND LOSS FUNDING I. INTRODUCTION In their motion, which presumably relates solely to the \"issues\" of health insurance matching, special education and loss funding, the Districts level a broad, scattershot attack directed at Acts 917 and 1194 of 1995. These and other new statutes concerning school finance were designed to comply with a State Court's order that requires a funding system that reduces the disparity between the amount of combined state and local funds available to wealthy and poor school districts for the education of children. No matter how it is accomplished, compliance with the State Court's directive to reduce the disparity of available local and state resources between wealthy and poor districts necessarily requires, in one manner or another, that poor school districts be treated somewhat more advantageously in terms of state aid as compared to wealthy districts like the three districts in Pulaski County. As shown in ADE's response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the \"teacher retirement,\" issue, the State chose to enact a new funding system that ensured that all school districts, including the very poorest, had a minimum level of combined state and local funds for the education of children while, at the same time, leaving the three Pulaski County districts unscathed.1 Nonetheless, in what might be viewed by some as a pure \"money grab,\"2 these Districts now argue that while they are ''winners\" under the new funding statutes (in the sense that their total state aid for this year exceeds their total state aid for 1995-96) they deserve even more state aid for 1996-97 because poorer districts in the State got a larger relative increase in state aid than they did. The Districts press this argument without regard to the fact that the Settlement Agreement clearly contemplates that the State can make generally applicable changes to its funding statutes even if the changes 1 LRSD and NLRSD, in particular, have presented no evidence to indicate that they are receiving less state aid this year as compared to last year. Further, neither LRSD nor NLRSD has even argued that it would have received more total state aid for 1996-97 if the old \"Act 34\" funding scheme were still in place. Even if one were to accept the questionable method of comparison used in Exhibit \"F\" to PCSSD's December 23, 1996 Reply brief, PCSSD can only argue that it received $106,579 less state aid for this year as compared to last year. 2 These districts often complain that other school officials throughout the State view these Districts as \"greedy.\" These districts do little to discourage such a view when, as they have done here, they file motions asking this Court to force the State to (a) reimburse them for more than 100% of their actual teacher retirement costs, (b) provide them with the same percentage increase -in state funding as that received by poorer school districts, (c) reimburse them at a rate of$57 per day for students in residential treatment facilities when the facilities themselves will only bill the Districts $44 per day for such students; and ( d) reinstate \"loss funding\" for them when each of the Districts is eligible for and will receive growth funding for 1996-97. 2 - serves to \"reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts.\" Settlement Agreement,  ILL. The question of whether the Settlement Agre,ernent mandates the absurd result these Districts seek is for another day. For now, this Court must address the Districts' motion for summary judgment. As di~russed below, the motion cannot be granted. I. The Motion Must Be Denied Or, In The Alternative, This Court Must Again Abswn Pending Final Resolution Of The Lake View Case In response to the Districts' initial motions to enforce the Settlement Agreement, in which these Districts clearly argued that the new funding statutes - did not comply with the Lake View Court's 1994 orders, ADE requested that this Court abstain until a final judgment was rendered in Lake View. Thereafter, in a \"Preb.earing Brief' filed November 18, 1996, PCSSD essentially withdrew its state law and/or Lake View compliance claims, saying that the Districts only wished to pursue issues \"separate and distinct from the constitutional and compliance issues raised\" in Lake View. The Districts now appear to have changed their minds; they again ask this Court to intrude upon the Lake View court's jurisdiction and/or evaluate the new funding system under state law. See 1he Districts' Brief in Support of this motion at p. 5: \"[H]ad Judge Imber ruled on the new formula, she would have found the 3 - changes objectionable and neither fair, rational, nor reasonable under the State constitutional rational basis test.\" The Districts' attempt to litigate state law issues in this Court must be summarily rejected. Under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution this Court lacks jurisdiction to fore~ state officials to comply with state law, even if the state law claim is pendent to a federal law claim. Pennhurst State School \u0026 Hosp. v. Halderman, 79 L.Ed.2d 67, 92 (1984). Moreover, even if this Court could exercise some concurrent federal jurisdiction over Lake View compliance issues, ADE renews its request that this Court abstain from considering the Districts' motions pending a final judgment in the Lake View case. II. Summary Judgment Is Inappropriate Because There Are Numerous Disputed Issues Of Material Fact In ruling on the Districts' motions for summary judgment this Court may not resolve disputed factual issues, but rather must simply determine as an initial matter whether any material facts are in dispute. As outlined more fully in ADE's response to the Districts' Separate Statement Of Undisputed Facts, there are numerous issues of material fact in dispute. Accordingly, the Districts' motion must be denied. 4 m. Health Insurance and Special Education For the same reasons the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement must be denied, this motion as it relates to health insurance and special education must also be denied. The Districts have failed to present any admissible evidence showing the effect, if any, that the elimination of the \"weighting\" system for special education funding has had on them, nor have they cited this Court to any provision of the Settlement Agreement that requires the State to maintain some form of''weighting\" system for special education students. Further, the District's newly-raised claim concerning the State's per diem reimbursement rate for children in residential treatment centers must be - dismissed for lack of a justiciable case or controversy. It is undisputed that all of the residential treatment facilities within the Districts have agreed to charge the Districts, at most, the per diem rate of reimbursement established by the State for 1996-97. In short, the State continues to fund 100% of the per diem rate for children in residential treatment centers as it did in 1995-96. Unless and until that situation changes, there is not even arguably a case or controversy for this Court to resolve. IV. Loss Funding The Districts' attempt to resurrect loss funding must fail for three basic reasons. 5 First, loss funding has not been completely eliminated. The new funding scheme has retained a \"loss funding\" feature. Under Act 917, a district's current year's equalization funding is based upon the prior year's ADM, thereby giving any district with declining ADM a one-year period of continued funding to enable it to \"adjust\" to the drop in enrollment. Second, the Districts, who bear the burden of proof, have supplied no evidence whatsoever to support their argument that the elimination of loss funding will cause their students to leave for adjoining school districts. There are many reasons why enrollment might decline in these Districts, reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with \"loss funding\" or \"growth funding;\" and not all students that leave the Pulaski County Districts go on to attend school in the surrounding counties. For example, parents may choose to move their children to private schools within the County when they become fed up with the effects of a teacher strike and a school district's inability to come to terms with its teachers. Enrollment may decline due in part to changing demographics, such as an increase in the average age of a district's inhabitants and a concomitantly lower birth rate. Some students leave when their parents move elsewhere in the State or even out of State to take advantage of lower crime rates or better job opportunities. The Districts' argument that the elimination of loss funding causes them to lose students is not only a non sequitor, it flies in the face of Dr. Don Stewart's 6 - testimony in September of 1994 that parents do not decide to take their students out of PCS SD schools based upon the existence or nonexistence ofloss funding or growth funding for PCSSD or any other district. Third, in a crowning bit 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\" ofloss funding under these circumstances is plainly frivolous. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, ADE respectfully requests that the Districts' motion be denied. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General BY:~ TIMO .GR,#95019 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed this 10th day of February, 1997 by first-class mail, to the following person(s): M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 425 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 8 John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. .J. 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. TIIO1\\.1PSON \u0026 LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 FILED FEB 1 8 1997 OFflCE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING u.s OIHRICT cou~T EA~Tcou \"'C:Tn~T ~ ,,...,  .. ,c:,a.~ INTIIElJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F-B 1 O 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS t . \" WESTERN DMSION JM~[:; W. MClJUl'\\IVl\"\\JI\\, liL.:.RK. By: ___ --:::01'-::-, ::-:-CL;:;;-ER:;--~ LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS DECLARATION OF TRISTAN GREENE IN OPPOSITION TO PCSSD, LRSD AND NLRSD's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUES OF HEALTH INSURANCE, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND LOSS FUNDING I, Tristan D. Greene. declare as follows: 1. I have been the Assistant to the Assistant Director for Finance and Administration for the Arkansas Department of Education since April of 1995. During the course of my work for ADE, I have become familiar with the laws and regulations conrem.ing the system of public school finance in Arkansas, and, in particular, the operation of and calculation of state aid outcomes under the State's prior school funding statutes and under the school funding statutes enacted by the Arkansas General Assembly during the 1995 legislative session. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are ADE's December 27, 1996 printouts reflecting projected State Aid for LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD for 1996- 97, based on 1995-96 three quarter average ADM and adjusted for growth in the 1  - 1996-97 first quarter. Unless one of these Districts reports (a) a clerical error in its previous year's attendance reports, or (b) an error in its abstract of assessment, or (c) an error in its previous year's miscellaneous funds, or (d) a clerical error in its scheduled bonded debt payment or ( e) an error in its 1996-97 first quarter attendance report, the amounts reflected in the ~ecember 27, 1996 printouts will accurately reflect the amount of regular state aid distributed to the three Districts for 1996-97. Among other things, these printouts show: a. LRSD's 1996-97 first quarter ADM exceeds its 1995-96 three-quarter average ADM by 247.74, and LRSD will receive student growth funding in the amount of$ 744,183 for 1996-97; b. PCSSD's 1996-97 first quarter ADM exceeds its 1995-96 three-quarter average ADM by 27.02, and PCSSD will receive student growth funding in the amount of$ 81,165 for 1996-97; and c. NLRSD's 1996-97 first quarter ADM exceeds its 1995-96 three-quarter average ADM by 140.79, and NLRSD will receive student growth funding in the amount of$ 422,917 for 1996-97. 3. Due to a .. quirk\" in the new funding formula that did not require the Newark School District to raise its millage rate (Section 7(f) of Act 917), the Newark School District will receive approximately $27,000 in Additional Base Funding for 1996-97. However, because Newark's millage has now increased due 2  - to the enactment of Amendment 7 4 to the Arkansas Constitution, and assuming that the operative provisions of Act 917 are not materially altered during the 1997 legislative session, Newark will receive no Additional Base Funding for 1997-98. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a ranking of school districts by total voted millage on taxable real property, which repects such millage rates in effect in each district as of September, 1996. It shows that four districts have higher total voted millages on real property rates than LRSD. However, after the millage rollbacks pursuant to Amendment 59 of the Arkansas Constitution are taken into account, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will fall in the ranking. 5. Using information supplied by the Child Nutrition section of ADE - and October, 1996 ADM figures, I have prepared a table showing the number of students eligible for free and reduced-price meals in each school district in Arkansas ( as of October, 1996) and the concentration of such students in each district expressed as a percentage of October 1996 ADM. The table is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 6. Using information derived from the 1990 Federal Decennial Census, I have prepared a ranking of school districts by the percentage of households in each district that are below the 1989 poverty level. The ranking is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 3 7. I have reviewed Exhibit \"F' to the Districts' December 23, 1996 Reply Brief. It is incorrect Among other things, on the first page of Exhibit \"F\" the third column purports to show a \"1996-97 M-M adjustment\" of state aid that to my knowledge will not be made by ADE. Moreover, Exhibit F is methodologically unsound in that it purports to be a comparison of revenue PCS SD received from the State or paid by the State on behalf of PCS SD in 1995- 96 and 1996-97, and yet columns 2 and 3 of page l of Exhibit F purports to add a district cost into the equation. On page 2 of Exhibit Fan incorrect \"1995-96 3Q ADM'' figure is listed. 8. In my declaration filed December 13, 1996, I erroneously stated that - the Table Rate used to calculate M-M incentive funding for the three Districts for 1995-96 was: LRSD: $ 977.28; PCSSD: $ 1889.51; and NLRSD: $ 1686.21. While those were the correct Table Rates that were used to calculate ordinary state aid in 1995-96, the Table Rates used to calculate M-M incentive funding were as follows: LRSD: $ 1064.96; PCSSD: $ 1904.18; and NLRSD: $ 1695.42. 9. The photocopied table from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette attached to the Districts' brief does not contain accurate information. Assuming the newspaper accurately reported information that may have been provided by ADE, the table at best reflects 1996-97 state aid estimates made on or before the end of June, 1996. Actual 1996-97 state aid calculations differ. For example: 4 (a) Compare PCSSD's 1995-96 K-12 three quarter average ADM reflected on Exhibit A hereto (20,025.77) with the \"students\" figure for PCSSD in the newspaper table (20,080); (b) Compare the total ofNLRSD's 1996-97 Adjusted State Equalization Funding, General Facilities Funding, Debt Serv~e Supplement Payment and Growth Facilities funding as reflected on Exhibit A hereto($ 23,784,504) to the \"Projected 1996-97 State Aid\" figure in the newspaper table for NLRSD ($ 23,697,999); (c) Compare the total ofLRSD's 1996-97 Adjusted State Equalization Funding as reflected on Exhibit A hereto($ 41,530,927) to the \"Projected 1996-97 State Aid\" figure in the newspaper table for LRSD ($41,513,676); and (d) Compare the total of the Lake View School District's 1996-97 Adjusted State Equalization Funding, General Facilities Funding and Debt Service Supplemental Payment ($ 706,648) as reflected in Lake View's December 27, 1996 printout (attached hereto as Exhibit E) to the \"Projected 1996-97 State Aid\" figure in the newspaper table for Lake View($ 709,486). I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 10th day of February, 1997, at Little Rock, Arkansas .. 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed this 10th day of February, 1997 by first-class mail, to the following person(s): M. Samuel Jones Ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY., ELDREDGE\u0026 CLARK 425 W. Capitol, Suite2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 grccndc2.doc 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 /e-~ - ' ~ ~ Timothy G.Qr 6 - (_ STATE AID TO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE TRUST FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 DECEMBER 27, 1996 LEA: 60-01 COUNTY: PULASKI l. 1995-96 ADM (K-12. 3 QTR AVG) 1996-97 ADM (K-12. 1ST QTR) 2. REAL PROPERTY AN S 1.185.286.533.00 75% MISC FUNDS $102.158.00 DISTRICT: Little Rock 22,231 .64 ~ 22,47938 . PERSONAL PROPERTY AN $444,714.987.00 M \u0026 0 MILLS AVAILABLE 39.82 3. 4. 5. TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR EQUALIZATION LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT .6. W7. ( . 8. 9. BASE LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT (BLRPS) ST A TE EQUALIZATION FUNDING PER STUDENT 1996-97 ST A TE EQUALIZATION FUNDING SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT 1996-97 ADJUSTED STATE EQUALIZATION FUNDING \"\" 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. _18. 19. 20. 21. AMOUNT OF EQUALIZATION FUNDING (7) THAT IS TRUST FUNDS GENERAL F ACILlTIES FUNDING STUDENT GROWTH FUNDING ISOLA TED AJD CONSOLIDATION AID DEBT SERVICE SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENT GROWTH FACILlTIES FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL ST A TE REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL \u0026 ST ATE REV. PER ADM FOR ADDITIONAL BASE MINIMUM TOT AL LOCAL \u0026 STA TE REV. PER ADM ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING  EXHIBIT ' ' A UTILITY PROPERTY AN $82.309.700.00 ST A TE WEAL TH INDEX -0.01259 $ s s s s $ s s s $ $ $ $ $ $ s s $ $ 42.053. 782.00 1.891.62 3.759.72 1.868.10 41.530.927.00 41.530.927.00 4.025.593.00 0.00 744.183.00 0.00 0.00 66.956.758.00 42.275. I I 0.00 4,859.20 3,887.36 0.00 STATE AID TO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE TRUST FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 DECEMBER 27, 1996 LEA: 60-02 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRlCT: N. Little Rock 1. 1995-96 ADM (K-12. 3 QTR AVG) 1996-97 ADM (K-12. 1ST QTR) 8.982.18 9..122.97 .. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. - 7. ( 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. REAL PROPERTY AN $301.59).503.00 75% MISC FUNDS $12.655.00 PERSONAL PROPERTY AN SI 00,003.317 .00 M \u0026 0 MILLS AV Al LAB LE 39.37 TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR EQUALIZATION LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT BASE LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT (BLRPS) ST ATE EQUALIZATION FUNDING PER STUDENT 1996-97 STATE EQUALIZATION FUNDING SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT 1996-97 ADJUSTED STATE EQUALIZATION FUNDING AMOUNT OF EQUALIZATION FUNDING (7) THAT IS TRUST FUNDS GENERAL FACILITIES FUNDING STUDENT GROWTH FUNDING JSOLA TED AID CONSOLIDATION AID DEBT SERVICE SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENT GROWTH FACILITIES FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL ST A TE REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL \u0026 STA TE REV. PER ADM FOR ADDITIONAL BASE MINIMUM TOTAL LOCAL\u0026 STATE REV. PER ADM ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING UTILITY PROPERTY AN $23.8 I 6.6 79 .00 ST A TE WEAL TH INDEX 0.55281 s $ s s s $ $ s $ $ s $ $ s s s s s s I 0.435.236.00 1.161.77 3.759.72 2.597.95 .23.335.255.00 .23.335.255.00 .2.261.886.00 173.790.00 4::?2.917.00 190.733.00 84.726.00 16,430.355.00 13.931.962.00 4.424.25 3.887.36 0.00 ST ATE AID TO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE TRUST FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 DECEMBER 27, 1996 LEA: 60-03 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: Pulaski Co. Spec. 1. 1995-96 ADM (K-12. 3 QTR AVG) 1996-97 ADM (K-12, JSTQTR) 20,025.77 20,052.79  2. ... .J. 4. 5. 6. .7. (8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. REAL PROPERTY AN $558,008,639.00 75% MISC FUNDS $73.473.00 PERSONAL PROPERTY AN S 190.866. I 69.00 M \u0026 0 MILLS AV AI LAB LE 41.04 TOTAL LOCAL REVENUE FOR EQUALIZATION LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT BASE LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT (BLRPS) ST A TE EQUALIZA TJON FUNDING PER STUDENT I 996-97 ST A TE EQUALIZATION FUNDING SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT 1996-97 ADJUSTED ST A TE EQUALIZATION FUNDING AMOUNT OF EQUALIZATION FUNDING (7) THAT IS TRUST FUNDS GENERAL F ACILITJES FUNDING STUDENT GROWTH FUNDING ISOLATED AID CONSOLIDATION AID DEBT SERVICE SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENT GROWTH FACILITIES FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL ST ATE REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOTAL LOCAL \u0026 ST ATE REV. PER ADM FOR ADDITIONAL BASE MINIMUM TOT AL LOCAL \u0026 ST A TE REV. PER ADM ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING UTILITY PROPERTY AN $3 7. 720.003.00 ST A TE WEAL TH INDEX 0.65422 $ s $ $ $ $ s s s $ s s $ $ s $ s s $ 19.345.045.00 966.01 3.759.72 2.793.71 55.946.194.00 55.946.194.00 5.422.865.00 458.544.00 81.165.00 614.706.00 0.00 31.734.178.00 56.485.903 .00 4,399.39 3.887.36 0.00 . ' \\ 1 HOWARD 2 UNION 3 UNION .t WASHINGTON \u0026 PULASKI 6 PULASKI 7. UNION t 8 DESHA 9 PULASKI 10 FAULKNER \\ 11 UNION 12 UNION 13 COLUMBIA 14 POINSETT 15 SEBASTIAN 16 GRANT 17 MILLER 18 IZARD 19 SEBASTIAN 20 MILLER 21 BOONE 22 FAULKNER - 23 FAULKNER 24 MILLER 25 BOONE 26 JEFFERSON 27 RANDOLPH 28 BAXTER 29 WASHINGTON 30 LONOKE 31 UNION 32 BENTON 33 SALINE 34 JACKSON 35 GARLAND 36 CLARK 37 HOT SPRING 38 SEBASTIAN 39 CRITTENDEN 40 HOT SPRING 41 SEBASTIAN 42 SALINE 43 FAULKNER 44 HOWARD 45 GARLAND 46 MARION 47 CRAWFORD -  48 BENTON 49 SEARCY 50 POPE 51 BENTON 52 BENTON , 33 JEFFERSON RANKING OF MILLAGES SEPTEMBER 1996 LARGEST TO SMALLEST UMPIRE 56.40 HUTTIG 34.30 MT HOLLY 44.00 FAYETTEVILLE 17.30 PULASKJ CO SPEC 34.00 LITTLE ROCK 27.80 UNION 21.80 ARKANSAS CITY ~ 35.00 NO LITTLE ROCK 29.40 GUY-PERKINS  6.40 SMACKOVER 24.70 STRONG 25.70 WALKER 8.10 WEINER 36.40 HARTFORD* 22.20 POYEN 36.20 GENOA CENTRAL 20.70 CALICO ROCK 21.00 HACKETT 13.00 TEXARKANA 16.30 OMAHA 24.60 VILONIA 25.90 MT.VERNON/ENOLA 33.00 FOUKE 12.10 LEAD HILL 32.00 WHITEHALL 24.90 BIGGERS-REYNO 28.00 COTTER 37.00 ELKINS 15.90 HUMNOKE 18.00 NORPHLET 10.20 PEA RIDGE 16.10 BAUXITE 26.50 SWIFTON 34.85 LAKESIDE 13.30 ARKADELPHIA 22.60 MAGNET COVE 28.00 FORT SMITH 33.30 EARLE 19.60 GLEN ROSE 20.30 GREENWOOD 14.90 HARMONY GROVE 10.40 CONWAY 14.80 DIERKS 24.60 HOT SPRINGS 8.20 MARION CO 19.60 VAN BUREN 13.60 SILOAM SPRS 16.30 WITTS SPRINGS  6.10 POTTSVILLE 35.70 BENTONVILLE 7.66 ROGERS 17.00 PINE BLUFF 13.10 Page 1 EXHIBIT B 2.00 58.40 19.30 53.60 5.80 49.80 3.00 23.70 44.00 9.90 43.90 1.00 15.10 43.90 0.00 21.20 43.00 1.00 6.50 42.50 3.00 9.50 41.90 3.00 31.60 41.00 16.30 41.00 15.20 40.90 31.90 40.00 3.50 39.90 17.10 39.30 3.00 39.20 18.50 39.20 18.00 39.00 26.00 39.00 3.00 19.60 38.90 2.00 11.50 38.10 12.10 38.00 5.00 38.00 2.00 23.90 38.00 6.00 38.00 12.80 37.70 3.00 6.50 37.50 37.00 1.70 19.40 37.00 19.00 37.00 2.00 24.80 37.00 20.90 37.00 10.30 36.80 1.80 36.65 2.00 21.30 36.60 2.00 11.90 36.50 8.50 36.50 2.50 0.70 36.50 3.00 13.60 36.20 15.80 36.10 21.20 36.10 25.60 36.00 21.20 36.00 2.00 9.40 36.00 27.80 36.00 16.30 35.90 22.30 35.90 1.50 18.00 35.80 3.00 26.70 35.80 35.70 28.00 35.66 1.00 17.30 35.30 I 1.00 21.20 35.30 54 BENTON 55 WASHINGTON 56 WOODRUFF 57 BENTON 58 DALLAS 59 WASHINGTON 60 PIKE 61 WASHINGTON 62 CRAWFORD 63 OUACHITA 64 NEVADA 65 ARKANSAS 66 YELL 67 INDEPENDENCE 68 LONOKE 69 CLEBURNE 70 SALINE 71 POPE 72 PIKE 73 POLK 74 DREW 75 PIKE - 76 CHICOT 77 COLUMBIA 78 GARLAND 79 CLEBURNE 80 CRAIGHEAD 81 INDEPENDENCE 82 POLK 83 OUACHITA 84 UNION 85 WASHINGTON 86 JOHNSON 87 JOHNSON 88 FRANKLIN 89 LOGAN 90 COLUMBIA 91 DREW 92 CLARK 93 YELL 94 LAFAYETTE 95 LINCOLN 96 UNION 97 FAULKNER 98 WASHINGTON 99 POLK 100 HEMPSTEAD - 101 LITTLE R.IVER 102 WASHINGTON 103. JEFFERSON 104 LOGAN 105 YELL 106 FULTot-: RANKING OF MILLAGES SEPTEMBER 1996 LARGEST TO SMALLEST DECATUR 19.00 SPRINGDALE 18.20 COTTON PLANT 20.00 GENTRY 18.70 SPARKMAN 33.60 WEST FORK 9.10 CENTERPOINT 6.70 LINCOLN .. 14.70 ALMA 14.20 BEARDEN 7.10 NEVADA CO 4.70 GILLETT 9.00 DARDANELLE 28.10 CUSHMAN* 9.80 LONOKE 13.35 QUITMAN 20.40 PARON 15.60 ATKINS 25.40  DELIGHT 13.36 ACORN 17.40 DREW CENTRAL 26.10 MURFREESBORO 23.90 LAKESIDE 20.80 EMERSON 19.10 LAKE HAMIL TON 32.40 HEBER SPRINGS 11.27 BROOKLAND 17.90 SULPHUR ROCK 14.70 HATFIELD 20.00 CAMDEN/FAIRVIEW 22.50 JUNCTION CITY 16.00 WINSLOW 31.00 CLARKSVILLE * 15.30 OARK* 9.90 PLEASANT VIEW 25.00 BOONEVILLE 17.00 TAYLOR 12.90 MONTICELLO 15.10 GURDON 20.00 OLA 24.50 LEWISVILLE 12.20 GRADY 21.80 PARKERS CHAPEL 26.70 GREENBRIER 21.60 GREENLAND 21.70 WICKES 14.30 SPRING HILL* 17.20 ASHDOWN 7.00 PRAIRIE GROVE 20.50 AL THEIMER UNIFIED 14.60 PARIS* 15.50 PLAINVIEW-ROVER 17.04 SALEM 16.23 Page2 16.20 35.20 16.90 35.10 15.00 35.00 16.30 35.00 1.40 35.00 25.90 35.00 28.30 35.00 3.00 17.30 35.00 20.80 35.00 27.80 34.90 30.20 34.90 25.80 34.80 3.00 3.60 34.70 24.70 34.50 3.00 18.05 34.40 14.00 34.40 3.00 15.70 34.30 8.80 34.20 3.00 17.80 34.16 3.00 13.60 34.00 7.90 34.00 3.00 7.10 34.00 2.00 11.20 34.00 14.80 33.90 1.50 33.90 3.00 19.53 33.80 1.00 14.80 33.70 18.90 33.60 13.40 33.40 3.00 7.70 33.20 17.00 33.00 2.00 33.00 1.40 16.30 33.00 2.00 21.10 33.00 8.00 33.00 16.00 33.00 20.10 33.00 1.00 16.90 33.00 1.00 12.00 33.00 8.50 33.00 3.00 17.60 32.80 11.00 32.80 6.10 32.80 2.00 9.10 32.70 11.00 32.70 1.20 17.20 32.70 3.00 12.50 32.70 25.60 32.60 2.00 10.10 32.60 17.80 32.40 16.90 32.40 15.30 32.34 16.00 32.23 RANKING OF MILLAGES SEPTEMBER 1996 LARGEST TO SMALLEST 107 LOGAN SCRANTON* 15.32 16.90 32.22 \\ 108 CRITTENDEN TURRELL 8.67 23.50 32.17 109 MARION YELLVILLE-SUMMIT 15.21 3.00 13.80 32.01 110 MONTGOMERY ODEN 21.60 10.40 32.00 111 CRAWFORD MOUNTAINBURG 19.60 2.00 10.40 32.00 112 HOWARD MINERAL SPRINGS 10.40 2.10 19.50 32.00 113 IZARD IZARD COUNTY 15.00 17.00 32.00 11, NEWTON DEER : 12.20 2.70 17.10 32.00 115 CONWAY NEMOVISTA 7.80 3.00 21.20 32.00 116 IZARD MELBOURNE* 5.80 2.00 24.20 32.00 117 WOODRUFF MCCRORY 32.00 32.00 118 BAXTER NORFORK 14.00 18.00 32.00 119 JOHNSON WESTSIDE 12.00 20.00 32.00 120 LINCOLN STAR CITY 19.20 2.00 10.80 32.00 121 CLEVELAND KINGSLAND 9.90 3.00 19.10 32.00 122 DALLAS CARTHAGE 32.00 32.00 123 CROSS WYNNE 9.90 3.00 19.10 32.00 124 GARLAND FT.LAKE 20.00 3.00 9.00 32.00 125 DESHA DUMAS 31.90 31.90 126 LAWRENCE LYNN 19.00 3.00 9.80 31.80 127 POLK VAN COVE 24.10 2.00 5.70 31.80 128 JEFFERSON WATSON CHAPEL 24.30 3.00 4.50 31.80 - 129 CARROLL EUREKASPR 11.25 0.50 20.00 31.75 130 CROSS CROSS COUNTY 8.90 2.00 20.80 31.70 131 CLEVELAND RISON 8.30 2.00 21.40 31.70 132 WHITE SEARCY 19.90 1.00 10.80 31.70 133 VAN BUREN SHIRLEY 12.00 0.00 19.60 31.60 134 INDEPENDENCE BA TES VILLE * 14.75 1.00 15.80 31.55 135 WASHINGTON FARMINGTON 13.90 17.50 31.40 136 CARROLL BERRYVILLE 25.50 5.90 31.40 137 HEMPSTEAD SARATOGA 10.20 1.42 19.70 31.32 138 PHILLIPS LAKEVIEW 8.30 23.00 31.30 139 BAXTER MT. HOME 16.20 15.10 31.30 140 STONE RURAL SPECIAL 23.20 8.10 31.30 141 CLEBURNE WILBURN 16.90 2.00 12.40 31 .30 142 HEMPSTEAD BLEVINS 12.40 18.90 31.30 143 JEFFERSON OOLLARWAY 11.38 19.90 31.28 144 FRANKLIN OZARK* 13.10 18.10 31.20 145 WHITE BALD KNOB 7.90 23.30 31.20 146 HOWARD NASHVILLE 23.00 0.50 7.70 31.20 147 GARLAND JESSIEVILLE 15.80 15.30 31.10 148 PHILLIPS HELENA W-HELE 9.55 21.50 31.05 149 LONOKE CABOT 9.30 1.00 20.70 31.00 150 GARLAND CUTTER MORNING 14.00 2.00 15.00 31.00 151 CHICOT EUDORA 14.50 3.00 13.50 31.00 152 LONOKE CARLISLE 20.40 2.00 8.60 31.00 153 FRANKLIN CHARLESTON 22.50 1.00 7.50 31.00  154 YELL WESTERN YELL 19.00 1.90 10.10 31.00 155 YELL DANVILLE 11 .00 20.00 31.00 156 LAWRENCE RIVER VALLEY 22.00 2.00 7.00 31.00 157 LONOKE ENGLAND 16.93 3.00 11.00 30.93 158 CRITTENDEN MARION 9.10 21.80 30.90 159 SHARP WILLIFORD* 17.00 3.00 10.90 30.90 Page 3 160 VAN BUREN 161 GARLAND 162 SEVIER 163 ASHLEY 164 INDEPENDENCE 165 MILLER 166 CONWAY 167 RANDOLPH 168 NEWTON 169 SEBASTIAN 170 RANDOLPH 171 CRAIGHEAD 172 POLK 173 SALINE 174 GRANT 175 CRAIGHEAD 176 POINSETT 177 ASHLEY 178 CRAWFORD 179 MADISON 180 CONWAY 181 CHICOT - 182 BOONE 183 CRAIGHEAD -- 184 GREENE 185 OUACHITA 186 WHITE 187 CLAY 188 CRAIGHEAD 189 MISSISSIPPI 190 POPE 191 HEMPSTEAD 192 PRAIRIE 193 PERRY 194 MONROE 195 GREENE 196 WHITE 197 MADISON 198 CLEBURNE 199 LOGAN - 200 CRAWFORD 201 VAN BUREN 202 DALLAS 203 POINSETT 204 GREENE 205 FRANKLIN 206 FAULKNER - "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1638","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellants","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":["1997-01-17"],"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--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Employee rights"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellants"],"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/1638"],"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":["223 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.  EDWARD L. WRIGHT ( 1903- 1977) ROBERTS. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A . SCOTT. JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVIO M . POWELL ROGER A . GLASGOW C . DOUGLAS BUFORO. JR. PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M . SAMUEL JONES ru JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N . M. NORTON EDGAR J . TYLER CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER . .IR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER SAMMYE L. TAYLOR WALTER E. MAY ANNA HIRAI GIBSON GREGORY T. JONES H . KEITH MORRISON Ms. Ann Brown ODM WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS ATTO RNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501l 376-9442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BEVERLY BASSETT SCHAFFER M. TODD WOOD January 16, 1997 201 E. Little Markham, Suite 510 Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: PACT'S Appeal of the Strike Ruling Dear Ann: BETTINA E. B ROWNSTEIN W ALTER MCSPADDEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIM BERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR. H ARRY S . HURST . .IR. TROY A . PRICE PATRICIA A . SIEVERS JAMES M . MOODY. JR. KATHRYN A . PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W . K ENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS FRED M . PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY M. ROBINSON BETSY MEACHAM AINSLEY H . LANG KYLE R. WILSON DONS. McKINNEY MICHELE L . SIMMONS KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH CFFlGE OF DESEGREGATl01J MmllTORiNG I thought you might be interested in reviewing PACT's opening brief on the strike issues pending in the Eighth Circuit . The PCSSD response is due on or about February 7, 1997 . MSJ/jhs Enclosure Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS \u003c\\~:~. -- / M. Shmuel Jones, III ( / ------- 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 No. 96-3841 Katherine Knight, et .5!.L_, Appellants, RECEIVED JAN 1 7 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING v. Pulaski County Special School District, Appellee. On Appeal From the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas BRIEF OF APPELLANTS ROBERT H. CHANIN VIRGINIA A. SEITZ JONATHAN D. HACKER Bredhoff \u0026 Kaiser, ?.L .L . C. 1000 Connec';:icut Ave., N.W . Suite 1300 Washington, D.C ; 2003 6 (202) 833-9340 RICHARD W. ROACHELL Roachell Law Firm 504 Lyon Building 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-5550 Ark. Bar No. 78132 Counsel for Appellants 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 No. 96-3841 Katherine Knight, et .aL.., Appellants, v. Pulaski County Special School District, Appellee. On Appeal From the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas BRIEF OF APPELLANTS ROBERT H. CHANIN VIRGINIA A. SEITZ JONATHAN D. HACKER Bredhoff \u0026 Kaiser, P.L.L.C. 1000 Connecticut Ave., N.W. suite 1300 Washington, D.C. 20036 {202} 833-9340 RICHARD W. ROACHELL Roachell Law Firm 504 Lyon Building 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 (501} 375-5550 Ark. Bar No. 78132 Counsel for Appellants I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY OF CASE AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Pursuant to its jurisdiction to monitor implementation of a consent decree designed to desegregate schools in the appellee Pulaski county Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\") and certain surrounding school districts, the district court entertained a request by PCSSD to enjoin a strike by its teachers that took place when collective bargaining between PCSSD and the teachers' exclusive representative, the Pulaski County Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") -- represented in this case by appellants Katherine Knight, rt g_L,_ -- broke down. The court below issued its preliminary injunction five days after an Arkansas state court, in a case brought by parents of several PCSSD students, had ruled that the strike could continue because the state law prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief had not been met. Because of the complex history of this case -- and the important federal and state law issues raised by this appeal plaintiffs believe that oral argument will be of assistance to this Court. Plaintiffs ask that they be allowed 30 minutes for oral argument. ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF CASE AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT .. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. STATEMENT OF ISSUE STATEMENT OF CASE AND STATEMENT OF FACTS A. B. c. The Underlying Constitutional Violation .. The 1992 Consent Decree .. The 1996 Teachers' Strike. 1. 2. The state court Proceeding The District Court Proceeding SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. ARGUMENT A. B. CONCLUSION The District Court Erred in Issuing the Injunction Because It Was Not Designed (1) To Enforce the Terms of the 1992 Consent Decree, or (2) To Effect a Valid Modification of the 1992 Consent Decree 1. Enforcing the Terms of the 1992 Consent Decree ..... . 2. Modifying the 1992 Consent Decree Dataphase Systems. Inc. v. C.L. systems. Inc. Does Not Provide the Proper Framework for Ruling on PCSSD's Request for an Injunction; Even Assuming, Arguendo, That It Does, the District Court's Injunction Does Not Meet the Dataphase Criteria ..... 1. Application of Dataphase 2. The Dataphase Criteria iii ii 1 2 2 3 5 8 9 10 18 20 20 20 29 37 37 38 46 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Alexander v. Britt, 89 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 1996) American Trucking Ass'ns. Inc. v. Gray. 657 S.W.2d 207 (Ark. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appeal of Little Rock Sch. Dist., 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991) ........... . Berger v. Heckler, 771 F~2d 1556 (2d Cir. 1985) Boatmen's First Nat'l Bank v. Kansas Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys., 57 F.3d 638 (8th Cir. 1995) ..... Dataphase Sys . Inc. v. C.L. Sys . Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) .............. . EEOC v. Local 40. Int'l Ass'n of Bridge Workers, 76 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1996) .... Finney v. Arkansas Bd. of Corrections, 505 F.2d 194 ( 8th Cir. 197 4) . . . . Firefighters Local 1784 v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561 (1984) Harley-Davidson. Inc. v. Morris, 19 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 1994) ............ . Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1342 (3d Cir. 1995) ..... Hughes v. United States, 342 U.S. 353 (1952) Johnson v. Robinson, 987 F.2d 1043 (4th cir. 1993} Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 114 s . ct . 16 7 3 ( 19 9 4 ) . . . . Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Knight, 725 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1983) . . . . . ... Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Martin, No. 87-4537 (Ark. Ch. Ct. Sept. 28, 1987) .... Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 584 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Ark. 1984) iv 30 9 14, 17 23 38,39 42 passim 22 38 19 23 23 22 19,22 33 1 3 25 3,11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 738 F.2d 82 (8th Cir. 1984) ... Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996) Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 597 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Ark. 1984) Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) .... Little Rock Sch. Dist v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 869 (1988) .... Mahers v. Hedgepeth, 32 F.3d 1273 (8th Cir. 1994) Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 706 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1983) .... Paccar Fin. Corp. v. Hummell, 606 S.W.2d 384 (Ark. Ct. App. 1980) ..... People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist. No. 205, 961 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. 1992) Picon v. Morris, 933 F.2d 660 (8th Cir. 1991) Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) ......... , Smith v. American Trucking Ass'n, Inc., 781 S.W.2d 3 (Ark. 1989) .... United States v. Armour \u0026 Co., 402 U.S. 673 (1971) United States v. Atlantic Ref. Co., 360 U.S. 19 (1959) United States v. City of Chicago, 978 F.2d 325 (7th Cir. 1992) ................. . United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 998 F.2d 1001 (2d Cir. 1993) United States v. Knote, 29 F.3d 1297 (8th Cir. 1994) V 4 29 4 4,5 19,31 passim 2,11 35 2, 22- 31 9 31 19 2,30 9 2,22 29 22 32 23 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I United states v. O'Rourke, 943 F.2d 180 (2d Cir. 1991) United states v. Western Elec. Co., 8~4 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1990) .............. . Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909 (6th Cir. 1983) STATUTES AND RULES 28 u.s.c.  1292 (a) (1) 28 u.s.c.  1331 Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 (a) Fed. R. civ. P. 60(b) Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) . Ark. Code Ann.  6-17-1001 (Michie 1995) vi 23 19,23 33,34 22 1 1 38 30 38 8 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 No. 96-3841 Katherine Knight, et al., Appellants, v. Pulaski County Special School District, Appel lee. BRIEF OF APPELLANTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Susan Webber Wright, D.J.) had jurisdiction over the underlying school desegregation case pursuant to 28 u.s.c.  1331, and it had jurisdiction over the instant proceeding pursuant to its continuing authority to monitor implementation of the consent decree entered in said case. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1376, 1384 (8th Cir. 1990). See also Kokkonen v . Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, , 114 s. ct. 1673, 1677 (1994). This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal from the district court's order granting PCSSD's motion to enjoin the teachers' strike pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 1292(a) (1). The District Court's order was formally entered on october 2, 1996, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 and appellants Katherine Knight, et al., filed a timely notice of appeal on October 27, 1996. STATEMENT OF ISSUE Whether the district court erred in abrogating appellants' state-law right to continue the teachers' strike, inasmuch as the court's injunction was not designed (1) to enforce the terms of the consent decree, or (2) to effect a valid modification of the consent decree. The four cases most apposite to this issue are: United states v. Armour \u0026 Co., 402 U.S. 673 (1971) Mahers v. Hedgepeth, 32 F.3d 1273, 1275 (8th Cir. 1994) Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992) Little Rock Sch. Dist v. Pulaski County Soecial Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 869 (1988) STATEMENT OF CASE AND STATEMENT OF FACTS Although only a few recent developments are directly relevant to this appeal, the appeal inevitably is bound up with the complex and continuing 14-year effort to desegregate PCSSD and certain surrounding school districts. Accordingly, in order to provide a context for analysis, it is necessary to review -albeit briefly -- the history of this case. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 A. The Underlying Constitutional Violation This case began in 1982, when the predominantly black Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a complaint in the United states District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Alleging interdistrict constitutional violations, LRSD contended that meaningful school desegregation could be achieved only by consolidating LRSD and the two predominantly white surrounding school districts -- i.e., PCSSD and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") -- into a single county-wide school district. Shortly after the case was filed, a group of black students and their parents, on behalf of all black students in the three school districts, intervened as plaintiffs -- i.e., the Joshua intervenors. Several teachers in the three affected school districts, PACT, and the counterpart teacher associations in LRSD and NLRSD moved to intervene in order to protect the teachers' state-law contractual and statutory rights - i.e., the Knight intervenors. The district court denied their motion, and this Court affirmed, noting that the district court intended to bifurcate the litigation into a liability and a remedy stage, and \"[t]he interests that appellants seek to protect relate to the remedy stage.\" 725 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam), quoted in 738 F.2d 82, 83 (8th Cir. 1984). After the district court entered a judgment of liability against PCSSD and NLRSD, see 584 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Ark. 1984), the Knight intervenors renewed their motion, but the district I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 court again denied intervention. On appeal, however, this Court reversed, holding that the Knight intervenors had shown that \"the disposition of the action 'may as a practical matter' impair their interests,\" and it directed the lower court to grant the motion to intervene. 738 F.2d at 84 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) (2)) . 1 The district court then turned to the question of remedy, and, after additional hearings, ordered consolidation of the three school districts into a single county-wide school district. See 597 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Ark. 1984). Defendants appealed from both the liability and remedy judgments. This Court, sitting en bane, affirmed the lower court's judgment of liability, but ruled that the interdistrict remedy \"exceed(ed) the scope of the violations.\" 778 F.2d 404, The \"interests\" in question derived primarily from the collective bargaining agreements between the teacher associations and the school districts. Recognizing that consolidation of the three school districts was a possible remedy for the unconstitutional segregation, this Court commented as follows: Those who have a contract with existing entities have an interest in the continued existence of those entities. It may be true that the successor school district (assuming consolidation is ultimately ordered) will choose to bargain collectively with the (teachers), but there can be no assurance of that fact. In addition, even if a successor district does agree to bargain collectively with appellants, there is no assurance that whatever contract will then be agreed on will be as favorable to appellants' members as the present agreements are. 738 F.2d at 84. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 434 (8th Cir. 1985). Opining that the district court's remedy violated principles of federal court respect for local autonomy in the educational process, see .i_g_._, this Court remanded for entry of remedial orders consistent with a set of guidelines set forth in its opinion. See id. at 434-36. B. The 1992 Consent Decree During 1987, the district court issued a series of remedial orders that abrogated state-law rights of the Knight intervenors, including, inter alia, orders that altered negotiated teacher assignment systems. The Knight intervenors appealed, contending that the district court exceeded the scope of its remedial authority because the remedial orders were not properly connected to the underlying constitutional violation. This Court agreed: The remedial authority of the District Court empowers it to alter or, in the extreme case, abrogate a collective bargaining agreement which perpetuates segregation or impedes a desegregation plan. The agreements between a school district and a teachers organization, however, must be permitted to stand if they do not adversely impinge on these constitutionally mandated remedies. Any modification or abrogation can only be made after an evidentiary hearing and upon a finding that the change is essential to the desegregation remedy. 839 F.2d 1296, 1314-15 (8th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). This Court added that \"the authority of a federal court to alter or modify collective bargaining contracts in school desegregation cases must be based on a finding that the alteration or modification is necessary to further the effort to integrate the schools in question.\" lg_._ at 1316 (emphasis added). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 Finally, after further piecemeal implementation and appeals of various court-ordered remedies, the parties entered into intense negotiations in an effort to develop an agreed-upon plan to remedy the unconstitutional segregation. In 1990, \"in a sharp departure from the adversary bitterness that had marked this controversy,\" all of the parties voluntarily agreed to a \"comprehensive and complicated\" series of plans. 921 F.2d 1371, 1376, 1384 (8th Cir. 1990). This series included a separate desegregation plan for each of the three school districts involved in the litigation, and a financial agreement with .the state, pursuant to which the state was obligated to provide funding for certain desegregation programs. The parties submitted the agreed-upon plans to the district court for approval, but the court rejected the plans, and \"purported to modify them and to order the unwilling parties to put them into effect as modified.\" .I.9...._ at 1376. This Court reversed, explaining that the district court had failed to credit sufficiently the voluntary, negotiated nature, of the agreed-upon plans: The law strongly favors settlements. Courts should hospitably receive them. This may be especially true in the present context -- a protracted, highly divisive, even bitter litigation, any lasting solution to which necessarily depends on the good faith and cooperation of all the parties, especially the defendants. As a practical matter, a remedy that everyone agrees to is a lot more likely to succeed than one to which the defendants must be dragged kicking and screaming. Id. at 1383. In rejecting the district court's proposed \"modifications\" of the agreed-upon plans, this Court stressed the I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7 need for courts to defer to the expressed will of the parties as reflected in a settlement: \"Because settlement of a class action, like settlement of any litigation, is basically a bargained exchange between the litigants, the judiciary's role is properly limited to the minimum necessary to protect the interests of the class and the public. Judges should not substitute their own judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\" In addition, courts are generally without authority to require parties to comply with a \"settlement\" different from their own agreement. Id. at 1388 (quoting Armstrong v. Board of Sch. Directors, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7th Cir. 1980)). Accordingly, this Court directed the district court to approve the four separate settlement plans that had been agreed to by the parties. Id. at 1394. On remand, these plans were incorporated into a consent decree that was finalized on April 29, 1992 ( 11 1992 consent decree\") (JA 34). 2 Among the programs established for PCSSD by the 1992 consent decree is a system of student assignment designed to achieve at least 20% black enrollment in all PCSSD schools. 1992 consent decree at 84 (JA 119). This system depends on a number of variables, including initial student assignments and voluntary transfers of students among PCSSD schools. Id. at 81-84 (JA 116- 19). The system also calls for voluntary transfers of black students from LRSD to PCSSD, and voluntary transfers of white students from PCSSD to LRSD. Id. at 83 (JA 118). The 1992 2 Although only the PCSSD plan is directly relevant for purposes of this appeal, and only that plan is included in the Joint Appendix, see JA 34, references in this brief are to the 1992 consent decree. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 consent decree indicates that Pesso has had little difficulty attracting black students from LRSO, and that the principal focus should be to encourage white students to transfer from Pesso to LRSO. Id. (\"Pesso will continue to encourage its students to exercise interdistrict M-to-M [.L.Jh, majority-to-minority) transfers to LRSO. Efforts directed toward M-to-M transfers from LRSO have already been successful.\" (emphasis added)). In addition to the provisions designed to remedy segregation in Pesso, the Knight intervenors received a specific assurance that the recognized collective bargaining process for Pesso teachers would not be displaced. Thus, the 1992 consent decree provides for an Office of Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, who, inter alia, must \"negotiate as representative for the (School] Board a master agreement with certified personnel.\" Id. at 21 (JA 56). The decree does not include any limitations on the capacity of PACT or the Pesso teachers to exercise their rights under state law to resolve disputes arising during the collective bargaining process. c. The 1996 Teachers' strike The instant dispute has its genesis in negotiations between PACT and PCSSO for a successor to the collective bargaining agreement that was scheduled to expire on June 20, 1996. Among other proposals, PACT sought a salary increase for the teachers that it contended was necessary to comply with a recently-enacted state minimum teacher salary law. Ark. Code Ann. S 6-17-1001 (Michie 1995) (\"Act 917\"). PCSSD rejected the proposal, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 asserting that it was not obligated to comply with Act 917, because this might require PCSSD to divert money from desegregation programs, thereby breaching its obligations under the 1992 consent decree. Negotiations on this and other matters proved unsuccessful, and the teachers -- under PACT's direction -- went on strike on August 19, 1996. 1. The state Court Proceeding on August 22, 1996, Mike Wilson and several other parents of PCSSD students (\"Wilson\") filed suit in Pulaski County Chancery court seeking a temporary restraining order -- on state-law grounds -- directing PACT to terminate the strike. The state court held a hearing on August 23, and issued its ruling the same day. Wilson v. Pulaski Ass'n of Classroom Teachers, No. IJ96- 5788, slip op. (Ark. Ch. Ct. Aug. 23, 1996) (JA 430). The chancery court denied Wilson's request for a temporary restraining order, finding that plaintiffs had not satisfied the state-law prerequisites for the granting of such relief: specifically, they had failed to demonstrate that the strike was \"clearly illegal\" under Arkansas law, see id. at 4 (JA 434), and that the students or PCSSD were suffering \"irreparable harm\" at the time of the hearing, id. at 8 (JA 438) . 3 With regard to the 3 Under Arkansas law, plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctive relief must prove both that they are likely to succeed on the merits, and that they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of such relief. See Smith v. American Trucking Ass'n, Inc., 781 S.W.2d 3, 4 (Ark. 1989); American Trucking Ass'ns. Inc. v. Gray, 657 S.W.2d 207, 208 (Ark. 1983); Paccar Fin. Corp. v. Hummell, 606 S.W.2d 384, 385 (Ark. ct. App. 1980). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 latter point, the court noted that lost school days could still easily be made up, and that all other concerns expressed by plaintiffs were, at that early date, totally speculative. Id. at 6-8 (JA 436-38). The court indicated that it would revisit the question of irreparable harm if the strike did not end shortly, by \"setting a hearing on September 19th[, 1996] at 8:30.\" Id. at 9 (JA 439) . 4 Although several of the plaintiffs in Wilson, as well as their attorneys, were in contact with PCSSD representatives before and during the state court proceeding, Transcript of August 29, 1996 Hearing (\"Tr.\") at 220-21 (JA 360-61), PCSSD was not a party to the case. PACT attempted to join PCSSD as a necessary party (JA 444), but both the plaintiffs (JA 448) and PCSSD opposed the motion, Tr. at 196 (JA 336), and it was denied. 2. The District Court Proceeding On August 24, 1996, the day after the chancery court denied Wilson's request for injunctive relief, PCSSD filed a motion in the district court -- based upon the court's continuing jurisdiction over the implementation of the 1992 consent decree 4 Wilson has appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court, and this appeal is now pending. The only point on appeal, however, is the chancery court's ruling on the likelihood of success on the merits; no appeal was taken from its determination that the strike was not causing irreparable harm. As Wilson put it in the brief that was filed with the state supreme court, \"[i]t is from the chancery court's denial of the injunction requested based on the illegality of the strike from which Wilson appeals. Wilson is not appealing the court's decision with respect to irreparable harm.\" Exhibit D to PCSSD Motion to Stay the Appeal at 3. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 seeking to enjoin the teachers' strike (JA 410). In support of the requested injunction, PCSSD argued that the 1992 consent decree could not be implemented if \"the schools are not open.\" PCSSD Brief In Support of Its Motion Seeking Equitable Relief (\"PCSSD Trial Br.\") at 7 (JA 419). Although the primary beneficiaries of the 1992 consent decree are the black students in PCSSD, 5 PCSSD did not consult with the Joshua intervenors before filing their motion in the court below. Tr. at 211 (JA 351). And, in fact, the Joshua intervenors opposed PCSSD's motion. Tr. at 16 (JA 156). On August 29, 1996, the district court held a hearing on PCSSD's motion. Four witnesses testified: Deen Minton, President of PACT; Linda Pondexter, President of the Little Rock/ School District Board of Directors and former President of PACT;j Sandra Roy, Executive Director of PACT; and Bobby Lester, PCSSD Superintendent of Schools. There was no dispute about the fact that all of the schools in PCSSD were in operation, notwithstanding the strike. Minton, Pondexter and Roy all asserted that a nonnegotiated end to the strike, such as by an injunction, would have a significant negative impact on teacher morale, which in turn would adversely affect implementation of the 1992 consent decree. Tr. at 132-34 (JA 272-74); Tr. at 231- 5 See 839 F.2d at 1303 (\"The right most prominently involved [in this litigation) is the right to a public education free of racial discrimination.\"); 584 F. Supp. 328, 347 (E.D. Ark. 1984) (finding constitutional violation in part because ''there is no indication that [black students] will be treated fairly or with openness and inclusiveness\" in PCSSD). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12 32 (JA 371-72); Tr. at 252-53 (JA 392-93). Lester, the only witness supporting the PCSSD motion, did not dispute this assertion. Tr. at 161, 164 (JA 301, 303-04). Lester testified that, in his opinion, the students who transferred from LRSD to PCSSD might be less likely to stay at PCSSD because of the strike, but he was unable to produce any PCSSD attendance records or other evidence to support this opinion. Tr. at 216-17 (JA 356-57). Before specifically ruling on PCSSD's request for an injunction, the court below issued several orders designed to improve PACT/PCSSD labor relations. First, the court stated that PACT's bargaining demand for a teacher salary increase did not fully account for PCSSD's financial obligations under the 1992 consent decree: [I)t was apparent to me, listening to the testimony of PACT members that they are focused on their rights under Arkansas law, instead of the District's multiple obligations under federal law, as well as under state law. And keep in mind, I'm not doing this tonight, I'm not saying this as -- I'm not ruling this way right now, but keep in mind at times this Court has superseded state law. I have that authority as a federal judge, to require that a party actually not follow state law. Order at 6 (attached as Addendum to Appellants' Brief). The court then observed that: Mistrust between the parties in this case is evident. There is certainly a lot of bad feelings, which is not good for the future of either this District or the success of the overall settlement decree. Complications to the funding formula have added to this feeling of ill-will and uncertainty. And I hope in a year or two all of these uncertainties with respect to the funding formula will be I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 13 resolved. But still, there has been a lot of damage done between the parties, and this is not a time of good feeling. Id. at 7. For these reasons, the district court directed PACT and PCSSD to establish a \"Labor Relations Committee, with representatives from each side, [which) will make recommendations to the Union and to the Board, and if necessary to this Court, with respect to their relations with each other. In other words, how to talk to each other and how to build back an era of trust.\" Id. at 7-8. The court also ordered \"the Labor Relations Committee to develop some sort of education program for PACT members, so that they can understand the District's [budget) predicament.\" Id. at 8. Finally, asserting the authority to interpret and enforce the collective bargaining agreement, the court ordered the parties to mediate their differences in accordance with the impasse procedure contained in the agreement. Id. at 9-10. The district court then turned to PCSSD's request for an injunction. Notwithstanding PCSSD's argument that the strike should be enjoined simply to facilitate implementation of the 1992 consent decree, the court applied the criteria for a preliminary injunction set forth by this Court in Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981): (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the moving party; (2) the balance of that harm against the interests of the other parties; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 14 The court below based its discussion of irreparable harm on the testimony of PCSSD Superintendent Lester: [T]he testimony of Bobby Lester indicates that the District will suffer from having to make up school days, from the sparse attendance of regular teachers, from the absence of students, and from the threat of losing students, including interdistrict students. The interdistrict part of the plan is a crucial element of this plan. The Eighth Circuit has so ruled, and that is not the District Court's ruling, that is the Eighth Circuit's. Id. at 11-12. The court therefore found that there is a threat of irreparable harm to the District, and further [found] there is a threat of irreparable harm to the overall success of the settlement decree. Judge Arnold, once again, of the Eighth Circuit, has said \"Stability is important to the success of this decree.\" And there are very few things more destabilizing than a teacher's strike. I've witnessed all the interest in this case today, the emotions, the news coverage, which I cannot take judicial notice of, but there has certainly been -- we cannot say that the situation has been stable. Id. at 12-13. 6 6 Judge Arnold has never written, in any published opinion of which we are aware, the words ascribed to him by the district court. The closest he has come was in an opinion issued on November 14, 1991, in which this Court directed the lower court to permit certain modifications to an earlier version of the 1992 consent decree. See 949 F.2d 253, 257 (8th Cir. 1991). In permitting these changes, this Court, through Judge Arnold, noted that the district court must proceed cautiously, because the public deserved stability in the terms of the decree: The 1989 settlement is a benchmark. Although changes can be made, the District Court and we must take into account the potential for confusion, even chaos, that constant change creates. The parties and the public deserve a period of stability. Changes in details, or at the margin, will not seriously interfere with this goal. Changes of greater significance, however, may well do so, and that fact must be taken fully into account when such changes are proposed and considered. Id. at 257. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 15 The district court turned next to PCSSD's likelihood of success on the merits. Although PCSSD's claim was that the strike was prohibited by the 1992 consent decree, the court did not address the likelihood of PCSSD's success as to that claim. Instead, the court dealt with this criterion on the basis of two state-law questions. The first question involved PACT's contention during collective bargaining that PCSSD was obligated to increase teachers' salaries in accordance with Act 917, the new state minimum salary law. PCSSD, on the other hand, had taken the position that it was not required to comply with Act 917, because to do so might make it difficult for PCSSD to meet certain obligations under the 1992 consent decree. 7 The district court treated the merits aspect of the request for a federal injnction as turning on the eventual outcome of the dispute over Act 917: it ruled that \"the District has carried its burden of showing that more likely "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1668","title":"Court filings concerning summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding, PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South junior high schools, ADE semiannual monitoring report","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":["1997-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Jacksonville North Junior High School (Jacksonville, Ark.)","Jacksonville South Junior High School (Jacksonville, Ark.)","School buildings","School facilities","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding, PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South junior high schools, ADE semiannual monitoring report"],"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/1668"],"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":["38 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, Knight, et al.,'s reply to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to motion; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, Pulaski districts' motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding; District Court, statement of material and undisputed facts with respect to the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding; District Court, motion for hearing; District Court, order; District Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South (junior high schools); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to fix time; District Court, three orders; District Court, motion for extension of time in which to file notice of appeal; District Court, judgment; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) semiannual monitoring report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) program planning and budgeting tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  u.s~,\\k~JdRr EASTERN OISiRICT ARK,\\NSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN 6 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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. JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: -----------PLRiN'PfFf1( DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Knight, et al., Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL L-\\ W FIR:.\\1. for their Motion, state: 1. PACT, by and through Knight, et al. Intervenors, filed a Motion for Extension of Time until close of business on Monday, January 6, 1997, to file its Reply to the Response of PCSSD. 2. The data collection for the reply by PACT personnel was severely curtailed during the holidays as they only returned to work on the morning of January 6, 1997. The data collected by PACT did not arrive at its attorneys office untii the afternoon of January 6, i 997 and a proper reply is not possible prior to close of business. WHEREFORE, PACT prays that it be granted one additional day to file its Reply to the Response of PCS SD and be granted all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted. c==\u003e____,, ~ Richard W. Roache!! Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIR2v1 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on January 6, 1997 to the follo,,ing persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LC\\l)SEY \u0026 JEi'IN\"L\\,.GS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ ~ Richard W. Roachell FILED u S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKA SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN 7 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKA SAS ERK WESTERN DIVISIO JAMES W McCORMACK, CL l By: -----nioE:i:p,7_C' IL8ER=ii\u003cK 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. ~.'.: ~ 11 .'l~ ~~~~ ~- O!l!ce of Desegrngc.i1cn t,\\onitonng DEFENDANTS I TERVENORS INTERVENORS KNIGHT. ET AL'S REPLY TO PCSSD RESPONSE TO MOTION In its Response to the PACT Intervenor's Motion and Brief, the PCSSD takes the ludicrous position that what PACT is requesting is that the Court approve any contract settlement with PCSSD because PCSSD would be increasing a budgeted line item without court approval contrary to the Intervenors prayer for relief. PCSSD also suggests that PACT's prayer \" ... seems an invitation by PACT to the Court to resolve the contract dispute since any resolution which increases salaries must, according to PACT's request, have the approval of the Court in any event.\" PCSSD's allegations and conclusions are disingenious when PACT's Motion is read in its entirety. PACT neither wishes the Court to resolve the contract dispute between them nor wishes the Court to approve any contract settlement that may result in expenditures for increases in salary. PCSSD's tinkering with the wording of PACT's Motion and Brief inflames an already white-hot labor dispute between the parties and wastes taxpayers money in doing so. What PACT wants is clear: that PCSSD be restrained from fiddling with its budget in spending monies that could and should be appropriated to fund a salary increase and that PCSSD negotiate in good faith. EXHIBIT \"D\" In PCSSD's zeal to further heighten an already supercharged labor dispute in its district, it discusses virtually all of the items in the exhibit that PACT had attached to its Motion as Exhibit \"D.\" It should be noted that in the briefof PACT, it addressed only the issue of a possible transfer of $100,000 in interest from the building fund. However, PCSSD goes to great lengths to try to discredit PACT by discussing that item as well as virtually every other item on Exhibit \"D'' which were not contained or addressed in the subject matter of the motion or brief of PACT. In response, PACT feels the necessity to respond to the allegations of the district as it addressed other items in PACT's Exhibit \"D.\" It should be noted that Exhibit \"D\" was created by PACT prior to this Court's - hearing on the district's Motion for Injunctive Relief. It was initially created for negotiating purposes only during the summer of 1996. PCSSD suggests that the transfer of $133,516.00 generated by the one mill technology millage would be unlawful under Arkansas Law. Hopefully, such is not the case as the district is well-versed in such transfers. It should be noted that the so-called one mill technology millage was not dedicated to math, science and technology on the ballot that was approved by the voters. It is true that the district advertised to the public that it would dedicate one mill of the proposed millage for technology if the millage was passed. However, what is technology is determined by the district itself since there are no parameters in the official ballot on which taxpayers voted. See attached Exhibit \"A.\" What PACT proposed, however, was the transfer of$133,516.00 from the regular budget to 2 the technology mill. This was the total dollars identified by PACT from district records where the district had funded technology programs not from the technology fund but from its regular budget thereby giving more to the technology budget than was generated by the mill when the technology budget is not even fully budgeted for expenditures. This scenario occurred when the budget managers were permitted to overspend their allotted millage amounts and the district, instead of balancing the budget by transferring money from the technology millage reserve to the overspending, chose rather to transfer money to cover the o,erspending from its regular budget. All that PACT requested in its negotiations was that money be returned from the technology fund that was transferred from the district's regular budget. For instance, two substantial expenditures from the regular budget that could have been allocated from the technology mill reserves were the computer lab at Fuller Junior High which was funded from the regular budget and the upgrade of district computer labs which would also qualify for technology funds. PCSSD also faults PACT for suggesting that the district defer $1,165,076.00 in budgeting expenses for the first semester to the second semester and to use that amount to fund teacher raises. The district complains that it is not demonstrated or predicted where new revenue would come from to pay these bills during the second semester. However, as the district well knows, it has done this very thing in the recent past. In the 1993-94 school year, the district similarly deferred expenditures to settle and fund a pay raise in a dispute with PACT by submitting a budget proposal to its Board of Directors for approval which contained three days less work during the second semester. See Exhibit \"B.\" Of course, with the district historically underestimating its revenues, the second semester was funded fully and the three days were restored to the school calendar. What the district finds to be irresponsible now but apparently found responsible only a few years ago is merely further 3 evidence of its unwillingness to settle its labor dispute with PACT and its willingness to create the risk that the labor dispute will boil over again. Next, PCS SD faults that part of Exhibit \"D\" to PACT's motion for representing that Act 917 requires $1,375,000.00 for funding to meet the requirements of the Act. Actually, the revised calculations by PACT are $1,262,752.00. PCSSD further represents that it would only require $117.00 to each beginning teacher salary and $298 to the contract of teachers holding a masters degree with two years experience to complete compliance with Act 917. If such a plan was the intent of the Act, there would be little dispute between the parties. However, PCS SD knows that the intent of Act 917 is not to destroy but to preserve the structure of the statutorily mandated salary schedule for teachers as it is incorporated into Article Xll  3 of the Master Contract. By not raising the base and failing to index a raise through the entire schedule to compensate teachers for - experience and education as provided by the district's plan, over 1,200 teachers would receive no raise whatsoever. Further, this Court did not rule on August 29 (sic) that PCS SD was not abiding by Act 91 7. The Act has not been challenged on the issues raised here. The Court only found that there was a probabilitv that the district was not in violation of Act 917 and that a waiver under the Act is also a possibility. With regard to PACT's projection of $500,000.00 in additional local revenue, the district's chief fiscal officer, who gave his affidavit with the district's response, stated during the first four days of the teacher strike that the $500,000.00 was his \"fudge money\" indicating how much he predicted the underestimation in local revenue. Stewart has since acknowledged his prior statement in mediation ordered by the Court. Again, this admission on the part of the district further 4 underscores the history of the dist1ict in underestimating local revenues. TITLE IX PACT's Exhibit \"A\" to its motion clearly shows that the district is willing and able to find funds for whatever it wants to do. There is no decree or order existing that binds PCSSD to fill additional coaching positions to comply with Title IX. In fact, the whole basis of the filling of the coaching positions was merely an internal memorandum suggesting that it be done. The memorandum itself is confusing and apparently contradictory. It should be noted that in the second paragraph of the memorandum, the recommendation is \"If a team has twenty (20) participants at the end of a (sic) athletic season, the assistant coach allocation \\\\'ill be implemented for the following school year.\" Therefore it appears that the memorandum suggests filling the positions would begin in the I 997-98 school year. However. in the last paragraph of the memorandum, the allocation is projected to increase the budget by approximately $9,000.00 for the 1996-97 school year. What occurred here was based on an internal recommendation that the district increase spending (recurring expenditures with nonrecurring revenues) which was not budgeted and apparently was deemed by the administration and the board to be more important than using the funds at the present time to contribute to a settlement of its labor dispute with PACT. This is the very kind of conduct by the administration and board of PCS SD that contributes to the current state of affairs with its teachers: that is, historically, the district finds a way to generate or divert revenues for programs or things that it deems it needs. To make matters worse, these are not even all Title IX positions. In fact, PACT has asked the board how many of the positions are Title IX and there has been no response as yet. 5 EXHIBIT \"B\" Whine as it will that the August 27, 1996, budget is still the official budget of the district, the shifting sands of dollars coming into the district and being expended by the district changes with each and every monthly report. Certainly, a budget may be corrected or modified. However, to represent to its board that daily changes in expenditures and projected revenues somehow obviate the necessity for a budget which has been approved by the Court is folly. In effect, the district juggles its numbers each and every month by board approval of its Financial Report which modifies the budget even though the Court does not receive it. PACT wonders whether these monthly financial revised budgets and board approval of them are also under evaluation by the ODM as being consistent with sound fiscal practices. In an attempt to clarify the intent of PACT's Exhibit \"B\" to its brief filed on December 10, 1996, a separate summary of\"budget amounts\" for each of three funds is attached hereto as Exhibits \"C,\" \"D\" and \"E.\" Each month, PCS SD generates Financial Reports. In each one of these reports, there is a column labeled \"budget.\" This column reflects the amount budgeted for each object within each function, as well as the total for each function within each of the three funds. Each of the attached summaries, while not specifically generated by PCSSD, do contain the function totals taken directly from all five of the monthly Financial Reports, which have been generated and provided by PCSSD. These summaries provide evidence that PCSSD does in fact change board-approved amounts. In the affidavit of Dr. Stewart attached to the PCSSD Response to Motion, it was stated: (1.) The board-approved budget amounts were entered into the computer in early September, and 6 (2.) to date, no changes have been made in the board-approved budget. If these two statements were true, then the budget amounts in the 9/30/96 Financial Report should reflect the same amounts as those approved by the School Board on August 27, 1996, since 9/30 is the date after the \"early September\" date that Dr. Stewart referred to as the time at which amow1ts were entered into the computer. Furthermore, the subsequent Financial Reports (dated 10/31/96 and 11 /30/96) should also contain the exact budget amounts as those of9/30/96-. However, this is not the case. Changes can be seen in the Teachers ' Salary Fund (Fund 1000) in 18 different functions (1105 , 1110, 1120, 1130, 1140, 1170, 1191, 1220, 1320, 1330. 1350. 1360, 1370, 1390, 1910, 2122. 2222, and 2410) and in 15 different functions (1105, 1120. 1 130. 1140, 1150. 1160, 1170, 1240, 2514, 2620, 2630, 2640, 2710, 2720 and 2740) in the Operating Fund (Fund 2000). In the Desegregation Fund (Fund 2900), it is interesting to note that no changes whatsoever - can be seen in function totals. The fact that all functions reflect the exact same budget amount since 9/30/96 proves that PCSSD can stick to the approved budget when it so chooses. After all, a budget is just that - an overall plan that should not constantly change due to daily changes in expenditures and revenues. Furthermore, because the official budget addresses the entire plan, including function totals, when a change is made in any function, a change has been made in the official budget approved by the board and submitted to the Court, on August 27, 1996. In his affidavit, Dr. Stewart further stated that \"The district has never taken the position that approving the Financial Report constituted a change in the budget.\" If that be the case, just what are board members doing when they approve such a report and why do they have to approve a Financial Report at all, especially one with budget amounts varying from the Court-approved budget? It would seem more logical that the budget amounts in each Financial Report should coincide with the 7 budget amounts approved by the board on August 27, 1996. However, as shown in the summaries, these amounts are not always the same. Therefore, each time the board approves a Financial Report that has different budget amounts, they are, in effect, voting to change the official budget that they approved and submitted to the Court on August 27, 1996. JACKSONVILLE SCHOOLS The money for the reconfiguration of Jacksonville Schools, which will go on line in the 1997-98 school year, was not and is not a part of the budget approved by this court. Additional funds are being spent in preparation for the implementation of the reconfiguration outside the court approved budget, money that could be channeled into a contract settlement with the district's teachers. In fact, the district admits that certain expenditures for substitutes, supplies, materials and training are being spent during this current fiscal year. \"Reconfiguration\" until late August of 1997 is a shallow statement without the expenditures of money in preparation for \"reconfiguration\" which constitutes discretionary spending by the district of money that could be used to help settle the contract dispute between the parties. The district in its response to PACT's motion informs the Court that \"impact aid\" from the federal government is forecast to be sharply curtailed and reduced compared to last year leaving the district with a forecast of a negative ending balance. In fact, as time will show, the district will end its fiscal year with a positive balance and it will do so whether or not it settles its contract dispute with PACT. This settlement depends on the district focusing and redoubling its efforts to bargain in good faith and find the money, as it surely can do, to settle the dispute and not to engage in its game of smoke and mirrors to deny its teachers the much deserved raise as intended by Act 917. If 8 ;:'j T 1 l. I 1 r r I I : : . ,\" :.e - - ~ ' OO,cl / ~ DEP - r:F ECL~rt~ I OFFICIAL BAU.OT l SPECIAL ELECTION  ' P.UUSKJ COUNTY SPECtAIJSCMOOL OISTPJCT !PULASKI COUNT, ARKANSAS I Mays,1, INS'fflJC'nONI TO VOTDa: VOtt on meaure by plld~ .,, x- In the tqu.N ~ !M ffleU\\ltt sltl'I lfOA or AGAINST. ; - . --- ~-  ' -- I I I \"A,:'  Jt.:L. 2 2 zs,z \"'-c.. . . . .  .. ! i. ' --~01- ~ E 8 I X f r c 6 I E ~E,  VAUGHN HCQUARY, HAIY LOVI!i WILLIAMS, AND tin HOL.!il:S. COUNTY aOARD o, !LICTION COMHISSIONDS, WITXIN AHn FOR PULABK:t COUNTY, AJUUNSAS, DO l'IND AND JIEQJ\\\" C?RTU''Y ffE POLLOWt~ usuirs or Tit 1992 PULASll COUN'tY SP!ClAL SCHOOL DIST1'ICT. ILECTIOH HiLD IH TX! VA.RIOOS rRECI~C1'S OP POLAS~I COUNTY FpR THE MEASURI SPIClFiiU HlllSIH: i SPCUHt.AO.OSJLC I TCUO:U NTY SPEC UL SCJ{OL DIS11tICT PROPOSZll 43, 9 KILL I FOR ----~--------------------------------------11  20 VOTES AOAINST ---------------------------------- !117 VOTtS 1-J,.1._,,,, ~Ii .. re, I .J ... ,l. , I ; OF SAID BOA.JU) TRI! JL1L 2 ~ 1992 !raHriio l/.1, J.1y  Program Analysis For The Def et Ing Three Days From Pulaski County Special School District 1993-94 Schoof Year EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Pulaski County Special School Dls~SSO) budget ror the 1993.94 flscaJ year is proiected to hav an ending deficit of $1,789,099.  Ar1\u003cansas Slate law provides that a school d1'tria cannot deficit spend. Fur111ermore, the Federal District Court has directed the PCSSD Board 10 maJ\u003ce the nece~ provisions to submit a balanced budQet. On\u0026 way to accompllst'l lhls rs to delete three days from the 19939 sehool year. BACK GR OUN O ~~ ~ ;~; O'/ G:-n--.P'f:,.. The PCSSD spent more money lhan It received (non-recurring revenue durt ht 199293 school year by $1,190.178. Toe endlnQ 0;1ance for the 199.2-93 school year was :3, However, ~00.000 01 the $403.590 was money saved throuQtl the eany retirement incentive program. This money, placao in the Compensatory EdUcatJon TruS't Fund. wlU be invested and is not avaaao1e. Therefore, the ac:tlJal ndl~ balance tNt is availaola to b\u0026 spent for Iha 1993-94 sehoot year Is only $3,590. The cost ot the one-half percent raise for all ecrc,loyeu Implemented after July 1, 1993, II $32S,0\"2. The eost tor the pay scale step inc:..ase for au eligible 1mploytt1 cos~ a;\u003ep1\"0xlmately $800,000. The cost tor lnitlal materiats and equipment for the MUls High School Specialty Program It $300,000. Tht Olst,1e:t wu required to shift elementary assimnt prtncipais from tl'le Chapter I budget to tl'lt OISU'id OJ)eraUng budQet at a cost of $250,000. The cost for lmptememtno the Economic Education Specialty Program it Baker Elementary school ls $60,000. A new board policy requil'ln9 drug lt~ng of bus drivers ccsts $20,000. The total of these new expenses for 1993-94 ls $2,9~.220. In spite of the ract tl'lat focal revenue Increased by ~.305,S55. prfma,uy as a result of the new 6 mill tax. the Joss ot $959,846 in state and federal revenue caused the Olstnct to have only $1.1S9.121 in new available revenue over the expenses of 199293. These racu place the District In the position .t profectlnQ a ($1,789.099) deflol for the 1993-~ school year. PROBLEM 0EFfNITION To develop a balanced budget th, PCSSO -'dminlstratlon and Board had to txplore varlc,us ways lo rtduce expenditures. AU areas of budgeted excenses had to be examined u i,otent1al blJdQet arts In an effort to reduce expenditures by approximately S2,000.000 tor the 1993.94 school year. Slgniffcant ntdUctlons were made in oper;tlcns costs ($510.000} and In debt cests ($200,000). The decision was ffnaHy rNde to delete mree student interadlon days In order to save approximately S1 .soo.900. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The altematlves that were considered were: (1) ReductlOn ot salaries of all personnel (2) Elimination of programs not required by edUcatlon standards or !ht desegregatiOn plan (3) Reouction in lorce ot personnel not required by education $tandards or the dese9regatlon plan. To reduce salaries of all personnel would viol.le At1(a~ Slate Law 6-17-1501 \"'The Teacher Fu - Dismissal Act of 1963.\" Subchapter 6-17-1506 provides that \"(a) Every contract ot emptoyment made ti 1311 betwon a teacttet and the board of directors of a scl'lool district shall be renewed in wrttl~ on the same terms and for the same salary, unless Increased or decreased by law. for the nex1 school year succeeding the date ot termination tlxed therein. which renewal may be made by an endo~ement on the existing contract lnS11t1ment. unless by May 1 of the contract year. the teacher is notified by the school superintenderlt that the superlntendenl Is recommendlnc;, that the teacher's contract not be renewed: Since the May t deadline had passed, ~ was determined that vfolatlon of this statute could lead to lengthy nugatlon and much expense in legal fees. The penalty tor Ignoring this law was an \"Unknown. Furthermore. employees would resent woc1\u003cing a full contract year for less than their contracted salary. Elimination of programs not required by education standards or the des~regatlon plan was considered. However. while programs such as athletics and some other extracunieular programs might be considered as popular budget cuts by some people. it was decided rriat these programs are at least lndirectty (if not directly) a part of the desegr~atlon plari. The court. in Its order of August 3, , 992. directed the reinstatement of the position, Director of Athletics and Physical Education, which had been eliminated earlier. Furthermore. tt,ese programs. withOut a doubt. pmmc,te desagre(Jatton within our schoots and throughout society. Reduction In force of personnel not reqvlred by education staridards or the desegr99ation plan was attempted tn the spring of 1992. The Court. In Its order of August 3. 1992. ordered the reinstatement of approximately eleven supervisory posillons because it was determined tnat to cut these )obs would be detrlmental 10 the desegregation program. Two other positions (Aulstant Superintendents) were voluntarily restored by the Board because the Importance of these posrtlons in the organi2atlon was rruch more s~ntttcam than the amount saved by the cut. Very little consideration was ~lven to cunlnQ seNtce Jobs such as custodians. maJrnenance personnel. mechanics. etc. Significant budget cut.s Implemented since 1984 reduced the number of these persoMel to the minimum necessary to operate an eNecttve sctiool district. AECOMMENOATIONS The PCSSO Board of Education recommends that approximately $2.000.000 in expenditures be reduced from tM 1993-9 budQet by reduction of operation costs of approximately $510,000. reduction in debt costs by approximately $200,000. and by deleting tl'lree studenr interaC11on days at a savings of approximately $1.500.000. It is believed that it is far more educatlonally sound and less disruptive to eliminate these days at trie end of the sctiool year rather tt'lan at the beglnnll'IQ of the school year. The Dtstnc1 recognizes that parents need as much time as possible to prepare for a shOrtened school year. It would not be fair. at this Jate date. to shOrten school at the beginning of tt,e year. OBJECTIVES The objectives are to produce a balanced buctQet by reducing expendttures In such a way as to have the least Impact on the delivery of Instruction to the students of PCSSD, to avoid len9thy and controversial litigation. to provide \u0026QUity amo1i9 employee groups, and to assure the Cour1 that the District is making a good faith effort to manage itS finances in a 11!Sponslble way. IMPACT ANALYSIS The Impact of deleting $510,000 from operation costs and $200.000 from debt service wrll nave llttre tan\u003c.;1ible effect on tne instn;ctlonal program ol the District. Deleting three student interaction days at a savings of $1.500,000 wlll Impact Instruction. but the Instructional supervisors do not believe that ,t w,11 have a measurable effect. The penalty tor v1olat1no State Education Standard Chapter. V, Section A., which requires 178 student Interaction days will be a citation rrom 111e State Education Oepanment. Violation of the same standard for two consecutive years presents the poss1b1llty of consolidation by the Slate Board of Education. RESOURCES ANALYSIS The only atterna1lve available at this time Is to ask citizens to allow the Dlslrtct to restructure ~s bonded debt wfthOut raising their taxes. This question is on the ballot of the September, ,993 school election. Should the citizens allow restructuring of the bonded debt, current year debt payments can be stl'\\Jctured to set aside $1,500,000 In savings to help offset the !oss of desegregation settlement funds and an addHlonal savings of approximately $1,800,000 can be realized by pushing those currently scheduled payments Into future years. This could eliminate the posstblllty of deleting any student Interaction days from the 1993-94 schQQI year. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Forces supporting this approach to balancing the budget ~lleve that the daletlon ot student interaction days will have less n99atlve effect on student Instruction and the desegre\u003cjatlon plan than other attematlves considered. While there Is a state law whlcl'I prohibits a dlstl'fc:r frcm deficit spending, there is a State Law (~M3-620) which provides authonty for a school district bOard of directors to ctose sehool early . and cease paying the teachers ror the remall'lder or the t1scaI year. This approach which provides a imown penalty ls less likely to be litlgated than violatl~ a law with an 4unkrc\u003ewT, penalty. Forces against this approach are employees whO do r.ct want their salartes to be neQatfvely affected and parents who are concerned that their children will suffer educatlonally. IMPLEMENTATION FLAN The PCSSO Board of Educs1lon adopted the 1993-94 budget which provided for deletion of three student Interaction days at a special school board mcetl~ on July 27, 1993. Thls action Is contingent on Court approval. The proposal has already received considerable media attention without any appreciable opposition from patrons. However, students. employees. and parents will be nofl11ed of the possibility of the deletion of the fast three days of the school year so that summer plans can be considered. Should it be unnecessary to delete all three days. constituents will be notified at the eartlest time possible. Every effort will be made lo curtail expenditures durt~ the schOol year in an effort to prevent deletion of any school days. Furthermore, a strategic plan has been Implemented to encourage patrons lo approve the restructuring of the Dfstnct's Indebtedness. The District is considering ways to atfect employee salaries by withholdln9 pay in incremems rather than withholdtng for all three days during the fast pay period. SUMMARY OF \"BUDGET AMOUNTS\" 19')6 - 19'J7 PCSSD FINANCIAL REPORTS FUND 1000 TEACHER SALARY FUl\\.ro 1100 11115 Ill( Jl}f_l 113\u003c) 114' ! 150 IIC,O 1170 1191 121n 12! I 12:!I! !240 12(,(l 1:10 l2S5 1121) l~_~I !.\"\"'1) U5o u~_; ])C,(l 1370 1390 13~.1 15' , 19JfJ 1930 2111 2122 1142 21.:;o ::211 1212 2222 :!321 :!411) :!4~ 2501 ::(;JO 27!0 2i:,, 2PO C.\\(,1 DE3CR!PTION Rc-g P@Jw'Elcm-SccooJa,y Pre-School Ku~ortro Elrnicntary Middle ' Jr 1-hgh lhgh School AthletJcs Stu.Jient Aci.J\\ilic:. Sununc, School ROTC llincrMt lnstrucuon HClUlCOO\u003cJlld instruct.,oo Rc,nun;eRoon, Sp,\u003c:1al Class - I l 0 Scparat~ Day- Pnvat~ Rcs,dcntiaJ Day  !'nVaJA: Ex1,oJl Year Ml.si \u0026 D1stt1bu11Vc Ed Bu\u003cu,es I Oilin: Om,p Heald,('=, Trade \u0026 lndu_-:mal Trad\u003c Ins  SL:ill Trauung llomc Economics CMCCI Ori~oo Special Needs Th Prep ReadJn% Gtlted\u0026 TalrntC'd English  Sond L.~ Super AUm I Social Wed: Couns\u003c\"lulg J's,,clJologicol Tcruni; 1'1,\\-.,cal  Occupauooal Tncr-apy Super lmprovc lnstruc s-,, ln.,t i Curr SJX'('1ahru Schon! L1bmy Ct.lice  Super Lit Otlicc - Pnnc,pal Asst F'n.oc 1pal Ollicc Super Du.sl.Dess Set\\ ices Super Op/ M..mteoance Super Studcot T ran,poct lntnrmat1on Servi~ Sta:t!SCMcn l-r1 ( .her LEAS In Stau: !'L\").1) 1000 TOT.\\L --- ---DAmor- fl:-.A:-;,-L-\\L REPORT-------- 07/~l:1 ~ OS/31f.\\G 09'3(;'1)(; 10.'JJ \"),I., V ~\" -~\"'11~1 ~5St.1_,;.,.~f'K1 l-t217.7J;i.,-, ).!~17.'-.CI' IJ:I '.'.':i'\u003e).),.J 13(l -1::.\u0026-'6 (l() 14S.SIOOO iSI.4::? 00 IJ~. 77 I IY! ~..a9o,;-:. \\)0 ~32.1 :4 (\u003e.,_, J11~,.,,n1_(1 -Y..14.\"~'{') J.,.\u003c_~!-4.00 ~:S.i II 00 lS.ti5$ l lt--.~_--:,c.; ,,fl l-'.':' ~~71111 ..,J  -~ ,, ._1 7\" 7, \"l,lf !(I :,~s.7r:.-: ((1 :G9.53S 00 ~--: 7:7('1 ,. ,l~- l i{H)'I 1.12 11:2 , .J ~A J_'7-l22h(I :_!.;r_:.,ll'O 211.81800 77i l(;Sr,J l ,i.W ... ll1.a) -:.u,, c,~, , 11:1 1,4_.., ,.77 1(1 !\u003c1~ __ 111 2.n,,:.~: 1)1) :!_!)').;_::?.(\u003e') s:.c1 7 oo l~:.87\u003c. 00 ,.., 1,j-! ().j '.'k ..:;:_J ((i j~(J ,..t..t ( (t .1~ .......... 1(1 0 47.()()()()() 2. 7-1~_985 (~) 12.952.~'\u003et-l( 5,8'56,!:\u003e43 (\u003cJ ~.0'.)2.~I 5.00 454,7S8 00 157,709.00 117,920.00 126.806 00 205,304 0(1 512.415 ((J 4,1)44,520 ((I 809,639 \\l() 152,87:.00 691.19:00 611 00 187.7(1lf ,,, O\u003cH.1.J71(1 J(1.'(l(!IICI $4~\\.:!(1'.\" 1i,:_1 f) Gss.:--t:.oo 161.66] 00 21G.567.00 n 42.17f\u003c)\\/ 1.128.Jc,~ f J ,;;:,.,,.,..;2.1.(1 l41J.1l'lYl 2.212.534 00 239.653 00 641.7]100 t~,9.294 (f.) 979,\u003c.\\71\u003c, 1,4~5. ~5 1.1) 1'18.3~2 \"' 2.14J.2fl7 ll() 2.:n.153 _00 86,2-1:.00 147.80700 ;1.-1w,,, 1,0,cn...9_11 201.387((1 3Jl)\"\u003c~ ult 51.710.451.00 L'C 0 .J71Ul{_(I 2. 11\\$; ,;,.,, 11,.-, 12.0 . n.~r-.., 1_{1 5,86'1\"\"1 1'-l;_ t I lj/JC)~.'I' ,,-, -154.'8~ 1)(1 157.709 00 11--:.9:0((1 12(1)1fJn1_1tJ 2(1'.'.1.;..;.1)0 :'-i~  l:'C-1 4.1.~_,:!(!\\_)(I 8tY1r-,_l)(K' '-~ 11 i {)., i~ l1,:h n, JS].'.,._ ,J 00 2lt. :.1.J7(,.) IJ 1.1'.2~ ,,-,~ \u003c ll j 'n.-~I }.Ul. 11,; ,-11, z.;1:. ~34 ('() :39.~\u003c300 t,\u003c,S- __  IJ, 979 :\"-471)11 1.4~~.-l':- ,,. !fJ~. ': 11! :_141 ~!11' 1_1f S6.:5: 00 147.S(J700 57_,-,,,; ~JJ ':.i.;i' , ~ . ~ ~ ~9.l 87.tG9.00 0 ~.23:!50 ~ 77),.~l_t(J(.) 12,'lf').314 5{1 5.S4l.~3.f)(J ~.Ol(l.951.88 -154,71!8.00 157,70') 00 179.9'\".f.)94 12s.1,2 (() 2\u003c15.,94 00 512.-115 ()) 4/1\\',)--1_~:(, 00 SO' "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1636","title":"District Court, Amicus Curiae's memorandum brief in opposition to the Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) statement of material and undisputed facts and motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching","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":["1996-12-24"],"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","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Retirement","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, Amicus Curiae's memorandum brief in opposition to the Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) statement of material and undisputed facts and motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching"],"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/1636"],"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":["64 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 LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF LR-C-82-866 V. a.~-- ~ ....\" '1 rr=l'l~ (! - n PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL r~U~.\\~ ~j :1 G,'.Y DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEC 3 0 1996 DEFENDAfrrs INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS AMICUS CURIAE'S MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE LRSD, NLRSD AND PCSSD'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGME T ON THE ISSUE OF TEACHER RETIREMENT MATCHING The LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment challenging - those portions of the new school funding formula they view as unfavorable while ignoring other portions from which they would admittedly benefit. The Pulaski County Districts do not allege, nor is there any showing, that the Districts receive less money under the new system. To the contrary, they receive more. By petitioning this Court for an Order 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 this Court ignore the clear Arkansas Constitutional mandate of \"equal treatment\" to which all students are entitled.1 While the Settlement Agreement permits \"fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability\", the Pulaski County Districts suggest, by implication, s1;1ch 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 1Ark.Const.Art.Il, Sections 2, 3, and 18, DuPree v. Alma, 651 S.W.2d 90,279 Ark. 340 (1983). jmljr/kl/9017 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. In all previous assaults on the school funding formula, the Pulaski County School Districts have argued the formula violated the following terms of the Settlement Agreement: 1. \"The State shall take no retaliatory action against the District\" and, 2. \"Fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability shall not be considered to have an adverse impact even if it reduces the proportion of State aid to the Districts.\" Here, however, the Pulaski County School Districts do not expressly contend either provision of the Settlement Agreement has been violated. Rather, they simply refer to the decision of the Eighth Circuit2 and invite this Court to interpret that decision as meaning they are entitled to claim more - money than they will receive under the new funding formula. This argument is misplaced. The Eighth Circuit, in dealing with whether the elimination of the worker's compensation program in its entirety violated the provisions of the Settlement Agreement obviously determined in obiter dictum that it did not because it was fair, rational and of general applicability. Had the inquiry stopped there, as it must here, there would have been no finding of a violation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. It was the seed money that resulted in disproportionate funding and therefore a funding formula which lacked general applicability. In the matter now before this Court, the new funding formula with its per pupil funding is clearly comparable to the total elimination of the worker's compensation program in its general applicability as opposed to the disproportionate distribution of seed money which raised the concern of this Court and of the Eighth Circuit. That concern is not present in this case because the program for teacher's retirement, like worker's compensation, has been totally eliminated, and there has been no seed 2Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). 2 Jmljr/kt/9017 money provided for teacher's retirement. Aside from these references, the Districts engage in great speculative leaps in comparing Act 34 and Act 917 funding. The Districts' plea is one of unequal treatment based only on rank speculation. The basic fact is that all districts are treated equally. Funding for all students has been brought to within 80% of the funding per student in the Little Rock School District. What could be fairer than funding each student substantially equally? The State Courts have interpreted the Arkansas Constitution as demanding this standard of funding. For the last 16 years Arkansas has been moving steadily to equal education opportunity for each student. In 1981 Chancellor Harrell Simpson, in Alma v. DuPree, found that the school finance system was becoming increasingly disequalizing under the system in place at that time. Judge Simpson's Findings of Fact, number 34, Exhibit 1. Judge Simpson also found that students attending school in poor districts received educational opportunities that are inferior to the opportunities offered to students in wealthier districts in the State. Finding of Fact o. 42. The - Court found that \"The Arkansas School Financing System is not designed to, nor does it, insure that all children in every school district in Arkansas will receive the educational opportunities that should be included in a constitutionally required 'general, suitable and efficient' system of public schools.\" Finding of Fact No. 43. As a result of the Alma case, major modifications were made to the Arkansas School Funding System resulting in Act 34 of 1983 (Ex. Sess.). Despite the major revisions to school funding and attempts to equalize funding, the question was reexamined by Judge Imber in the Lake View case resulting in Judge Imber's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of November 9, 1994, Exhibit 2. Among Judge Imber' s conclusions of law, she noted, in part: Paragraph 9: While Arkansas has not defined the terms \"general, suitable and efficient\", courts in other states have defined these terms. In Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W. 2d 186, 191-93 (Ky. 1989) the Court defined \"efficient\" as a system which required \"substantial uniformity, substantial equality of financial resources and substantial equal educational opportunity for all students\" and 3 j mljr/kt/90 I 7 money provided for teacher's retirement. Aside from these references, the Districts engage in great speculative leaps in comparing Act 34 and Act 917 funding. The Districts' plea is one of unequal treatment based only on rank speculation.  The basic fact is that all districts are treated equally. Funding for all students has been brought to within 80% of the funding per student in the Little Rock School District. What could be fairer than funding each student substantially equally? The State Courts have interpreted the Arkansas Constitution as demanding this standard of funding. For the last 16 years Arkansas has been moving steadily to equal education opportunity for each student. In 1981 Chancellor Harrell Simpson, in Alma v. DuPree, found that the school finance system was becoming increasingly disequalizing under the system in place at that time. Judge Simpson's Findings of Fact, number 34, Exhibit 1. Judge Simpson also found that students attending school in poor districts received educational opportunities that are inferior to the opportunities offered to students in wealthier districts in the State. Finding of Fact No. 42. The Court found that \"The Arkansas School Financing System is not designed to, nor does it, insure that all children in every school district in Arkansas will receive the educational opportunities that should be included in a constitutionally required 'general, suitable and efficient' system of public schools.\" Finding of Fact No. 43. As a result of the Alma case, major modifications were made to the Arkansas School Funding System resulting in Act 34 of 1983 (Ex. Sess.). Despite the major revisions to school funding and attempts to equalize funding, the question was reexamined by Judge Imber in the Lake View case resulting in Judge Imber's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of November 9, 1994, Exhibit 2. Among Judge Imber' s conclusions of law, she noted, in part: Paragraph 9: While Arkansas has not defined the terms \"general, suitable and efficient\", courts in other states have defined these terms. In Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W. 2d 186, 191-93 (Ky. 1989) the Court defined \"efficient\" as a system which required \"substantial uniformity, substantial equality of financial resources and substantial equal educational opportunity for all students\" and 3 jmljr/lcr/9017 which required that the educational system be \"adequate, uniform and unitary.\" Id. at 192. The Court concluded that an 'efficient' system of common schools should have several elements: 1 . The system is the sole responsibility of the General Assembly. 2. The tax effort should be evenly spread. 3. The system must provide the necessary resources throughout the state -- they must be uniform. 4. The system must provide an adequate education. 5. The system must be properly managed. Paragraph 11: The equal protection provisions of the Arkansas Constitution are applicable to school funding. DuPree v. Alma School Dist. No. 30, 279 Ark. 340, 345 (1983) (\"The constitutional mandate for a general, suitable and efficient education in no way precludes us from applying the equal protection clause [to school funding]\".) Paraeraph 12: Although money is not the only measure of equity, there is a correlation between the money spent and the quality of education received. See Tennessee Small School Svs. v. McWherter, 851 S.W. 2d 139 (Tenn. 1993); Washakie Co. Sch. Dist. No. One v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310 (Wyo. 1980). Judge Imber considered three statistical measures to evaluate school funding. First, she looked to the federal range ratio and found the State out of compliance with that measure. Next, she looked to the coefficient of variation by which measure the State was again out of compliance. Finally, she looked to the Gini coefficient by which the State was in compliance. Each of these statistical measures looks to the distribution of revenue or expenditure on a~ Pmill basis. Clearly, Judge Imber focused on providing substantially equal funding~ Pmill as opposed to 4 jmljr/kt/9017 general funding of school district operations. In his concurring opinion in Alma, Judge Hickman focused on this point: .. .I cannot justify on this record, any formula of distribution except on a per pupil basis. I do not say any formula, except one based on a per pupil basis, would fail legal examination; but it would certainly have a more difficult time surviving legal scrutiny. The evidence to justify any distribution, other than a per pupil basis, should be both clear and convincing. 279 Ark. at 351, 352. In response to Judge Imber's ruling, which granted the State two years to bring the funding system into compliance, Act 917 and related legislation became law in Arkansas. More recently, Amendment 74 to the Arkansas Constitution was approved by the voters creating an equalized method applicable to all Arkansas counties to raise a minimum level of funding for education. The funds raised by Amendment 74 will be pooled and that money combined with State funds. The - total will be distributed on a~~ basis that is in compliance with the statistical measures, particularly the federal range ratio, to provide an equalized distribution. It is this system of financing education in a general and rational manner which the Pulaski County Districts would have this Court throw out by creating exclusions for them. In the strictest of the statistical measures, the federal range ratio, Judge Imber determined that the Little Rock School District sets the standard for measurement of equitable funding in Arkansas. Finding of Fact No. 58, Exhibit 2. Using the federal range ratio, the State funding system was redesigned to bring all students to within 80% of the funding provided Little Rock students. In making this calculation, funds paid to the Pulaski County Districts by reason of the Settlement Agreement in this Court, are not included. Therefore, as to Little Rock students, not only do they receive State and local funds that establish Little Rock School District as the curvesetter for the State, but they receive additional funds flowing through the desegregation Settlement Agreement that are not counted. The distribution of State funds to North Little Rock and Pulaski 5 jmljr/lct/9017 County assures them of being funded within 80% of the Little Rock School District, on a per pupil basis plus they also receive whatever funds flow through the Settlement Agreement. It is no wonder that 111 school districts object to this attempt by the Pulaski County Districts to be excluded from what they perceive to be burdens under the new funding system while taking full advantage of the benefits of the new system. If the Pulaski County Districts are awarded additional money outside the State funding system, then funding to 400,000 students outside Pulaski County will suffer. The State funding system 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 this Court might order. Increasing funding to Little Rock will mandate corresponding increases to all districts. The Pulaski County Districts argue that their retirement costs are greater because of the additional staff and extra payroll costs that they must incur because of the Settlement Agreement. Careful analysis does not support these conclusions. Examining their costs for certified salaries as - a percent of the current expenditures3 (which excludes funds distributed under the Settlement Agreement) North Little Rock only spends 58.76% of its current expenditures for certified salaries. Declaration of Winston F. Simpson, Exhibit 3. This means that of its current expenditure money, North Little Rock has 41 % after pavment of certified salaries for other expenditures. Pulaski County is in better shape spending only 58.25% of its current expenditures for certified salaries with nearly 43% left over. The Little Rock School District, the curve-setter for the State funding system, is better off than each of the other two spending only 57 .27% of its current expenditure money for certified salaries. There are only five school districts--Newark, Altheimer, Turrell, Paron and Grady--that spend less of their current expenditure money for certified salaries than Little Rock. As to Pulaski County, only those five districts plus Lead Hill spend less for certified salaries, and as to North Little Rock, only those six plus River Valley, Perry-Casa and Leslie 3Expenditures are the current expenses which include all expenditures for the benefit of the current year, including reimbursement for textbook expenditures and amounts spent on behalf of districts by other districts or cooperatives, less capital outlay, debt service and amounts received from other school districts. Annual Statistical Report of the Public Schools of Arkansas. 6 jmljr/kl/9017 spend less than North Little Rock of their current expenditure money on certified salaries. Every school district in Arkansas spends more of its current expenditure money on certified salaries than these eleven districts. 299 of the 311 schools districts in Arkansas have less money left over after paying certified salaries than the North Little Rock School District. For example, Russellville West Memphis Alma Blytheville Fort Smith Texarkana Eldorado Jonesboro Camden Fairview Hot Springs Percent of Current Expenditures for Certified Salaries4 74.01 % 71.84% 69.04% 68.28% 68.08% 67.33% 66.07% 65.99% 65.20% 63.31 % The retirement funds which the Pulaski County Districts seek to have funded are a fixed percentage of certified salaries. Therefore, if the percentage of certified salaries paid by the Pulaski County Districts is lower than other districts, then the cost of teacher retirement will be lower than the same components of other districts. Each district will be affected in the same way. Mathematically, retirement funding is 12% of the prior year certified salary. The relationship between the Pulaski County Districts and the rest of the State remains the same when the retirement cos: is added to the cost of certified salaries. Arguments by the Pulaski County Districts that the cost of living is higher, requiring higher salaries and, that the obligations of the Settlement Agreement cause them to incur additional salary all fall by the wayside when the facts are known. f 4Declaration of Winston F. Simpson, Exhibit 3. 7 jmljr/k!/9017 Exhibit B to the Declaration of Tristan Greene submitted by the State demonstrates that the Pulaski County Districts received the following increases in State funding in 1996-1997 when compared with 1995-1996: Little Rock North Little Rock Pulaski County $2,733,988 $637,161 $710,476 This clearly evidences that these districts did not lose money when the State moved from Act 34 (1995-1996) to Act 917 (1996-1997). Summary The Pulaski County Districts' Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied. The adoption by the State of a new school funding system based on equalized l2IT J;l1lllli funding is a fair and rational method of funding. Over nearly three decades the legislature and the Courts have considered school funding and evolved to this system. The application of the formula to every - student in Arkansas aptly demonstrates the general nature of the new system. There has been no allegation that the new formula is retaliatory; and since the funding system is fair and rational, and of general application, it is not violative of the Settlement Agreement. At the very least, there are disputed questions of material facts which make summary judgment inappropriate with respect to these issues. Respectfully submitted, Amicus Curiae 8 William P. hompson, .. A. #64044 James M. Llewellyn, Jr., AB.A. #66040 THOMPSON \u0026 LLEWELLYN, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 Telephone: (501)785-2867 Telecopier: (501)782-8046 jmljr/kt/9017 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James M. Lewellyn, Jr., state that I have on this z.J.~day of December, 1996, caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed first class, postage prepaid, to: 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 Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 E. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. SamuelJones,III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 W. Capitol Ave., Ste. 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 9 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL AND STREET First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Ste. 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Ste. 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Jmljr/kt/9017 .. . : Ri::CElVEU AEA NOV 2 1981 -:;.- IN THE CHA!.;CC:RY COURT Of\" PULASKI COUNTY, ARY.A ~SAS i:IRST DIVISION Al.11A SCHOOL DISTR.i:CT NO. 30, ec al PLAIN:'I:75 V. NO. 77-406 JIM DuPRE\"='., ~ al CLOVER Brno SO!OOL DIS:::tICT NO. 12 of Law-rence County,~~ FINDINGS O!'\" FAC: Frora che t2scl..l:lony and e..v:hibi:s as inc::-oduced, che scacei:::encs and sci?ulacions of counsel, and ocher rn.a.cc2rs, chings, files and proof, che Cou::-'C finds as Eaccs: L. There were 382 operacing School Discricts in Arkansas L, 1978-79, 37~ in 1979-60, and 370 in 1980-8~- 2. ~~blic schools in Arkansas derive revenues from local and scace sources, and co a fa::- lesser e..~cenc from the federal gove=menc. r~ 1976-79, sc.ace revenues for public el=enc~=7 and. seconda::_-:J educacion cocale\u003cl. abou~ $235 million and consci~~ced 51.6% of all public school revenues. Loe.al revenues a=unccd co $210.6 million a::- J8.l 7. of cecal revenues. feuer~L revenues a~ $57,_ million provided the re=ini.--::g 10.37. of public school suppo-:-c. -::-:e propor-cians of federal-scace-local reve..'1ues ;;e::::e fai::Ly conscanc bec-~ee..'1 1973-7~ and 1978-79 . J. School disc::-iccs, by voce, lev-1 ca:t. races o-:millage races on Frcpercy wichin c_he disc::-iccs. This p::-ovides the bulk of local recei?cs. Ocher minor sources include ::-enc, inceresc, dor.acions, :-evenue in lieu of caxes, revenue f::-ol!l che Counc:y and ocher miscellaneous receipcs, and are al_ included L, cbe cacego-;:-y \"lac.al revenues\", and e2ch local dscricc recains and ex;,ends all che local school caxes collecced wichin ics boundaries. f+ . . The Arkansas school t.lis cric cs va=7 widely in che amounc of caxable properry wealch per pupil wichin chei= boundaries, ant.I because of variacions in assesse\u0026 valuacion per ?upil, ~~~: discicts in che scace have g-::eacer fiscal ~~~~~cy co raise revenue for education f=om local caxes c!'lan EXHIBIT 1  do many ocher distticcs in che scace . 5. Local =evenues a=e based in stated assessments as cercifed by the assessment co-ordinacion divi~ion of che St.ace ?ublic Service Co=ission which is responsible for certifying of=icial =acios co che Seate Deparc~e..~c of Educacion. 6. Each county in che stace has a County Board of Equalization for seccing or arriving at or levying assessmencs on Che majority of che icems of property in the cou.-:ty. Schools of che various counties are permitted to select represencacion on t.\"le board, and some schools dis ciccs employ individuals co ai~ assessors in locacing propercy to be assessed or re-assessed. .T. All counties are under-assessed in Arkansas,. and it: c.oes not. appear chat Arkansas Cons c.ic:uc.ional Amendz:lenc. No. 59, adopted in Novembe=, 1980, will a.:::ord any a?preci.3.ble relief c.o the. present: school f:.:1.ance system. 8. After any future re-assessment. it is eviden= tha.t. c..he. presently wealthy school disc.rices will sc::.J.l have g-:-eater assessed. values and therefore g=e.a::er rever.ues :o;::educacion than pla::...::.cif:: districts and ocher prope~, poor dis c:ric cs . 9. Ace: tfo. 1100 of che 1979 Arkansas General Assembly, kno;m as che School FL..ance Act of 1979, i~ Section 3(B) (1947 Ark. Scat. 1980 Replacement 00-050.J(B) ) provides a=ng oc.'ier chings, co c.\"le ef:::ecc chac che Resource Decerminacion Rate for each district: is calculaced by dividing ics adjusted base aid olus 45 mills applied co charged assessed valuation by che previous year's adjusted Average Daily M=bership, ADM. Each discricc's charged assessed valuacion is based on personal income. le. is compuced by applying its portion .of che tot.al assessed valuation in the county for the previous year to the county's charged assessed valuations. The laccer is decermined by multiplying che councy's 2 proporc:ion of cocal scace per~onal income for che lase: th=ee years by che cecal scace's assessed valuacion for che previous year less public serJice cor.unission assessnec1c:s. Utility and car::-ier assessmencs and 40~ of paymencs in lieu of tax-ation a=e added to c:he personal income component: of a disc:=icc:'s charged assesscenc to ar=ive ac a dist=icc's charged assessment:. 10. The sc:ate receives c:he income figu=es chac: ic used in the Resource Decer::iinacion Race calculation f=cm the Induscrial Research Exc:ension Center of che Universi:y of Arkansas. 11. The=e is no relation be~1een che local property wealth and the personal income index used to deter..iine district wealth in Arkansas. In addition, account is nae taken as to whether generated from L,duscrial or commercial property, and chis can resulc in some districts being charged L, assessed valuations ~~ey do noc have, and this L, cu::-:. can resulc in such dis cricts :-ec eiving less ttininn.u:a Fou:1da c::.on Prcg:-am, MF?, aid than they should. 12. Ace: No. 278 of the A::kansas Ge:1eral Asse~bly of 1951 was known as the Minimum School Budget: Law, and i: provided. a. base aid or hold-ha=less feature -..;hich g.ia::anteed that no school discricc: would receive less MFP aid in any year chan ic received the previous year. Thereafter, the amount of hold-harm.less funds increased from school finance ace co succeeding schooL finance ace so as to include any additional aid a school districc received in che previous year. Any equalization aid discribuced b:1 the stace became unavailable for equalizacion purposes in the :allowing year because it became pare of che hold-harmless aid in the year afcer ic was discribuced as equalization aid, and as result, the more recenc the base ye.a.r the less :.ione;' is available for equalization. 13. A further result under the provisions of Ace 278 of 1951 and succeeding school finance statutes for soce JO years thereafter is that lfFP aid per pupil increased in some dist-::-icts wich declining enrollments, even though the declining enrollment also result~d in an increase in yroperty wealch per pupil. lfuile Ace 1100 yrovides Ear adjust:.lents in base aid for changes in enrollillent, the adjustment does not eliminate the effects of district hold-har:nless prior to 1980. 14. Act 384 of 1977 contained a provision concerning making some adjuscnenc relative co the base for changes in average dailT attendance, and until the second year after the. passage: of Ace No. 1100 of 1979, base aid was held. ha=less on a per discicc basis. u:. In 1978-79 $220,000 ,COO or 71. li:. of all stace aid. was dist::ibuted. under the If:?, and. base. aid. accounted. for approx:.:nacely- 807. of MF? aid. 16. In. addition ta base aid, MF? aid has concai::ed a small equalization component. The equalization portion of MF?  .rs escablished i:1 Ace 384. of 19 77 caused dis cribution of aid in inverse relationship to local wealch on a 2.5 to L scale, and. established. a ceiling of eligibility-. fa 1978- 79 a total of $43,380,000 was distributed. under the. equalization portion of !ITT. This represented 19. 97. of MF? f-.!nds and 15.27. of all state reve.~ues. 17: The equalization under Ace 384. of 1977 was at a 2~ to 1 ratio, but Ace No. 1100 of 1979 eq~lizes at about 1 6/7 co 1, bec;iuse one-half of the funds are disc:ributed as flat grants; and because of the flat grant provision the 1979 Act will continue co be less equalizing than the 1977 Ace regardless of how aiuch equalizing money is available. 18; Under Ace No. 1100 of 1979 there is included a flat granc component in the equalizing funds. After base aid is allocated, one-half of any additional state lfF7 fi.mds for education are allocated in the form of flat grants on a per pupil (ADl1) basis, calculated by dividing the total avail- able funds by che Stace's adjusted ADl1 for che previous 1ea=. Sach dist:=icc =eceives the same Jollar amount regardless of property T,,/'ealch. 19. Ace '.lo. 1100 of 1979 provides :or adj us c:ients in base aid for c:.anges i:1 en=olluienc, but ch'e adjust.nenc does not elil!li::iace che effects of che district hold-har.;iless prior to 1900, and und~ Act 1100 of 1979, ear_ier inequities built into the system ~\"'ill continue to be carr~ed forwa=d on a per pupil bas is . . ?lac ~ants and T,,/'eighcing can be disequalizing factors. 20. Under Act No. 1100 of 1979, one-half of the funds left ave= after che dist=ibution of base aid is allocaced as \"equalization aid\". The funds are allocated on the basis of a 4 co 1 ratio on a graduated sliding scale bec~een key discicts =e?resencing che 5th and 95th percencile of all scude.~ts i., the scace ranked on thei= resource dece=i::iacion :-ate per AD11, a measure ot wealth. Disc:icts :,;ii:...'1. up co 200~ of w'i.e state average resou=ce rate par::ici?ate in the sliding scale aid. Discricts below che Sch per::encile receive che same amount of aid as disc=icts a:: w'i.e Sch percentile, although chey are poorer. 21. In Arkansas there is a scong relationship between a disc:icc's properi:\"f wealth and its available state and local revenues for elenentary apd secondary education. Dist.rices in the scace with high property wealth tend co have greater revenues for education, T,,/'hile low wealth districts tend to have less stace and local revenues. 22. The major determi.,anc of local revenues is disttict property wealth, and the amount of local r~venues thac a school district can raise is directly related to its property wealth. 23 .. There is a subs t.antial variation in che distribution of property wealth, mensured as equalized  assessed valua:ion per pupil in ave=age daily attendance (ADA) among the state's school dis::::-icts. In 1978-79 che range was f::-om $73,773 pe= pupil in Arkansas Ci.::y to $1853 in Gosnell. The state average assessed value per ADA in 1978-79 was $9611.18. 24. The wealthiest discricts, on average, raised about $753 more in local property taxes per pu?il than low wealth discric:s in 1978-79, and with scace aid, high wealth dist:=icts had approximately $532 more in state-local =evenues per pupil, or about 1;5 times the revenues of low wealth districts. 25. /!TI' aid increased 96. 757. per pu;i:..l in Li.:::le. Rock be~~een 1973-74 and 1980-31 or fron $229 co $452. Plai...,ti:: districc Al.~a's ai~ inc=e.aseci 119.87., or f=cm $306 co $704. 26. L, 1978-79, state and locaL revenues pe::pupil ranged from. a high of $2378 in A=kansas City co So73 in Caboc, one o= the. plai.,ti.= dis::::-iccs, a di:'::erence. of S1505 per pupil.. When the wealt:hiest: and the. pooresc a=e disregarded, c~e variation is from $1576 in Lierle. Roe~ ac c!ie. 95th pe=e..'1ci.le to $937 in Cedarville ac:. c..'1e 5c::i percentile. The. state average =evenues per ADA in 1978-79 1,;as $1158. 48. 27. :he range in revenues ai:,ong school dis.:=ic:s in Arkansas a::::ects a large number of children and is not Limited to c..~e ~ccremes of the disc=ibu:ion. Over 7~ of the pupils resided in school disaiccs with over $1500 per pupil in the state--ocal revenues while over 2ll resided in districts with less than $1000 in s cace-local revenues. fa 1978- 79, 2U dis::ricts with 239,725 students were below the state mean. This represented 557. of the districts and 567. of the students in the state. 28. \\Jhen school districts are classified by size it is sho= that wealth disparities in revenues are prevalent among both large and small districts. Among small districts with less than 350 s~Jdents, the highest wealth disc-ices =aise  a~out $583 more in local revenue pe= pupil than the lowest wealth dist=ic:s, buc receive only abouc $100 less in minimum foundation aid and in total stat?. aid , and a di~ference of some $481 in total sca:e-Local revenues occurs bet~een high and low wealth small districts. T~e sa  e pat:ern exists Eor large districts. The highest wealth districts raised $768 more per pupil than the lowest wealth districts. Eowever, minimum foundation program aid was only $203 less in high wealth districts, and other st.ace aid was r.early equa_ in the high and low wealth groups. As a result, high weal:h districts had about $563 more in scace-local revenues per pupil chan low wealth disc:iccs. 29. In che rare instances where some school districts in Arkansas do not need st.ace aid, they yec continue co receive ic. 30. '.1oney is a necP.ssicy :er achieving qu.ali:-:J education. There is a wide range in ~'\u003c?endicures per pupi~ among Arkansas school disc:iccs, and the variation in e::qiendicures is st::::-ongl:, related co c!isc:icc ;,ropercy ,;ealc.h and. st.ace and local revenues. 31. Disparic.ies in ~~pendi~~res per pupil among school disc-ices, co the ~~tent chat. they are , caused by variations in local distticc fiscal abili~,. a=e w-it.hout legitimate educational justi..:icacion and result in unequal education opportunities being made availalbe co chilc!re.n by Arknasas School disc=icts, including the eleven plaint.if: distticts. Students in lo_w-wealc.h districts receive inadequac.e and inferior educational opportunities compared to the high quality educational opporcunicie.s offered to students at.tending schools in high wealth districts, and there is a subscantial range a=ng school discricts in educational expendic-ures in the state, In 1970-79 the Ross Van tless e.i;penditures per pupil for the current operating expense amounted to $1859, -. while Ca.bot' s aounte.d to $693, or a difference of $1166 per pupil. The range. bet:1-1een Little Rock's $1466 ac the 95th percentile to plaintiff district Sheridan's $807 ac the Sch   percentile shows a difference of $659. The scace average for cu=ent: ~--q,endicures in 1978-79 was $1031.98. 32. Oiscriccs in che  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1635","title":"Court filings: District Court, the districts' reply to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to their motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching","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":["1996-12-23"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","North Little Rock School District","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Employee rights","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, the districts' reply to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to their motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching"],"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/1635"],"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":["70 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 DISTRIC'): COUR'r EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-86 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL r..: (' ~ 0 1996 L, I  J ... DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INT ERVEN ORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office 01 Deseg:ag:rc.on M.:in,iCfiilJ THE DISTRICTS' REPLY TO ADE'S RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF TEACHER RETIREMENT MATCHING INTRODUCTION INTERVENORS As one of the cornerstones to its defense, the State continues to pervert the literal language of the Settlement Agreement just as it previously did when the worker compensation and loss funding issues were on appeal. At page 1 of its brief served December 13, 1996 the State maintains that: [T]he language of the settlement agreement ... expressly permits the State to make fair and rational changes of general applicability to its school funding scheme. The Settlement Agreement authorizes such changes only as respects funds distributed through the \"funding formula\". As Robert Shaver clearly explained in his recent deposition attached as Exhibit \"A\": Q Back when we were operating under Act 34, if someone would mention the funding formula to you, what did that mean to you? A The distribution of minimum foundation program aid. 1 Q okay. And that did not include workers' compensation, for instance, did it? A No. Q Did not include teacher retirement matching? A No. Q Did not include health insurance? A No. Q They were never part of the funding formula? A Well, now, I think the funding formula is the way -- they were part of the total funding system. Q But they weren't part of the minimum foundation program aid distributed by the formula? A That's right. Thus, the teacher retirement issue clearly falls within the category of a \"program\" for which the State provided funding at the time of the- Settlement Agreement. Thus, the State should continue to fund these programs for these three districts so as to comply with the Settlement Agreement. THE SALARY ISSUE For the State to contend that the salary levels which prevail in these three districts are simply a matter of \"local choice\" is at best a naive assertion. The history of teacher strikes in all three districts, strikes bottomed on salary demands, is enough to belie this notion. Further, the very state standards mandated by the Arkansas state Board of Education in large measure dictate the 2 student teacher ratios that must be met by these and other districts. Further, and a factor unique to these three districts, is the presence of staffing requirements and ratios contained in the Desegregation Plan which further, and sometimes dramatically, dictate the level and intensity of staffing in these districts. With the exception of the Fort Smith School District, these three districts are the only districts in the State which must contend with powerful and aggressive teacher unions. Thus, the rationale which initially impressed this Court concerning workers' compensation becoming a responsibility of the school districts does not exist here. It was not contested that the shift of workers' compensation claim paying responsibility to the districts would prompt them to take measures to reduce their - workers' compensation costs. This rationale, under these unique facts, however, does not transfer to the issue of teacher retirement. The factors outlined above by and large dictate the necessary number of employees and the State law prohibition on reduction in teacher salaries creates a perpetual floor resulting in a level of employer matching that will never be reduced. Further, in the same session in which the State decided to shift teacher retirement costs to the districts, it further mandated a minimum salary law which will raise the perpetual floor even higher. Accordingly, it is disingenuous at best for the State to contend under the circumstances which prevail here, that these districts are in any position to significantly control either the number of their employees or their compensation. The State's argument loses all force and persuasion when one examines what the State did as regards ADE employees, Educational Cooperative employees, employees of the Department of Corrections School, employees of the Math \u0026 Science School in Hot Springs, Vocational Center employees, and the employees in Adult Education. It is undisputed that the State continues to pay 100% of the teacher retirement costs generated by those employees {See, ADE's response to Item #23 of the Districts' Statement of Undisputed Facts dated December 13, 1996). Not only does the State pay 100% of those costs, but it has requested, as a matter of \"priority\" additional sums for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to provide: \"For a six percent increase to provide for growth in staff and salaries.\" - See, Arkansas Budget System at pp. 14 and 31 attached as Exhibit B (hereafter \"ABS\") Thus, for the State to argue that the districts could eliminate unnecessary employees or reduce excessive salaries {State Brief at page 11) seems hypocritical when the State itself is seeking increases in its own appropriations to cover increases in the number of its employees and increases in their salaries. THE APPROPRIATION ISSUE There are at least two ways to discredit the State's current contention that no funds are contained in Act 1194 that were \"specifically earmarked or intended to satisfy school districts' teacher retirement contributions\" {State Brief at p. 15), and, by extension, for other matters such as health insurance, special 4 education, transportation aid, and certain former grants. One is to present testimony from knowledgeable witnesses such as Dr. Benny Gooden and the other is to simply look at what the State has in fact done or proposes to do. For fiscal year 1994-95, $1,233,546,155 was spent from the public school fund (See Imber, Finding of Fact No. 23). During that year, $123,000,000 was budgeted by ADE for teacher retirement matching, (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 24), a matter undisputed by the state. For fiscal year 1997, the public school fund appropriation is $1,456,697,089. (See Act 1194 at Sec. 1, p. 5625). As a matter of pure logic, and with the increases in the fund described above, the only conclusion that can be reached is that for obligations which continue today that were extant in 1994-95, the sums that were previously either paid directly by the state or appropriated as line items for distribution to the districts must be components of a fund that is forecast to be over $200,000,000 more than it was at the time of the Lake View decision. This logical outcome is amply supported by the State's own witnesses and documents. The most telling testimony comes from Dr. Bobbie Davis, Assistant Director for Finance and Administration, who testified: Q Under Act 34, there was set-aside funds for transportation costs. I believe districts received the funds based on the linear mileage rate or something to that effect; is that correct? A There was a formula you went by, yes. Q Is there such a formula for administration of 5 transportation funds now? A No, sir. Q How are those funds administered? A There are no identifiable transportation funds in Act 917. Q And why not? A Those dollars, or the total dollars, that were part of the previous funds, that went to public schools, were all consolidated into equalization funding. Q So that means all of the add-ons and weighted average factors that were distributed to districts, such as Brinkley, were, then, consolidated for approximately $300 million? A Into equalization, so they were no longer identifiable as those weighted things, yes. (Emphasis supplied.] (Davis deposition, pp. 6-7, attached as Exhibit \"B\") While the Arkansas Budget System attached as Exhibit \"C\" has - been reasonably well sanitized on this issue, certain significant concessions remain. ADE tells us at page 32 of the ABS that: Transportation Aid was eliminated under Act 1194 as a separate line item and incorporated into the new school funding formula. (Emphasis supplied.) 1 The ABS at page 23 informs us that: Act 917 of 1995 (the Equitable School Finance Act of 1995) and Act 1194 of 1995 (Appropriation Act for the Public School Fund) eliminated at-risk funding as a separate line item and combined approximately $30,000,000 into the State Equalization Funding Formula. 1Tellingly, for the next biennium, ADE has requested a line item appropriation of $10,000,000 each fiscal year \"to assist districts with high cost transportation.\" This is a \"priority request\" of ADE. See, Arkansas Budget System at p. 14. Apparently ADE is willing to consider \"needs\" issues when it suits it. 6 Similarly, at p. 11, the ABS states: \"Act 917 and 1194 for 1995 eliminated all at-risk tunding from the Department of Education's budget and shifted approximately $30.0 million into state Equalization Aid. [Emphasis added.] Act 1194, appended to the State's brief as an exhibit, at Item 28, reflects a $30,000,000 appropriation for at-risk grants and training for 1995-96, the last year that Act 34 operated. Accordingly, it is clear that in this category, the State recognizes that what used to be funded as a line item was folded into the 1996-97 appropriation for state equalization funding, the new near equivalency of MFPA under Act 34. The ABS also informs us at p. 34 as respect to grants to school districts: These payments are made to Missouri for educating students in North Arkansas who cannot get to their assigned district because Bull Shoals Lake separates them from their district and it would require a round trip of more than 35 miles. This program was incorporated into the school funding formula, but the Department is requesting a separate line item of $27,000 for the 1997- 99 biennium. [Emphasis added.] Again, in examining Act 1194 at Item 11, \"grants to school districts\", the identical figure, $27,000, was appropriated for 1995-96, the last year of operation of Act 34. In addition to this, the districts' assertion is supported by the deposition testimony of Dr. Charles Dyer, Superintendent of the Alma School District, the district that was the lead plaintiff in Alma v. Dupree, the original funding case. When asked what became of these items previously paid directly by the state, including teacher retirement and health insurance, Dr. Dyer explained his 7 understanding that: Q I always say that wrong. A billion, three hundred million, I'm sorry. A Okay, that's somewhere in the neighborhood, yes. Q All right. Do you know how that figure was built or gotten at, where it came from? A Only in general terms. Q Okay. I'll take that. A I can't remember exactly what the MFPA was. We had a substantial amount of money that was already targeted for MFPA, had about fifty billion [million) in transportation funds that was put over there. I say put over there. It was put together with the MFPA. Around a hundred and thirty-one, two or three million dollars of teacher retirement payments that was also put in. Somewhere in the mid-forty millions, forty-three, four or five million of payment for health insurance. Q Sure. A It was my thoughts that they were taking X number of dollars from the Department of Education that they had originally put out in all these other categories and put into one large pool. Q Yeah. A I think that's the same thing that you're saying. And then, in addition to that, they were putting in somewhere around $60,000,000.00 of additional money to come up to this 1.3 billion or one billion, two hundred and eighty-eight million or whatever that figure, somewhere in that neighborhood. These deposition pages are attached as Exhibit \"D\". Additionally, the expert witness engaged by the state in the Lake View case, Dr. Robert Rossmiller was asked these same questions and testified that: Q Can we agree, though, that by transferring that obligation to the school districts, both for paying teacher retirement and paying health insurance, that if the state put that money in the appropriation, it freed 8 up more money to flow through the equalization formula? A Yes. Q But do you know whether or not that happened? A Whether what happened? Q Do you know what became of the money that the state used to use to pay the teacher retirement and the health insurance? A I can only assume that it was put into this pool. I don't know specifically. I believe I heard yesterday that there is no appropriation for it. Q Yes. A So in that regard, it has disappeared. Now, where did it go? I assume it went into the equalization pool, but I don't know for sure. (Rossmiller Deposition, p. 115) These testimony abstracts are attached as Exhibit \"E\". The ABS explains the aid distribution changes as follows: Act 917 of 1995 changed the method the State uses to distribute aid to school districts. Prior to 1996-97 the Department of Education distributed the majority of state aid as Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA) . In addition, the state funded other programs such as Transportation Aid and At-Risk Grants by formulas or based on need. The State also paid Teacher Retirement Matching and Health Insurance Matching on behalf of school districts. The calculation for MFPA included addon weights for various categories such as Special Education, Isolated School Districts, Consolidation Incentives, Vocational Education and Centers, Gifted and Talented Students, and growth and loss funding. Act 917 now requires State Equalization Funding to be distributed to districts based on the number of students, Average Daily Membership (ADM), equalized by the wealth of the district. The purpose of this funding is to equalize the disparities of property wealth throughout Arkansas. (ABS at p. 29). The structure of this explanation by ADE strongly suggests the recognition that the sums previously paid through MFPA, as teacher 9 retirement matching and health insurance matching, and as transportation aid and at-risk grants are simply now distributed as state equalization funds. Finally, the State complains that the districts are isolating certain funding programs and not considering the new formula outcomes as a whole. First, the Settlement Agreement specifically provides for the districts' approach when it sets forth the State's obligation to continue funding \"programs\" for these three districts when it has historically funded them. Second, the calculations of Mr. Green offered for the proposition that the PCSSD does better under the new formula than the old are unadjusted for the increases in teacher retirement and health insurance costs that the PCSSD is experiencing this year and instead rely upon data from the previous school year. Exhibit \"F\" demonstrates that even in utilizing Mr. Green's analysis, the district loses over $100,000 as compared to last year. When that same analysis is further adjusted for the current effects of M-to-M transfers, the PCSSD is shown to be losing almost $1,000,000 as compared to last year. Further, the state makes no response whatever to PCSSD's analysis which accompanied this motion initially in which it compared Act 34 funding outcomes as if Act 34 were still in place and funded at current funding levels. That comparison demonstrates that the PCSSD is losing millions of dollars under the current scheme as compared to the previous 10 program. 2 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the districts' pray that their motion respecting teacher retirement be granted, for their costs, attorneys' fees, and all proper relief. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2000 Boatmen's Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-0808} NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-1122 Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501} 376-2011) By: II 2Given the holiday seasons, counsel for the PCSSD was not able to obtain similar analyses for the NLRSD and the LRSD but on their behalf would request permission to present those analyses as soon as reasonably possible. 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE on December 2.:i_, 1996, 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. o. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 J:jhsl050.030 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 Ms. Elizabeth Turner Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 ___,.\u003e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF - PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS SIXTH DIVISION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT * NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, * ARKANSAS, ET AL, Plaintiffs * 1 VERSUS * NO: 9 2 - 5 318 MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF * THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, ET AL, * Defendants * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VOLUME II DEPOSITION OF ROBERT E. SHAVER TAKEN BEFORE Vanessa C. Aucoin, Certified Court Reporter, LS Certificate No. 503, Bushman Court Reporting, 620 West Third Street, Suite 101, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 on Thursday, October 10, 1996 at the offices of the Attorney General, 200 Tower Building, 323 Center Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, commencing at 9:30 a.m. VANESSA C. AUCOIN, RPR, CCR BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 372-5115 I EXHIBIT A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 l. . Q. Back when we were operating under Act 34, if someone would mention the funding formula to you, what did that mean to you? A. The distribution of minimum foundation program aid. Q. Okay. And that did not include workers' compensation, for instance, did it? A. No. Q. Did not include teacher retirement matching? A. No. Q. Did not include health insurance? A. No. ... .. -- ~ Q. They were never part of any funding formula? A. Well, now, I think the funding formula is the way -- they were part of the total funding system. Q. But they weren't part of the minimum foundation program aid distributed by the formula? A. That's right. Q. Bob, I'm trying to -- I wrote this down. What did you have to say about the treatment of carry-over balances? Was that in the context of that's not necessarily tied to a particular appropriation? A. With respect to the comments a few minutes ago about whether or not there was a 60-million or VANESSA C. AUCOIN, RPR, CCR BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 372-5115  IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS SIXTH DIVISION LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS,; MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, IRMA MOREHOUSE, PRESIDENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE SCHOOL BOARD; GENORA FRAZIER, INDIVIDUALLY, IN HER CAPACITY AS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE ON BEHALF OF HER CUSTODIAL GRANDCHILDREN, LOUIS LONG, JR. AND CHRISTOPHER FRAZIER; HENRIETTA J. WILSON AND IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY; SIDNEY FITZHUGH, SR., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A MEMBER; VELMA LARKIN, AND ON BEHALF OF HER CHILDREN, TAWANNA LARKIN SUPERINTENDENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF THE LAKE VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25. PLAINTIFFS vs. No. 92-5318 MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; JIMMIE LOU FISHER LUMPKIN, TRASURER OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; REP. BOBBY HOGUE, SPEAKER OF THE ARKANSAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; STANLEY RUSS, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE ARKANSAS SENATE; ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; GENE WILHOIT, DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JAMES McCLARTY, CHAIRMAN; EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., MEMBER; CARLE. BAGGETT, MEMBER; GARY BEASLEY, MEMBER; MARTHA DIXON, MEMBER; WILLIAM B. FISHER, MEMBER; JAMES WHITMORE, MEMBER; LUKE GORDY, MEMBER; BETTY PICKETT, MEMBER; ELAINE SCOTT, MEMBER; RICHARD SMITH, MEMBER; SHERRY WALKER, MEMBER DEFENDANTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DISCOVERY DEPOSITION of Dr. Bobbie A. Davis Friday, October 11, 1996 2:45p.m. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * REPORTED BY: GRIGGS REPORTING SERVICE Alvah M. Griggs, CCR 1-501-633-2124 I EXHIBIT (3  6 1 Q We would meet, periodically, throughout the session, durin 2 days, you know, while our other jobs were going on. Sometimes 3 those meetings would go over into the evenings. We were asked to 4 respond to legislative proposals . We were asked to respond to 5 proposals by the Governor's Office. We were asked to, I guess, 6 be a \"think tank\" more than anything else. 7 Q Are you currently, fairly, familiar with t he 8 Administration's Act 917? 9 A I am familiar with it in kind of a general sense. I am not 10 the technician that Dr. Shaver or Tristan are -- certainly not. 11 Q 12 A Were you familiar with Act 34, in any way? Not in any -- when that was in place, I was an administrator 13 at school, certainly not at the day to day work that we are 14 now. 15 Q But, you as Superintendent of Brinkley Schools, you were 16 somewhat familiar with the plan -- 17 A 18 Q 19 A 20 Q Somewhat. Is that correct? Yes. Under Act 34, there was set-aside funds for transportation 21 costs. I believe districts received the funds based on the 22 linear millage rate or something to that effect; is that correct? 23 A There was a formula that you went by, yes. 24 Q Is there such a formula for administration of transportation 25 funds now? ALVAH M. GRIGGS, CCR 1-501-633-2124  1 A 2 Q 3 A 4 Q 5 A 7 No, sir. How are those funds administered? There are no identifiable transportation funds in Act 9-17. And why not? Those dollars, or the total dollars, that were part of the 6 previous funds, that went to public schools, were all 7 consolidated into equalization funding. 8 Q So that means all of the add-ons and weighted average 9 factors that were distributed to districts, such as Brinkley, 10 were, then, consolidated for approxomately $300 million? 11 A Into equalization, so they were no longer identifiabie as 12 those weighted things, yes. 13 Q '-14 A 15 Q Are there any weighted factors under 9-17? No. Under equalization the money is distributed by ADM. And, I believe, that you heard Mr. Green's testimony, I 16 believe that basically said that all of those funds were 17 considered under Category One for the purposes of meeting the 18 19 20 Federal Range Ratio; is that correct? A Right. Q Do you agree with that assessment? 21 A 22 Q I agree with that assessment, yes, sir. Now, in teacher -- under Act 34, Teacher Retirement was 23 distributed or paid by the State their portion. 24 25 Q MS. TURNER: Object to the form of the question. (Mr. Lewellen continuing) : Do you agree with Teacher ALVAH M. GRIGGS, CCR 1-501-633-2124 - -------- - ---------- l - . ,iilKANSAS BUDGET SYSTEM - AGENCI' l'ROGRAIH COMMENTARI' -- ---------------- _ _ __ 1_9_9_7_-_1_99_9 ________________ _ runuc SCIIOOL FllNll PRIORITY BlillllliSIS /\\l-lUSK GRANTS - Acl 917 and 1194 for 1995 diminalcd all al-risk funding fr11111 Ilic I h:par1n1cn1 of hl11ca1io11. s b11Jgcl anJ shiflcd approximalely $30.0 million inlo Slale Eq11aliza1ion t\\id. The fkparlmcnl is reqm:slillf! 1hat 1he follo\\\\ ing at-risk programs he conlinucd in 1he biennium. The priorily requesls lotaling S 17.1 million each liscal year can he sepa1 alcd inlo two parls. 1-'irsl. is a request for $7. 1 \u003e million to continue programs the agency plans to li111d in FY1\u003e7 with 1'11hlic School Fund balances. Second. is n rcq11csl fiir $9.2 million each fiscal year to conlinue funding for K-5 summer s1.:hool prog1ams. The re411est for $7 .9 million each fiscal year lo conlinue e:--.isling programs rnusis1i11g 111 l 'ollcge l'rcparalory Emichmcnl l'rngram ll 'l'l:1') (SI ,800,000). Early Childhood Training ($3,000.000). Limited English l'rolicicnc~ I I I I')($::!. I 00.000) and Training. Monitoring and Technical Assistance for Academic and Fiscal Dis1rcss ($1.000.000). CPL:1'-Dming the 191)5-96 school year lhe depa11111enl lumlcd -D scho11I disll ids and 1\u003e cooperali\\es 111 provide ACT training lo 3.41111 students. EARi. Y Cl IILDI 1000 lRAININ(i- In 1he I 1l1JS -% school year Al )I: dis11 ihu1cd $IA 111illiu11 to pro\\'iJe slilff ,.kvclopmenl 1rai11i111! for 5,555 K-5 teachers anJ ad111i11istrah1rs. t\\ddi1i1111ally. Al\u003eE pwvi1bl $1 .h 111illi1111 1'11r 1he K-4 crusade 10 1rain 2,319 leachcrs 1 he deparlment anticipates similar pnrticipatio11 in FY1J7 I l:P-Du1i11g the 1995-96 school year. the /\\UL dis11ihu1cJ $3,972.8 Ill dirc1.:ll) 1t1 schnul Jistiids In provide runJing for 1.1-:1' s1ude11ls for a two-year period. 1 his money sci vcd I . 'iK s111de11l in I 31 districls. /\\ I \u003eI : also p1 ovides $1110.0110 in 1.-ai11ing lo schoul dist, icls for these progrnms. The $2 .1 million priorily n:t111est each fiscal year ,..,ill rn111i1111e 10 liind the program at previous k\\'cls I RAININ(i, MONITORING AND IH.:I INH.'AI . ASSIS f/\\NCE- I his is a new rcq11ire111e111 i11 FY%. Act 915 of 1995. requires the department to identify school districls in academic and fiscal dis1ress. As a pail of 1hc process. 1he dcparlmenl is 1eq11i1ed tn provide !raining, 1111111i1oring. and technical assistann: 1111h11se school dislricts \\\\'ho a,e ide111ilicd as dis1resscd. 'I he p1iority runding is 1eq11i1c\u003cl l111.:nntinue 1his process -------------------- unrncron AGENCY PAGE A\u003c;ENCY PROGRAM AHKANSAS DEl'ARUIENI' OF Ellt.lCATIOO EXHIBIT GENE \\.lllJKHT C:OMMENTARV , 11 ~lt21 '---______ . __ __.___., C - - --------------------- AGENCY PROGRAM COMMENTARY L - 1\\RKANSAS BUDGET SYS1'EM _- ------------- ____19_ 9_7_-_1_99_9_ ________________ _J The n:quesl for $9.2 million each liscal year for s111nn1e1 sdlllol will allow 1he Alli: 111 rnntinue lo fund K-5 di1ec1 services for approximately 1S.000 sludents. This priority will provide runding 10 school disll ids 111 pay sun11ner sd1nol teacher salaries .-ind purchase instructional materials. ISOI.All:D FUNDING - The priority request of $272 .1100 in FY98 and $283 ,1100 in I Y11 \"ill provide $80.000 euch Ii seal year liir additional districts that may qualify for isolated status and $1 ')2 .0110 in FY9H and $111 , . 'i '.:! 11 in FYI)) li,r M:, grmvth in 11ase l.ocal lkve 1111 e Per Student. S Ill DEN r liROWTII - The priority request of $1110.lltltl em:h liscal year is neelkd In p11,, ide for 6'1~ growth in the Base l.ocal Re,ernie l'er Student and a growlh of approximately 7.400 students in growing di sll icts l\"hc lkp;11 t11ll.:111 Base I eve! li1r Student \u003c irnwth is $21 .\u003c, million. AODITIONAL BASE FlJNDINCi - The appropriation 1e4uest for Additional Base lu11di11g f11r the hiennium emling June 30, 1999, is based upon worst case sccmuio projections. The main concern of the flcpa,1mcnt is the \"I''\"\"' Inca! rc,wuc iucocascs in the Polaski ('unnly school dislricts of 1en pci-cenl. If that is in fact the situation beginning in FYl)H_ and all 111her c1111ditions rem;1in the same (1111mbcr of sludenls, assessment. and stale funding), then increases in Additional Base lullllill~ 111 $ I (1 -I million in FY98 and $20.4 million in FY 1 J') ,.,,ill he necessary for lhe state 10 meet the court test and abide by thc intent of The Fquitahlc School Finance S) stem Acl of I 995 . l\u003eEI' AIU MEN I\" OF COIWEC I ION - I he Al\u003eI: p1 i11rily rel1uesl uf $128..11111 i11 I Y1'8 and $16-l.Stl-l prm i1ks liir a \u003ci% inc1ease in the l\\asc I .ocal Revenue l'er Student. After the hudgct suh111issi11n, the Department uf ( 11rrecti1111 Sch11ol District (I)( 'SI\u003e) requested the A ni: suh111i1 .i request for additional funding for new schools they plan to open in the hiennirnn . The I\u003e( 'SD plans to establish schools al two (2) new prisons in FY97-98 . They anticipate an ADM gnm th or 400 students in l-'Y98 a111I I Oil in I Y99. The I)( 'SI) has requested the Department of Correction to fund the FY98 growth of $447.S0II and therealier thc ADI: 111 continue funding for FYIJ\u003c\u003e . n,c $447.S00 for FY99 nectls he considered as a priority rcquesl of the ADE. AGENCY DIRECTOR AHKANSAS DEl'AR'ltlENl' Of EllUCATIOO GENE \\.l[IJk)IT AGENCY PROGRAM COMMENTARY Hlt21 PAGE 12 ----------- ,ill KANSAS BUDGET S1'S1'EM AGENCY PROGRAM COMMENTARY 1997 - 1999 Pl JUI.IC SCIIOOI. EMPLOYEE INSlmANCI: - prll\\ ides for health insurance c11n11 ib111i11ns li,r emph\u003e) ees or 1he l'ouperalive b.l11ca1i1111 Service Areas. Vocational Centers and the school opcralcd hy the l)cpa1t111cnt of('tirreclilln 1'11e prioi-ity request of $36.030 in FY 1 18 a11d $74,222 in FY99 allows for a 6% t;rowlh in rates or employees. SPEClAl. EDUCATION SERVICES - The priority request of $747,630 each r1scal ) c,11 \"ill provide apprnpriatinn anJ hmJing ahove Base Level for the anticipated program needs of $3,747.630. The program ind mks $2.725 .llllll Ill n.:imbmscment to school districts for Special hlucation Supcrvisms. $402,630 for extended school year services. $50.0011 li,r ~L'I, i1:cs 111 foster children. $270.000 lor Regional Transitional Specialists. and $300.000 for consultants rm students \"\"i1h se,c1e disahili1ics COOl'ERATIVE 1:l\u003el lCA l'IONAL SERVICl~S Alff AS - I he priority request 111' $1.5211.IIIHI in FY98 and $116.000 i11 l-'Y9 1 \u003e will p10\\'i1k a Jistance learning classroom in each educational cooperative and one to he lncatcd in l'ulas~i ( ounty. The cost of each dassrnnm is '\\; 1 \u003e5 .0110 Continuing lim: charges arc projected at $7,250 per focility each year. rhe dis1a11cc ka111ing dassroon1s will he useJ li1r staff dcvdllpmcnl. student instruction, and to provide a statewide conununication netwrn k. DEBT SERVICE FUNDING SUPPLEMENT - 1 he Base l.evd appropriation or $21111 million is for olJ Jeht\", which is Jdincd as Jehl voted prior to fcbruary 22. J9()5. The priority request of$l0 0 million each r1sc.1l ~ca1 \\\\1111ld limd new clcht voted alier 1hat date. DIS'l RICT FISCAL CRISIS RELi L:.F - I he p1 iorit} 1eq11est ol a uegati\\'e $ I ll.11111illiu11 ..:ach year is tu eliminate the base kvcl appropriation. It is the understanding that the appropriation was l'nr one fiscal year lo p1m ide transition 1'11nJs hcca11sc of the changes in the method school fumling is distrihutetl. SI All: 1:QlJAI.IZA rlON AIIJ - the priority reL111csl or $71).255 .2 18 in i:'1'98 and $15 7. 7511 .338 in l Y 1\u003e1 \u003e prnvides ror a (1'1/o, increase each fiscal year and for the continuation of $5.203,218 h11dgc1cd from FY1)7 fund balances tin potential tleseg1egation cost. A(;J~NCY l\u003etnECTOlt AGENCY PAGE AHl\u003cANSAS DEl'AHUIENI' OF EJXJCATIOO GF.NE WllJK\u003eIT PROGRAM COMMENTARY Billi 13 I I [ 1\\RKANSAS BUDGE1' S1'S1'EM AGENCY PROGRAM COMMENTARI' ... ------------ 1997 - 1999 TEACIIER RETIREMENT MAlCI IINU - provides 1cad1cr rc1i1c111cn1 111a1chi11g 1111 e111pl11) ccs lllTllnpcralive l:duca1io11 Service 1\\reas, Vocalional Centers, and the school operated by the Ocpa11mc11t of Corn.:clion. 111 lhi!\u003e line i1c111. 1hc deparlmcnl has a base level budget of $2.1 million. The dcparlment was-required 10 increase 1hc FY97 hudgcl from lhc app111p1 i.1lill11 level of $1 .5 million Ill 1hc $2 .1 111 fully fund 1his program. The priority request of $126,000 in fYC)K anti $2S9.S60 in FY()\u003c) p1m idc!\u003e li11 a 6'!1, increase 111 provide for growth in stall and salaries. 11lANSPORTATION AID-The priority request of $10.8 million each liscal consist 111 ll\\11 prngra111s. First. is $8011.000 each liscal year Ill cunlinue 10 fund safely training for school hus drivers and mechanics. In FY1 Jl1 lhc .\\1)1 : 11.1i11cd 7.:wo d1ivcrs and 2411111ccha11ics. I he department plans to utilize Public School Fund balances 111 rnn1in11e lhc p1ogra111 in FY1J7 111 addililln. $10.11 is req11es1ctl each tiscal year 111 assist dislricts with high cost transportation. RESIDENTIAL CENTERS - 1 he priorily re4uest of $85b.22 I in FY98 and $9111Ul(1::! 1111 I Y1J 1 J is to provide adtli1ional funding for anticipated growth in student placeme.nt at approved rcsidcnlial treat1nent fadli1ics a11d 1 111 j11n:nik dclention facililics. D111ing the 199S-IJ6 school year there was an increase of approximately I Oil new heds in lhe rcsi1lc111ial farililics. Sludenls a1e lhc responsih "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1643","title":"District Court, affidavit of Sam Jones","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":["Jones, Sam"],"dc_date":["1996-12-02"],"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","United States. District Court (Arkansas : Eastern District)","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, affidavit of Sam Jones"],"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/1643"],"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":["44 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. LR-C-82-~. 1 ~ l-'f (:1 ~en n PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL ':::..~~f ~/~ti, DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. r;;;_,~_;. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. AFFIDAVIT OF SAM JONES 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS 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 State beginning April 28, 1994 and continuing through November 27, 1996. I have supervised the process of removing time entries which did not relate to these claims and have reviewed the resultant narratives for accuracy. It is my professional belief that the narratives submitted as Exhibit A reasonably reflect time actually spent and devoted toward the prosecution of these claims against the State. Exhibit B represents the total hours expended during this timeframe by each timekeeper. The individual totals are derived from adding the time spent each month as reflected at the end of each individual statement. Because of the financial circumstances of the PCSSD, we have represented thea in this matter at reduced hourly rates. My standard rate for clients during 1996 was $175. 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 $145.00 an hour. She too has represented the PCSSD in this matter at the reduced hourly rate of $110.00 an hour. Angell Jones is 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. 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 $55.00 an hour and that is what she was paid by the PCSSD during 1996. However, prior to that her hourly rate for the PCSSD was $40.00 an hour. Denise Compton was a paralegal in the Litigation Support Department. She was replaced by Valerie Bryant and her duties were similar. Ms. Compton's hourly rate was $55. 00. Similarly, 2 Jennifer Thompson was the precursor to Ms. Compton. Ms. Thompson's hourly rate was $55.00. The remaining timekeepers are document clerks within the Litigation Support Department. Their principal function is to update the database and to chronicle and organize the documents and pleadings as they are received. They have been paid their normal. hourly rates which are: Leta Hudson $25.00; Joanne Sorn $25.00; M.A. Gocke $25.00; and A. Haguewood $25.00. I respectfully submit that a total fee award of hours multiplied by standard 1996 rates would be appropriate in this matter. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a notary public, this ~l day ofDe\u003c..r..,rtlJ.k-:, 199,. ~ / / \u003c)G-z-~ r11- Ki?::'\"'--~ My Commission Expires: ~ ? :i :;:c 00 C:-- 1 Notary Public  U 3 Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By _ _fL.~~~'.'.::::::::;/::::.!-;._=-----M. Att Spe I (76060) Pulaski County District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December ,)._' 1996, 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 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 II Dr. Don Stewart WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 June 16, 1994 Pulaski County Special School Distri Invoice I 93261 Post Office Box 8601 Client Number 005406 Little Rock, AR 72216 Matter Number 035919 Re: Little Rock School District v. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED THROUGH 02/28/95: Date Timekeeper Hours 04/28/94 04/28/94 ~/28/94 -/28/94 05/09/94 05/10/94 05/11/94 05/24/96 05/24/94 05/24/94 05/25/94 A. Jones A. Jones S. Jones s. Jones s. Jones S. Jones S. Jones s. Jones S. Jones s. Jones s. Jones TIMEKEEPER TIME SUMMARY: Timekeeper MS Jones, III .Jones Confer with Dr. Stewart regarding hearing Confer with Mr. Jones regarding hearing Telephone conference with Chris Heller Monitor hearing in Chancery Court regarding school funding Review correspondence from Robbie Keopple, President of Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers Review order scheduling July hearings Review Gene Wilhoit deposition Telephone conference with Chris Heller and Elizabeth Boyter Telephone conference with Don Stewart regarding workers' compensation issue Telephone conference with Don Stewart and Chris Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Lester 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total For Services TOTAL THIS STATEMENT $352.00 $352.00 Hours 3.0 at .4 at Rate $110 = $55 = Value 330.00 22.00 I EXHIBIT Mr. Don Stewart WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Pulaski County Special School Distri Post Office Box 8601 Invoice Number Invoice Date Client Number North Little Rock, AR 72216 Matter Number Re: Little Rock School District v. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED THROUGH 10/31/94: 1378 12/06/94 005406 014007 Date Timekeeper Hours 07/06/94 07/07/94 07/07/94 07/07/94 07/15/94 - /15/94 07/18/94 07/21/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 e, /25/94 MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant Telephone conference with Steve Jones regarding workers' compensation and MFPA Telephone conference with Mr. Lester Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Lester Review joint motion to enforce settlement agreement Telephone conference with Barry in Judge Wright's office. Review Brief in Support of Joint Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement regarding Joshua/Knight Review correspondence from Mr. Walker Rescheduling settlement agreement meeting to 8/4/94. Telephone conference with Mr. Heller and Dr. Stewart. Prepare Special language for subpoena duces tecum. Telephone conference with Elizabeth Boyter Telephone conference with Don Stewart Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart regarding various issues. Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart Telephone conference with Chris Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Heller and Mr. Humphries Telephone conference with Mr. Heller and Ms. B'oyter Prepare memorandum to Angell Jones regarding review of PCSSD materials Prepare motion and brief regarding 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 ./26/94 07/26/94 07/26/94 07/26/94 07/26/94 07/26/94 07/26/94 07/26/94 07/27/94 07/27/94 07/27/94 07/27/94 07/27/94 07/27/94 07/27/94 07/27/94 M/28/94 -/28/94 07/28/94 07/28/94 07/28/94 07/28/94 07/29/94 07/29/94 07/29/94 07/29/94 08/19/94 08/19/94 08/19/94 08/19/94 08/19/94 08/22/94 08/22/94 08/22/94 ./23/94 MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III A Jones A Jones A Jones MS Jones, III V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant A Jones MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant A Jones A Jones MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III A Jones MS Jones, III MS Jones, III A Jones A Jones MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III A Jones settlement agreement for attorney review Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart and Mr. Heller to prepare for hearing Prepare response to joint motion Telephone conference with Chris Heller regarding reply to state position Telephone conference with Charlotte at PCSSD Confer with Valerie Bryant regarding hearing preparation Prepare for hearing Review correspondence from ADE with response to the LRSD and Joshua intervenors joint motion to enforce settlement agreement Confer with Angell Jones regarding hearing preparation Telephone conference with Don Stewart and Bobby Lester Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Prepare for hearing Hearing preparation Organize materials for hearing Telephone conference with Don Stewart Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Review Invoice from PST\u0026T for special service on Gene Wilhoit Hearing in federal court Review ADE amended response to the LRSD and the Jushua intervenors' joint motion to enforce settlement agreement Update docket via Pacer Prepare documents for hearing Attend hearing in Federal Court Prepare for hearing Hearing in federal court Confer with Mr. Miller, Mr. Lester and Dr. Stewart Telephone conference with Mr. Lester Telephone conference with Jerry Malone and Dr. Don Stewart Organize materials for Sam Jones for developing brief on loss funding formula Telephone conference with Don Stewart Work on motion for loss funding Confer with Sam Jones regarding Brief Confer with Sam Jones regarding Exhibits to Brief Work on motion and brief regarding loss funding Telephone Telephone Telephone regarding conference with Don Stewart conference with Dr. Stewart conference with Sam Jones depositions 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.2 1.3 2.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 6.8 0.1 0.5 0.4 1.9 0.5 2.2 1.0 0.4 0.2 1.9 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.2 1.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 08/23/94 - /23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 - /24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 - /25/94 A Jones A Jones A Jones A Jones A Jones MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant B Benjamin MS Jones, III  MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III A Jones A Jones A Jones A Jones V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant Confer with Valerie Bryant regarding service copies of brief Telephone conference with Chris Heller with Sam Jones regarding brief and motions Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart with Sam Jones regarding loss funding Telephone conference with Valerie Bryant regarding brief Review correspondence regarding depositions of ADE Employees Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Heller and Jay Charles Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Sam Jones and Mr. Heller regarding preparation for hearing and depositions Telephone conference with Sam Jones and Dr. Stewart regarding preparation for hearing and depositions Confer with Angell Jones regarding preparation for hearing Preparation for deposition of Robert Shaver Attend deposition of of Robert Shaver Preparation for depositions to be continued on August 26 and for September 12 hearing Confer with Angell Jones regarding cancellation of depositions Westlaw Computer Act Telephone conference with Mr. Heller and Valarie Bryant to prepare for hearing Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart and Valarie Bryant regarding exhibits for hearing Prepare for Shaver deposition Deposition of Robert Shaver Confer with Valerie Bryant Confer with Valerie Bryant Assist Valerie Bryant regarding subpoenas for hearing, FOI request, legislation Telephone conference with Berniece Benjamin regarding Act 1034 and Act 668 - twice Work on FOI request to Impac Learning Services Prepare project outline for hearing Prepare for September 12 hearing Telephone conference with Berniece Benjamin regarding Worker's Compensation 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.8 3.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 1. 3 1.3 1.8 0.2 -/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 -/26/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 08/29/94 08/29/94 08/29/94 08/29/94 08/29/94 08/29/94 08/30/94 08/30/94 - /30/94 V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant A Haguewood MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III A Jones A Jones A Jones A Jones L Hudson B Benjamin B Benjamin V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III Legislation Telephone conference with John Walker's office confirming depositions Confer with Angell Jones regarding depositions scheduled for August 26th Prepare for depositions scheduled for August 26th RFP document production Prepare for deposition Deposition of Weiss and Shaver Telephone conference with Mr. Walker regarding COE Telephone conference with Mr. Lester Confer with Valerie Bryant Prepare for depositions Work on FOI Request for Impac Learning Center Confer hearing Prepare labels with Valerie Bryant preparation computer-generated regarding subfile Research Lexis re: Workers' Compensation coverage Research Westlaw re: Workers' Compensation coverage Attend deposition of Richard Weiss Prepare for depositions of Richard Weiss and Robert Shaver Confer with Angell Jones regarding depositions Organize exhibits to Richard Weiss' depositions Telephone conference with Ann Brown Telephone conference with Mr. Lester Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart continue work on Loss Findings motion Telephone conference with Chris Heller Telephone conference with John Walker Telephone conference with Ray Scott Confer with Valerie Bryant Telephone conference with John Walker's office verifying schedule for depositions Confer with Sam Jones regarding issuance of subpoenas for hearing Telephone conference with Sam Jones and Ray Scott of Impac Learning Systems regarding FOI request Telephone conference with Chris Heller and Steve Jones Telephone conference with Mr. Walker settlement conference at John Walker's office 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.5 3.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 1.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 3.2 08/30/94 -/30/94 08/30/94 08/31/94 08/31/94 08/31/94 08/31/94 08/31/94 08/31/94 08/31/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/02/94 09/05/94 -/05/94 ~/06/94 09/06/94 09/06/94 09/06/94 09/06/94 09/06/94 09/06/94 09/07/94 09/09/94 09/09/94 09/09/94 09/09/94 09/10/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 -/12/94 V Bryant V Bryant JD Thompson V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III A Jones V Bryant MA Gocke MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III L Hudson A Jones V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III Prepare fax transmittal to Mr. Bowles regarding settlement conference Work on issuance of subpoenas and witness check for September 12 hearing Assist with preparation of subpoenas Preparation for hearing scheduled for September 12 Telephone conference with Ray Scott Telephone conference with Tim Humphries Telephone conference with John Walker Review records at computer center Work on stipulation for friday hearing Telephone conference with Mr. Walker Prepare documents from APSCN office for attorney review Update docket via Pacer Work on filing of subpoenas with Court Telephone conference with clerk regarding exhibits to July budget hearing Review correspondence and pleadings and transmit copies to the school district Review correspondence and pleadings and prepare for attorney review and for transmittal to district Work on exhibits for September 12 hearings Assist with hearing preparation Prepare witness list and exhibits for submission to parties Prepare Exhibits for Hearing Telephone conference with Mr. Lester regarding hearing Telephone conference with Don Telephone conference with Don Telephone conference with Don Generate document production address label,s Stewart Stewart Stewart labels and Review and organize file materials Telephone conference with Sam Jones regarding notification of hearing date to subpoenaed witnesses Notify subpoenaed witnesses of scheduled hearing date Confer with Susan Franks regarding Robert Shaver's deposition Telephone conference with Chris Heller and Dale Hanson Notify subpoenaed witnesses of scheduled hearing date Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart and Mr. Bryant Confer with Ms. Bryant 0.2 3.5 1.3 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 3.4 0.7 0.2 1.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.8 3.5 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 09/12/94 -/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 -/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 09/15/94 09/15/94 09/15/94  /15/94 /15/94 MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant v Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant Confer with Ms. Bryant regarding ASCPN documents Telephone conference with APSCN office regarding additional information to FOI request Telephone conference with Sam Jones regarding follow-up to FOI request to APSCN Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart and Sam Jones regarding witness and exhibit lists for hearing Telephone conference with Walter Smiley's office regarding hearing Prepare exhibits for attorney review Transmit ADE's response to joint motion to Dr. Stewart Preparation for hearing Telephone conference with Stephanie Branton, court reporter regarding depositions of Weiss and Shaver Telephone conference with Ms. Horner from Walter Smiley's office regarding hearing Telephone conference with subpoenaed witnesses regarding hearing Telephone conference with Don Stewart Telephone conference with Mr. Heller and Dr. Stewart Telephone conference with John Walker and Chris Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Walker, Chris Heller, and Ann Brown Confer with Valerie Bryant Telephone conference with Mr. Humphries regarding computer issues Preparations for hearing Telephone conference with Sharon Street Telephone conference with Don Stewart continue preparation for hearing Confer with Mr. Heller, Ms. STreet, and Mr. Walker continue hearing preparations at home Preparation for hearing Attend hearing on Motions to Enforce Settlement Agreement Telephone conference with Sam Jones regarding IMPAC Learning Systems correspondence from John Walker Hearing in Federal Court Hearing in Federal court Prepare for third day of hearings correspondence from John Walker correspondence from John Walker Prepare memorandum to Sam Jones 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 3.8 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 1.3 0.2 0.2 1.6 1.2 2.7 0.8 6.5 0.2 0.1 6.9 7.9 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.3 - /15/94 09/15/94 09/15/94 09/15/94 09/16/94 09/16/94 09/20/94 09/20/94 09/20/94 09/21/94 09/21/94 09/21/94 09/21/94 09/22/94 09/28/94 09/28/94 - /28/94 09/29/94 09/29/94 09/29/94 09/30/94 09/30/94 09/30/94 09/30/94 10/03/94 10/03/94 10/03/94 10/03/94 10/03/94 10/03/94 10/03/94 10/04/94 10/04/94 10/04/94 - /04/94 V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant A Haguewood MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III regarding Impac Learning Systems and Walter Smiley Telephone conference with Walter Smiley's office regarding hearing Telephone conference with Berniece Benjamin regarding computer research on Impac Learning Systems Telephone conference with Secretary of State's office regarding Impac Learning systems Preparation for hearing Prepare for third day of hearings Hearing in Federal Court Review Charts regarding wee for Stewart Preparation for hearing on September 21st Telephone conference with Court regarding time for hearing Final preparation of resumption of hearing hearing in Federal Court Confer with Mr. Allen and Dr. Stewart Preparation for hearing Correspondence from USDC Clerk with Certificates Prepare memo to Ms. Bryant. Confer with Sam Jones regarding witness checks Confer with Sam Jones regarding brief deadlines Confer with Ms. Bryant. Preparation for loss funding and computer brief Prepare letters to Julie Rhodes, Gene Wilhoit and Richard Nagel Work on post hearing brief regarding funding issue. Telephone conference with Don Stewart. Telephone conference with Steve Jones. Review correspondence from Gene Wilhoit. Review correspondence from Sheila Freeman. Telephone conference with Chris Heller. Telephone conference with Mark Burnett. Work on post hearing brief. Telephone conference with Chris Heller. Telephone conference with Chris Heller. Confer with Sam Jones regarding brief Review State and ADE's Post-Hearing Brief. Review LRSD, PCSSD and Joshua Intervenors Joint Post-Hearing Brief. Review final brief. Telephone conference with Mr. Heller. 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.0 1.3 5.3 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.5 6.5 0.5 1. 3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 4.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 10/04/94 MS Jones, III ~ /04/94 MS Jones, III /05/94 MS Jones, III /07/94 MS Jones, III 10/07/94 MS Jones, III 10/10/94 MS Jones, III 10/10/94 MS Jones, III 10/11/94 MS Jones, III 10/28/94 MS Jones, III TIMEKEEPER TIME SUMMARY: Timekeeper ------------------------- MS Jones, III B Benjamin V Bryant A Jones  Thompson Gocke A Haguewood L Hudson Review ADE brief. Telephone conference with Chris Heller. Telephone conference with Steve Jones. Telephone conference with Mr. Lester. Telephone conference with Don Stewart. Telephone conference with Steve Jones. Review correspondence from John Walker. Telephone conference with Chris Heller. Review post-hearing memorandum of NLR District regarding ADE funding issues. Review correspondence from Rick regarding witness check. Hours Rate -------------------- 96.6 at $110 0.7 at $40 50.2 at $45 11.8 at $55 1.3 at $45 1.2 at $25 1.3 at $25 1.0 at $20 = = = = = = = = TOTAL HOURS Value 10,626.00 28.00 2,259.00 649.00 58.50 30.00 32.50 20.00 Nagel CURRENT FEES $ 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 ----- 164.1 13,703.00 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Dr. Don Stewart Pulaski County Special School Distri Post Office Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Re: Little Rock School District V. Invoice Number Invoice Date Client Number Matter Number FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED THROUGH 02/28/95: 4474 03/27/95 005406 014007 Date Timekeeper Hours 01/12/95 01/13/95 01/13/95 01/17/95 ~ /17/95 Wi11a/95 01/19/95 01/19/95 01/25/95 01/25/95 01/25/95 01/25/95 01/25/95 01/25/95 01/25/95 01/26/95 01/27/95 01/27/95 01/30/95 01/31/95 01/31/95 02/13/95 02/15/95 .;. /15/95 . /17/95 MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III JD Thompson Telephone conference with Mr. Palnick Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding Order Telephone conference with Don Stewart Telephone conference with Mr. Bowles Confer with Mr. Spivey regarding majority to minority issues Telephone conference with Mr. Lester Review Minority to Majority stipulation Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Chris Heller and Steve Jones Telephone conference with Chris Heller Telephone conference with Chris Heller and Tim Humphries Telephone conference with Don Stewart Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Heller and Mr. Walker Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Lester Telephone conference with Mr. Heller and Mr. Jones Telephone conference with Chris Heller Telephone conference with Don Stewart Review motion to extend time and notice of filing by LRSD Review ADE notice of appeal Telephone conference with Chris Heller Review USDC notice of appeal Confer with Valerie Bryant regarding 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 -/17 /95 JD Thompson 02/17/95 V Bryant 02/17/95 V Bryant 02/17/95 V Bryant 02/17/95 L Hudson 02/17/95 MS Jones, III 02/17/95 MS Jones, III 02/17/95 MS Jones, III 02/20/95 MS Jones, III 02/20/95 MS Jones, III 02/20/95 MS Jones, III 02/21/95 MS Jones, III 02/21/95 MS Jones, III TIMEKEEPER TIME SUMMARY: Timekeeper MS Jones, III V Bryant JD Thompson L Hudson computer search for documents pertaining to state Aid Computer search of documents regarding State Aid to PCSSD Telephone conference with Sam Jones regarding documents needed for preparation of brief Confer with Jennifer Thompson regarding documentation regarding state aid Organize documents in preparation for brief for attorney review Organize pleadings for attorney review Work on response to State's motion for stay Telephone conference with Chris Heller Telephone conference with Valerie Bryant regarding documents needed for preparation of brief Review State of Arkansas' letter regarding appendix for appeal Review and revise response to stay Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Mark Pryor school funding Telephone conference Hours Rate -------------------- 10.5 at $135 1.2 at $45 3.2 at $55 2.6 at $25 with Mr. Heller TOTAL HOURS = = = = Value 1,417.50 54.00 176.00 65.00 -re CURRENT FEES $ 2 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.8 2.6 2.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 ----- 17.5 1,712.50 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Dr. Don Stewart Pulaski County Special School Distri Post Office Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Re: Claim for attorney's fees Invoice Number Invoice Date Client Number Matter Number FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED THROUGH 02/28/95: 4476 03/27/95 005406 035919 Date Timekeeper Hours 01/25/95 01/26/95 . /26/95 01/27/95 01/30/95 01/30/95 02/01/95 02/06/95 02/07/95 02/08/95 02/08/95 02/09/95 02/13/95 02/15/95 MS Jones, III JD Thompson JD Thompson JD Thompson JD Thompson JD Thompson JD Thompson MS Jones, III JD Thompson JD Thompson JD Thompson JD Thompson JD Thompson JD Thompson Confer with Jennifer Thompson re fee petition Confer with Sam Jones regarding fee petition Organize accounting records regarding time spent on loss funding, computers, and workers compensation Work on calculations for fee petition Prepare accounting of all time spent on loss funding, APSCN and workers' comp. Prepare accounting narrative for fee petition Work on narrative Review order regarding extension to file for attorney fees Work on narrative for fee petition Work on narrative for fee petition Prepare memorandum to file regarding status of narrative Review and revise narrative Review and revise narrative Finalize narrative for fee petition 0.2 0.3 4.4 3.9 1.2 1.7 2.4 0.1 2.1 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.6  5406 35919 /27/95 Pulaski County Special School District Claim for attorney's fees TIMEKEEPER TIME SUMMARY: Timekeeper MS Jones, III JD Thompson Hours 0.3 18.8 CURRENT FEES at at Rate $135 = $55 = Invoice Number Page 2 TOTAL HOURS Value 40.50 1,034.00 $ 4476 19.1 1,074.50 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Mr. Don Stewart Invoice Number Invoice Date Client Number Matter Number 5451 04/26/95 005406 014007 Pulaski County Special School Distri Post Office Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Re: Little Rock School District V. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED THROUGH 03/31/95: Date Timekeeper -------- ---------- 03/01/95 MS Jones, III 03/03/95 MS Jones, III 03/06/95 - /10/95 JD Thompson MS Jones, III /10/95 MS Jones, III 03/13/95 MS Jones, III 03/20/95 MS Jones, III 03/22/95 MS Jones, III TIMEKEEPER TIME SUMMARY: Timekeeper MS Jones, III JD Thompson Hours Review reply brief on motion for stay 0.1 Review Court of Appeals docketing 0.1 Docket ADE Appeal 0.4 Telephone conference with Chris Heller 0.6 Review ADE's appeals filings 0.1 Telephone conference with Chris Heller 0.6 Review Joshua's Eighth Circuit filings 0.1 Confer with Mr. Spivey regarding M-to-M 0.2 issues Hours 1.8  4 at at Rate $135 = $55 = TOTAL HOURS Value 243.00 22.00 2.2 CURRENT FEES $ 265.00 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Mr. Don Stewart Pulaski County Special School Distri Post Office Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Re: Little Rock School District v. Invoice Number Invoice Date Client Number Matter Number FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED THROUGH 05/31/95: 6743 06/14/95 005406 014007 Date Timekeeper Hours 04/03/95 04/05/95 .4/10/95 04/12/95 04/12/95 04/12/95 04/13/95 04/13/95 04/13/95 04/13/95 04/13/95 04/17/95 04/19/95 04/19/95 04/20/95 04/26/95 04/26/95 JIM/26/95 W4/26/95 MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III JD Thompson MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III Review Dr. Stewart's letter regarding payment by ADE pursuant to court order Review State and ADE's motion for stay pending appeal Telephone conference with Clerk, Court of Appeals Telephone conference with Mr. Gauger Confer with Steve Jones Work on response to State stay request to court of appeals Review and revise response to stay motion Telephone conference with Chris Heller Telephone conference with John Walker Review State's request for extension to file brief Legal research regarding 1991 Appeal in preparation for Response to Motion to Stay Pending Appeal Review ADE's calculations pursuant to Court's 1/13/95 ruling Review court's order granting appellant extension to file brief Telephone conference with Steve Jones Prepare correspondence to Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Lester and Dr. Stewart regarding State calculations Telephone conference with Ms. Boyter Telephone conference with Mr. Lester Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.9 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 04/26/95 . /28/95 05/08/95 05/08/95 05/08/95 05/09/95 MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III TIMEKEEPER TIME SUMMARY: Timekeeper MS Jones, III JD Thompson Prepare correspondence to Mr. Gauger Telephone conference with Bobby Lester and Dr. Stewart Preliminary review of state's opening brief Work on response to State's brief Telephone conference with Billy Bowles Telephone conference with Sandi in Judge Wright's office Hours 8.2 .9 at at Rate $135 = $55 = TOTAL HOURS Value 1,107.00 49.50 CURRENT FEES $ 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.2 9.1 1,156.50 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkans~s 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Mr. Don Stewart Pulaski County Special School Distri Post Office Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Re: Claim for attorney's fees Invoice Number Invoice Date Client Number Matter Number FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED THROUGH 05/31/95: 6748 06/14 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1656","title":"Court filings concerning 1996-97 budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, LRSD 1998 program planning and budgeting tool, Amicus Curaie's response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment of the Little Rock School District, and PCSSD's statement of material and undisputed facts on the issue of teacher retirement matching","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":["1996-12"],"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","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning 1996-97 budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, LRSD 1998 program planning and budgeting tool, Amicus Curaie's response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment of the Little Rock School District, and PCSSD's statement of material and undisputed facts on the issue of teacher retirement matching"],"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/1656"],"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":["38 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, order; District Court, motion for approval of plan development period; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for approval of plan development period; District Court, order; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, motion; District Court, brief in support of motion; District Court, order; District Court, response to Knight et al.'s motion; District Court, objections of the Joshua intervenors to the proposed 1996-97 budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring; District Court, motion to withdraw pleading; District Court, response of the Joshua intervenors to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for the approval of a plan development period; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua motion to request Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1998 program planning and budgeting tool; District Court,Amicus Curaie's response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); District Court,Amicus Curiae's response to Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) statement of material and undisputed facts on the issue of teacher retirement matching; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  12 D: 1996 16 : 51 FROM JOHN W. WAL~ ER P . A. TO :::;- 10100 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEL U 2. 1996 EAST~E~~~I~vi!I~SAM~ES 'r'v. 1v1t.vvn111nvr., \\;LERK By: -------- LI TTL E 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 W. KNIGHT, ET AL. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIMB OEP CLERK The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court for an order extending to them the same time as requested by the Arkansas Department of Education in which to file a response to the Office of Desegregation proposed 1996-97 budget. For its motion, Joshua states: 1. Due to trial in Texarkana, Arkansas before the Honorable Judge Harry Barnes and absence from the city on Thanksgiving, plaintiff did not formally meet the response deadline herein. 2. The Joshua Intervenors have previously advised the ODM that ODM's budget was too low and asked the ODM to bring their position to the attention of the Court. 3. There is no prejudice to any party by granting the motion to extend the time or to file our of time. WBBRBPORB, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the Court enter an order allowing them until Oecelllber 13, 1996 in p . 0.:: 12 02, 1995 16 : 52 FROM JOHN W. WALI EP P . A. TO 3 71 0100 - which to respond to the ODM budget request. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 certificate of Service I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was sent via facsimile to all counsel of record on this 2nd day of December, 1996. P . 03 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., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRDER r~~~ :;-~~\\ 11~ . ;:~~  ; 1.~~ ,; .,; J; ... 7;-,.,:7 :_: :_::J~T [i,~T~~~i G.$--;-:r_:-: 1 ,\\r~:A,~SAS Before the Court are the motions of the Arkansas Department of Education (\" ADE\") for _ extensions of time to file objections to the 1996-97 ODM budget (see docket entry 2852) and to respond to the motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching (see docket entry 2862). The motions (docket entries 2871 \u0026 2873) are granted. The ADE has until and including December 13, 1996, within which to file its objections and response to the motion for summary judgment No further extensions will be granted. SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December 1996. 1/ l/, )ii:'~i;\\ r ~-HS Q~)C~J~/:f:i!T t:i\\JT~1EQ r:~~ ~(::..:i-\u003cET Sr.E:=- 1i -: -~.t~,1?LL\\~~C~ \\~  ,TH :7U:..'.= :.; ;\\;O/OR 79{c.} rsc:=- 'JN ~/3 /f 0 BY _kt~~-- ~-- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 RE: ~ a ~. l! \"\"'\"' -. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL _;1::. y -  .. DEC ~ 1996 DEFENDANTS Office of Dese~rsgat1011 :.ion1tonnfINTERVENORS  -- I'NTERVENORS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERIOD The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion states: 1. This court has repeatedly expressed the view that LRSD - could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan mod if ica tions. The court has noted, however, that any proposed modifications must be developed by the parties and not the court. 2. LRSD can improve its educational program for all students and can enhance the prospects for the long term desegregation of the district if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task. LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ( \"ODM\") in order to develop and present to the court plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within - the district. 3. The Knight Intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for education and desegregation within LRSD. They are willing to work cooperatively with the other parties to develop such a plan. 4. PCSSD and NLRSD do not intend to become directly involved in the process of developing a modified education and desegregation plan for LRSD, except to the extent that the development of such a plan might impact interdistrict desegregation issues, but they support the effort described in this Motion. 5. LRSD expects that they can work cooperatively with all parties to present to the court within the next six to nine months a plan for improving education and desegregation in LRSD. This - plan will necessarily modify or replace certain components of the present LRSD Desegregation Plan. 6. LRSD and Joshua have met with the desegregation monitor to discuss ways in which LRSD, Joshua and ODM can work together toward improving education and desegregation in LRSD. ODM moni taring reports have shown the need for changes in LRSD' s approach to desegregation. ODM could, with this court's approval, support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD; by redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline r:-~.,,..... 2 issues; and by withholding any further monitoring of the current - LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this court authorize ODM to consult with the parties and participate in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD; to redeploy monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues; and, to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. 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-_2_0_1_1 __ _ BY: 3 Christopher Hell John c. Fendley, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peop~y depos~a copy of same in the United States mail on this day of~~ , 1996. 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 1.stopher Helle John C. Fendley, Jr. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEC (, DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS 1996 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Moni!oririiJ INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERIOD The Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), outlined the standard for modification of a consent decree: (A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving party meets this standard, the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id., at 393, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. The Eighth Circuit applied the Rufo standard in affirming this Court's decision granting LRSD's request to close Ish incentive school and to assign the former Ish attendance zone students to the new King interdistrict school. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). The Eighth Circuit stated, \"We are convinced that the closing of Ish advances [the goal of desegregation] by offering a desegregated setting for students within the Ish attendance zone alongside children from the 1:-\\fmdlcyllnd~ PCSSD. 11 Therefore, the Eighth Circuit has approved - modifications of the LRSD Desegregation Plan where the modifications further the goal of desegregation. Moreover, the LRSD Desegregation Plan was drafted with the expectation that modifications would be made as necessary to further the purposes of the plan. A six to nine month plan development period for the purpose of developing plan modifications would further the goal of desegregating LRSD. Improving education in LRSD is essential to maintaining current levels of desegregation and improving desegregation in the future. Modifications are also needed in other areas including budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues. ODM could, with this court's approval, support LRSD's efforts - by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD; by redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as 1The Eighth Circuit's reasoning is consistent with the rule of equity which allows a court to modify an equitable decree to further the purpose of the decree. See, e.g., Larken Minnesota, Inc. v. Wray, 881 F.Supp. 14i3, 1419 (D.Minn. 1995). It is also consistent with decisions from other jurisdictions which have identified a myriad of changed circumstances which justify modification. See, e.g., Jacksonville Branch, NAACP v. Duval County School Board, 978 F.2d 1574, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992) (\"Modification [of a consent decree) may be considered when (1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met, (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has a legitimate interest to be considered.\"). f:lhomolfclldloyllndlbri-1JWUlov 2 budget development, staff development, student assignment and - resolution of discipline issues; and by withholding any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. LRSD prays that ODM be authorized to support LRSD in this manner so that modifications of the LRSD Desegregation can be developed and so LRSD can take a step closer to its goal of providing all LRSD students a quality desegregated education. f:lbomolbdloy\\lodlbri-plaLdcv 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-~2~01=1.,___ BY: C. Fen 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peo(5\"7}PY depos~g~ of same in the United States mail on this day of~ , 1996. 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 f:lbomolfeadlcyllndll,rl.plan.dcv 4 - - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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. * * KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRDER F~lED U.S. OISTi:ICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEC O G 1996 JA~~ES ! ~C{lRMACK, CLER!( By. \\L \\~\\..{AA .. QA DEP CLERK \" DEC ~ 1996 Offics of Desegregation Monrrori~ Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in , which to file objections to the 1996-97 ODM budget (see docket entry 2852). The motion is granted. The Joshua Intervenors have until and including December 13, 1996, within which to file their objections. SO ORDERED this rf1''-- day of December 1996. ,7 'u 2 8 7 7 RECE DEC 1 1 1996 Office of Desegregation Monitormg IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION -~ ,, 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. * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FILED US DISTRICi COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEC 1 0 1996 JAME$ ~CORMACK, CLERK By:\\/. ~\\,V\\~ OEP CL.fRI( Before the Court are the motions of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") and the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") seeking attorney's fees and costs in connection with their efforts to enforce the Settlement Agreement with the State of Arkansas. Having carefully considered the motions, affidavits, responses, and briefs, the Court finds that the motions should be granted. I. In the summer of 1994, the moving parties challenged actions by the State of Arkansas which had the effect of reducing the amount of state funds the three Pulaski County school districts receive for funding workers' compensation claims and for \"loss funding,\" claiming the State was in violation of the Settlement Agreement. The parties also challenged the State's establishment of a statewide computer network which they claimed would not facilitate desegregation in the three Pulaski County school districts. The Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court's finding that funding of workers' compensation by the State is a \"program\" for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and that the State must J disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Counry Special School Distria, # 1, 83 F. 3d - 1013, 1918 (8th Cir. 1996). The circuit court also held the district court correctly ordered the State to exclude M-to-M transfer students from ADM in the loss-funding formula. Id. With respect to the statewide computer network, the Eighth Circuit reversed this Court's order which directed the State to pay the three Pulaski County districts an amount equivalent to what the State would spend on any other educational cooperative. Id. The PCSSD and the LRSD seek fees pursuant to Ark.Code Ann.  16-22-308, 28 U.S.C.  1920 as well as 42 U.S.C.  1988. The ADE urges that the districts are not entitled to fees under either state or federal law. The Court finds that the districts are entitled to fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988. 2 II. Title 42 United States Code Section 1988 provides that the Court may allow the prevailing party in a civil rights action a reasonable attorney's fee as a part of the costs, and the Eighth Circuit has directed the award of attorney's fees pursuant to  1988 in connection with the compliance phase of this case. See Liule Rock School Disrrict v. Pulaski County Special School District, No. 1, 17 F.3d 260 (8th Cir. 1994). In addition, the Court has directed the State to pay attorney's fees to the Joshua Intervenors in connection with their efforts to reinstate the Arkansas State Department of Education as a party defendant in this case. See docket entry 2045. The Court has broad discretion in determining the amount of attorney's fees awarded under 1988. Winter v. Cerro Gordo County Conservation Board, 925 F.2d 1069 (8th Cir. - 1991). \"The number of hours to be awarded to a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C.  1988 is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. 'The trial judge should weigh the hours claimed against [her] own knowledge, experience, and expertise of the time required to complete similar activities.\"' Gilbert v. Little Rock, 867 F.2d 1063, 1066 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 812 (1989) (citations omitted). The usual procedure used in calculating attorney's fees is to compute the base 'lodestar' figure by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended times the lawyer's regularly hourly rate. Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982). After careful review of the pleadings, the Court finds that PCSSD should be awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $28,854.50. 1 The LRSD 1This figure represents an hourly rate for M. Samuel Jones of $110.00 during 1994 and $135.00 during 1995-1996; an hourly rate for Angell Jones of $55 .00 during 1994 and $75 .00 during 1995-96; and an 3 should be awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $42,520.002 and costs in the amount of $563.32. III. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the PCSSD's motion for attorney's fees and costs [docket entry 2757] and supplemental motion for attorney's fees and costs [docket entry 2819] are granted. The PCSSD is awarded $28,854.50 in attorney's fees. The LRSD's motion for attorney's fees and costs [docket entry 2797] is granted. The LRSD is awarded $43,083.32 in attorney's fees and costs. A DATED this _LfL day of December 1996. ~-~~~ UTED STA ESDISTRicT DGE hourly rate for Valerie Bryant of $40.00 during 1994 and $55.00 during 1995-96. The total hours for both M. Samuel Jones and Valerie Bryant were reduced by .8 and 5.6, respectively, because of lack of success on the APSCN issue. 2This represents an hourly rate of$ 160.00 for Christopher Heller and an hourly rate of $100.00 for Clay Fendley. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC!f~J?~~.::.:: EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARNANSAS-;:;1l, ,\\ ... I\\\\, , - ~ WESTERN DIVISION DEC 1 0 1996 JAMES W McCOR~,lACK. CL::.;-,K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COU TY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. DEC f : 1996 KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. MOTION DEFENDAi TS INTERVENORS Il''TERVEI\\'ORS Katherine Knight. et al., by and through their attorneys. ROA.CHELL LAW FIR.\\1. for their i:{otion, state: 1. Effective September 3, 1996, the Court ordered striking teachers of PCS SD back to work as a result of a motion filed by PCSSD. The Court also ordered the parties to mediate and appointed a mediator for that purpose. Since the appointment of the mediator, the main issue in dispute between the teachers and the district, salaries, has not been resolved. In fact, there has been almost no movement by PCSSD with regard to salaries. 2. The PCSSD approved and submitted to the Court its tentative 1996-97 budget in August of 1996. 3. Since the submission of the PCS SD tentative 1996-97 budget to the Court, PCS SD has created new line items in its budget and increased tentative budget line items without C authorization by the Court expending monies that could have been used for negotiations for teachers' salaries. The district. however, continues to maintain that it does not have the necessary funds for an increase in teachers' salaries. At each monthly board meeting, the board re\\iews a monthly financial report of the district prepared by administrators. The budgeted amounts on the monthly financial reports change each month from the proposed 1996-97 budget submitted to the Court. The board votes to adopt the financial report which amends the budget without approval of the Court and authorizes expending monies that could be used for salary negotiations with PACT. 4. The reconfiguration of Jacksonville Junior High North and Jacksomille Junior High South was not a line item in the tentative 1996-97 budget PCSSD submitted to the Court. In November, 1996, the board voted to retain architects which item was not budgeted and there are likely other expenditures from the 1996-97 budget that will be related to the reconfiguration to be - paid for from the 1996-97 budget which could be used for salary negotiations. Although it is the infonnation and belief of PACT that these budgeted expenditures for the Jacksonville reconfiguration come primarily from capital outlay, such funds have consistently been off limits to the district in negotiating salary increases. Other costs for the reconfiguration from the 1996-97 PCSSD budget will not be paid from capital outlay funds which could be used to negotiate an increase in teacher salaries. 5. The actions of the PCS SD stated herein and more fully in the brief accompanying show that PCSSD has been negotiating with PACT in bad faith. WHEREFORE, Knight et al Intervenors prays that the Court order the PCSSD Board of Directors to refrain from taking action on any matter that would increase a budgeted line item or add 2 new line items to that budget for budget expenditures except upon orders of the Court and until a contract settlement with PACT has been reached. ~~b~Q_j_ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roache!!, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on December 10, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard W. Roachell FILED Us DISTRICT C1..,URT EASTEciN DISTRIC_T ARl\\-\"IN$AS DEC 1 0 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CK Cl \u003e=\"K EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANS,~ \\\\I McCOm.\\A   __ n WESTERN DIVISION 8r ~=::,_ c!..c::::K LlTTLEROCKSCHOOLDIBTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOO1FJ r;,:z DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. d, r'J ' /.~ \":~:= :\".: \",\\, .,. -:- ~ ~ ,:::;.. ....:,;,z ~ ~I ~  MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. -,. DEC 1 @ 1996 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION~ - PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS I TERVE oRS After a full day of court proceedings. the Court ordered striking PCSSD teachers back to work effective September 3, 1996 upon Motion filed by PCSSD. The Court ordered the parties to mediate and appointed a federal mediator for that purpose. To this date, there has been no settlement with regard to salaries, the main dispute between the parties. PCSSD has consistently led the Court and the public to believe that it does not have sufficient funds to settle its labor dispute with regard with PACT. In August 1996, PCSSD submitted to the Court its tentative budget for the 1996-97 school year. Recently, the district has posted to hire personnel to fill nine (9) coaching positions which were not reflected in the budget or approved by the Court. Although the addition of some of these coaches was ostensibly for the purpose of complying with Title VII requirements, the district did not seek permission from the Court and has not shown PACT that such expenditures of monies not in the budget were absolutely necessary. See attached Exhibit \"A.\" Further, the district prepares a monthly financial report which is presented by the administration to the board at each regular monthly meeting to show where the district is in its financial condition. The board then adopts the monthly financial report which in effect amends the budget. The budgeted amounts in many budget categories change from month to month and are different than the proposed budget submitted to the Coun. In general, each month the budget figures increase. In as much as the district is spending far more money than it budgeted and the proposed budget figures were used in contract settlement negotiations, it appears that the district is spending money from sources which could be used to settle its labor dispute. See attached Exhibit \"B\" which is a recapitulation of the monthly financial repons from July 31, 1996, through September 12, 1996. - It should be noted that the total budget of the district as well as the funds themselves continue to mcrease. The Court approved earlier in 1996 the reconfiguration of Jacksonville Junior High North and Jacksonville Junior High South. It should be noted that the cost of such reconfiguration is not reflected in the tentative budget submitted to the Court. However, monies from the 1996-97 budget will be used to partially fund the reconfiguration. See attached Exhibit \"C.\" Certainly, some expenditures will come from the district's capital outlay. For instance, in November 1996, the board voted to retain architects which was not in the budget. Also, it is reasonable to assume that the 1996- 97 budget will require the expenditure of monies for supplies and materials and other costs in connection with the reconfiguration. In addition, the potential additional allocation of personnel for training; substitute costs, and overtime will be paid from the 1996-97 budget which will create 2 increases in expenditures from the salary fund and the general fund not reflected in the budget presented to the Court. These monies could be used to fund a settlement of the labor dispute within the PCSSD. In contract negotiations, for example, one of PACT's submitted proposals was for a modest $100,000 of the amount required to settle the labor dispute to come from interest on the building fund which the district has steadfastly refused since the Court ordered the teachers to return to work. See PACT Fact Sheet attached as Exhibit \"D.\" Such monies could be used to settle the labor dispute between PCSSD and PACT. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Coun should order the district not to take action on any matter that would increase any budgeted line item in its tentative budget as submitted to the Court or add new line items to that budget except upon orders of the Court and until a contract settlement has been reached with PACT. 3 ~tfully submitted, \"-~4~ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar o. 78132 ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roache!!, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on December I 0, I 996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. I 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 I Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 4 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, .A..R 7220 I Richard W. Roache!! TO: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT MEMORANDUM Board of Directors 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216-8601 (501) 490-2000 THOROUGH: Bobby G. Lester, Superintendent of Schools FROM: QrJ\"'Ronnie Higgins, Director of Athletics RE: DATE: ~...l_ry Miller, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel /_j~~ly Bowles, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Assistant Coach Allocations November 12, 1996 Renresentative senior high principals, girls basketball coaches, and boys basketball coaches met with us on October 27, 1996 to discuss perceived inequities in the allocation of assistant coaches. After reviewing the District's current regulations on the number of coaches assigned to each sport and Title IX guidelines, we make the following recommendation. In an effort to provide for equitable allocation of assistant coaching staff, we recommend that the Board approve an allocation formula which requires an assistant coach in boys basketball, girls basketball, baseball, softball, volleyball, boys track, and girls track when there are twenty (20) student participants. If a team has twenty (20) participants at the end of a athletic season, the assistant coach allocation will be implemented for the following school year. Teams with less than twenty (20) participants will lose the assistant coach allocation until such time as the number of participants reaches twenty (20) participants. The determination of twenty (20) participants will be made by the coach of that particular sport and approved by the secondary principal who will submit recommendations for coaching allocations to the Director of Athletics and Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Services. When it is determined that the number of participants has fallen below twenty (20) participants, it shall be the responsibility of each principal to notify the Director of Athletics and the Director of Certified Personnel by April 20. If approved by the Board, this allocation is projected to increase the budget by approximately $9,000 for the 1996-97 school year and an additional $30,000 for the 1997-98 school year. - - i ! !/ i i I I ,J I :/ I ' I i I i ' ' I ! !I I/ ! I ,! ' ;I 1996 - 1997 PCSSD FINANCIAL REPORT \"BUDGET AMOUNTS\" T ; =--=-\"= =- -=.,=-= ==-=---c ~-==- __ ;---- --- -- -- DATE UY\"\"Fiti~fltt Rfrv~I I I I I I FUND I I . Fund 1000 j Fund I ~ Fund 2000 2900 1 GRANO TOT AL .J ,j ~ I I .l j I 7/31/96 :1 8/31 /96 ,, I 9/12/96 I 51051512 51710451 51253200 ;/ 95852533 ~1400885~ 1035185 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1630","title":"Court filings concerning PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South junior high schools, cross-district teacher retirement and employee health insurance issues, PCSSD strike issue, LRSD fourth quarter status report, and ODM budget concerns","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":["1996-11"],"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","Jacksonville South Junior High School (Jacksonville, Ark.)","Jacksonville North Junior High School (Jacksonville, Ark.)","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education, Secondary","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School employees","School districts","Teachers","Employee rights","Retirement","Insurance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South junior high schools, cross-district teacher retirement and employee health insurance issues, PCSSD strike issue, LRSD fourth quarter status report, and ODM budget concerns"],"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/1630"],"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":["124 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Court of Appeals, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South (junior high schools),District Court, two orders; District Court, pre-trial brief of Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) on teacher retirement and employee health insurance issues; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) prehearing brief; District Court, three orders; District Court, response of Joshua intervenors to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South (junior high schools); Court of Appeals, amended certificate of service; District Court, order; District Court, response to the motion of the Joshua intervenors for reconsideration regarding the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, brief in response to the motion of the Joshua intervenors for reconsideration regarding the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) fourth quarter status report addendum program planning and budgeting document for desegregation progress; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1996-97 first quarter status report program planning and budgeting document for desegregation programs; District Court, motion for summary judgment by the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); District Court, brief in support of Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching; District Court, statement of material and undisputed facts with respect to the LRSD, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching; District Court, affidavit of Donald M. Stewart; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua motion to request Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, notice of filing, LRSD November program planning and budgeting tool; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) objection to proposed Office of Desegregation Monitoring budget; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to response of Joshua intervenors to PCSSD's motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South (junior high schools)  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT  HAEL E. GANS lerk of Court U.S. COURT \u0026 CUSTOM HOUSE 1114 MARKET STREET ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63101 VOICE (314) 539-3600 AB!S (B00I 652-B671 http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/8th.cir November 6, 1996 Mr. Christopher John Heller FRIDAY \u0026 ELDREDGE 2000 First Commercial Building 400 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEVE NOV 8 ,996 t Desegregation Monl\\on,1~ O!Me o ~- ~ ---- Re: 96-2047EALR L.R. School Dist. vs. Servicemaster Manag. Dear Counsel: Enclosed is a copy of an order entered today in the above case. jmh Enclosures cc: Joseph Steven Mowery John C. Everett Samuel Arnold Perroni William Henry Trice III Richard Wilson Roachell John W. Walker Norman J. Chachkin Philip K. Lyon M. Samuel Jones III Nelwyn L. Davis Tim C. Humphries Office of Deseg. Monitor Horace A. Walker Perlestra Hollingsworth Kenne~h G. Torrence Otis Henry Storey Petre's Stenograph Jim McCormack District Court Case Number: 82-CV-866 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2047EALR L. R. School District, Appellant, v. Servicemaster Management, et al., Appellees.          Appeal from the United States District Com:t for the Eastern District of Arkansas Upon review of the notice of appeal and appellant's opening brief, this Court has determined that this appeal was mistakenly captioned. The Clerk is directed to correct the case caption and provide the parties with a new service list. Appellant's counsel is directed to serve his opening brief upon those parties not previously served within seven days of the date of this order and provide the com:t with proof of service. Those appellees who have not previously filed responsive briefs may have to and including December 11, 1996 to file their briefs. Appellant's supplemental reply brief shall be due on or before December 27, 1996. November 6, 1996 Ordev:tc:r:J\"~~ Rule 27;)  Clerk, U.S. Court of~s, Eighth Circuit Novembez 5, 1996 Case Numbez: 96-2047 Distzict Couzt/Agency Case Numbez(s): 82-CV-866 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIS'TRICT; Plaintiff - Appellant LORENE JOSHUA; Intezvenoz Plaintiff - Appellee SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES; Intezvenoz below - Appellee ANNE MITCHELL ; BOB MOORE; PAT GEE; PAT RAYBURN; MARY J . GAGE; NORTH LITTLE ROCK CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION; PULASKI ASSOCIATION OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS; LITTLE ROCK CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION; ALEXA ARMS'TRONG; KARLOS ARMS'TRONG; 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 Intezvenoz Plaintiffs - Appellees V. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT; LEON BARNES; SHERYL DUNN; MAC FAULKNER; RICHARD A. GIDDINGS; MARIANNE GOSSER; DON HINDMAN; SHIRLEY LOWERY; BOB LYON; GEORGE A. MCCRARY; BOB MOORE; STEVE MORLEY; BUDDY RAINES; DAVID SAIN; BOB STENDER; DALE WARD; JOHN WARD; JUDY WEAR; GRAINGER WILLIAMS; PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DIS'TRICT; STATE OF ARKANSAS; Defendants - Appellees OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR; Claimant - Appellee HORACE A. WALKER; P.A. HOLLINGSWORTH; KENNETH G. TORRENCE; PHILIP E. KAPLAN; JANET PULLIAM; JOHN BILHEIMER Movant - Appellees DALE CHARLES ; ROBERT L . BROWN, SR. ; GWEN HEVEY .J:ACKSON; DIANE DAVIS; RAYMOND FRAZIER Plaintiffs - Appellees - V. PULASKI COUNfY BOARD OF EDUCATION; 0. G. JACOYELLI, Individually and as President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District; PATRICIA GEE, Individually and in her official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock Schood District, A Public Body; DR. GEORGE CANNON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; JOHN f-OORE, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; DORSEY JACKSON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; W. D. HAMILTON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; CECIL BAILEY, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a Public Corporate; 11-IOMAS BROUGJITON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a Public Corporate; DR. MARTIN ZDLDESSY, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a Public Corporate Defendants - Appellees November 5, 1996 jmh 96-2047 L.R. School Dist. v. Servicemaster Manag. Mr. Christopher John Heller FRIDAY \u0026 ELDREDGE 2000 First Commercial Building 400 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Joseph Steven Mowery GIROIR \u0026 GREGORY Suite 1900 111 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Everett EVERETT \u0026 STILLS P.O. Box 1646 3822 N. Parkview Drive Fayetteville, AR 72702 Mr. Samuel Arnold Perroni THE PERRONI LAW FIRM, P.A. 801 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201-2103 Mr. William Henry Trice III HOWELL \u0026 PRICE 211 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Wilson Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREETT Suite 504 401 w. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.C. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Norman J. Chachkin NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 16th Floor 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013 Mr. Philip K. Lyon JACK \u0026 LYON 3400 TCBY Building 425 w. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT \u0026 LINDSEY 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Mr. Nelwyn Leone Davis PULASKI COUN1Y ATTORNEY Suite 400 201 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim C. Humphries ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 Office 0 Desegregation Monitor 510 Heritage West Building 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72204 Mr. Horace A. Walker Second \u0026 Center Streets 518 Pyramid Place Little Rock, AR 72203-1448 Mr. Perlesta Arthur Hollingsworth HOLLINGSWORIB LAW FIRM 415 Main Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Kenneth G. Torrence 1721 Abigail Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Mr. Otis Henry Storey HOOVER \u0026 STOREY Suite 1100 111 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Petre's Stenograph Court Reporter PETRE S1ENOGRAPH SERVICE 207 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Jim McCormack Clerk U.S. DIS'IRICT COURT, EASTERN ARKANSAS Room 402 600 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 . . 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. NOV 1 :5 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS Office 01 Deseg;s9aton Monilcrina IJ\\iTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION TO ENLARGE JACKSONVILLE NORTH AND SOUTH The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. The PCSSD presently operates Jacksonville North Junior High School and Jacksonville South Junior High School. By order dated March 27, 1996, this Court approved the conversion of one of these junior high schools to be operated as a middle school housing grades six and seven and the other as a junior high school housing grades eight and nine. 2. After having gone through the appropriate public forum process, the PCSSD has determined to operate Jacksonville North as the middle school and Jacksonville South as the junior high school. 3. This reorganization adds grade six to the middle school and therefore necessarily substantially increases the number of seats necessary to house all of the students in the t wo reconfigured schools. Because of this, the PCS SD seeks the permission of this Court to add eight ,classrooms at Jacksonville South and three classrooms to what is presently Jacksonville North. 4. Any impacts upon the residual racial balance in the two reconfigured schools will be positive. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for a further order of this Court authorizing the construction of these classrooms for the 1997-1998 school year. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By_-\u003e\u003c------'-\"\"?\"'\"\"9-..=-:.------'--\"-~=---J,,c=-\u003e------- M. A 76060) a ski County ict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On November / 2--, 1996, 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 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 ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPEC1AL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * NOV 1 i 1996 Office of Desegregalion Monuormg FilcD U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN Di STRICT ARKANSAS ;mv 1 21996 * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET.AL., * JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK Bv:Q'.7.w~ '- ~EPCLERK * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRDER Pending before the Court are several motions filed by the parties concerning the effect of the State's new funding formula on the Settlement Agreement. See docket entries 2668, 2685, 2690, 2695, 2715, and 2737. Also before the Court are the State's Motions to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Abstention [docket entries 2713 \u0026 2771] and a Motion to Intervene by a number of school districts in the state [docket entry 2715]. The Court has determined that a conference with the parties and movants would be useful in determining the status of the issues involved and the Court's alternatives in dealing with the matter. For example, the Court believes it might be helpful to determine whether the issues of teacher retirement and employee insurance can be addressed without awaiting resolution of the Lakeview case. This will not be an evidentiary hearing. Therefore, the Court will hold a conference on Tuesday, November 19, 1996, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 3C (#305) of the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse Building. SO ORDERED this 12th day of November 1996. 2 NOV 1 5 1996 iWV 1 4 1996 Office of Desegregation M9nitormg IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEP CLERK , C, .....,_ :;,..-, . - - ..., . --~- -~---~ ..... ....... 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. * QRDER The Court has received the proposed 1996-97 budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. See attached letter and budget document. The parties may file any objections to the proposed budget within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of en try of this Order. Af7\\ DATED this _11__ day of November 1996. --uNITErfST A TES DIST rH!S cocu:\u003c:F ,:: ;- :- - -J c; J '.),.::-.. : :\u003cET SHEET IN CC.,MPLIANCE w, l h nULE S8 Ai-JC/OR 79 (a) FRCP ~ ON II ( I 1 ( 9 fp 8Y 1C - ._ Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor November 13, 1996 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax {501) 371-0100 The 1996-97 budget for ODM is attached for the parties' review and your approval. . TI1e format of our 1996-97 budget follows that of previous years, including annotation to explain revenue calculations, budget category definitions, 1995-96 budgeted and actual expenses by category, and the amount budgeted for each area in 1996-97. Most of the ODM expenditure categories for this year are budgeted comparably to last year. Any salary increases for ODM staff are 3.29%, which is the prevailing annual experience step increase on the three districts' salary scales. Again this year, I have chosen not to accept an increase in salary. You will note a marked increase in the Benefits category, due to the changes in the State's method of handling health insurance premiums and teacher retirement. These changes have similarly effected all three Pulaski County school districts, constituting a significant growth in this budget area. We have contained 1995-96 expenditures such that they were below the projected budget; once again, we have credited that difference proportionately to each of the school districts' pro rated contribution to our 1996-97 budget. If you or the parties should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: All Counsel OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION 1996-97 BUDGET REVENUE 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET State of Arkansas 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 LASO 154,276.00 154,276.00 223,889.00 Credit (see note below) 44,455.00 44,455 .00 19,197.00 NLRSD 55,510.00 55 ,510.00 80,121.00 Credi1 (see note below) 15,995.00 15,995.00 6,870.00 PCSSD 125,014.00 125,014.00 184,831 .00 Credit (see note below) 36,023.00 36,023.00 15,848.00 Interest 6,123.96 Total Revenue 631 273.00 637,396.96 730756.00 Note: Every budget cycle, ODM credits each distnct a pro rata proportion of the unspent amount of the previous year's budget. We apply this amount toward the current budget allocation. See Annotated 1996-97 Budget. EXPENDITURES 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET Communications 7,870.00 7,641 .69 7,870.00 Dues and Fees 2,700.00 3,205.00 3,300.00 Eouipment 10,614.00 10,444.08 14,159.00 Food Services 250.00 204.98 250.00 Manaoement Services 3,000.00 292.50 3,000.00 Periodicals 500.00 453.84 500.00 Printino and Bindino 10,340.00 5,077.59 6,000.00 Prof. and Tech. Services 28,497.00 22,614.15 28,497.00 Rent 46,204.00 46,204.00 48,417.00 Repairs and Maintenance 1,231 .00 1,414.93 1,500.00 Resource Library 1,000.00 372.11 500.00 Salaries 444,854.00 425,981.98 468,904.00 Benefits 49 ,613.00 44,770.84 120,109.00 Staff Development 1,000.00 1,007.00 1,000.00 Supplies 7,750 .00 7,552.84 7,750 .00 Travel 15,850.00 18,244.12 19,000.00 Total Expenditures 631,273.00 595,481 .65 730,756.00 ANNOTATED ODM 1996-97 BUDGET REYE UE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Coop) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis ... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ... 10/1/95 % of Total 1996-97 Budget 1995-96 Credit 1996-97 Budget Enrollment Enrollment Allocation /Budget not spent) Payment LRSD 24.876 45.80 243,086.00 19.197.00 223.889.00 NLRSD 8.901 16.39 86,991 .00 6,870.00 80,121 .00 PCSSO 20.534 37.81 200.679.00 15,848.00 184,831.00 State of AR -0- -0- 200.000.00 -0- 200,000.00 Total 54,311 100.00 730,756.00 41 ,915.00 688,841.00 Step-by-step process used to determine districts' contributions to ODM 1995-96 budget: I. The State of Arkansas' contribution is subtracted from OD M's total budget: 730,756.00 200,000.00 530,756.00 2. Based on the previous year's October I enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the State's contribution): LRSD 530,756.00 X 45.80 243,086.25 NLRSD 530,756.00 X 16.39 86,990.91 PCSSD 530,756.00 X 37.81 200,678.84 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share of OD M's unspent 1995-96 budget: LRSD 243,086.25 -19,197.21 223,889.04 NLRSD 86,990.91 -6,869.92 . 80,120 .99 PCSSD 200,678.84 -15,848.18 184,830.66 4. Each district will contribute these amounts to ODM's 1996-97 budget: LRSD 223,889.00 NLRSD 80,121 .00 PCSSD 184,831 .00 Page 2 - EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or information. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. 1995-96 Budget 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Expenditures Amount 7.870.00 7,641 .69 7,870.00 Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided, such as conference registration fees. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budqet Expenditures Amount 2,700.00 3,205.00 3,300.00 The bulk of the 1995-96 expenditures were for seminar and conference registration fees; membership renewals were for $510.00, including membership fees of $250.00 for joining the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budqet Expenditures Amount 10.614.00 10,444.08 14,159.00 We will upgrade our computer hardware by replacing six computers which are out-dated, overloaded, and repeatedly breaking down, resulting in extensive down time, lost data, and repair expense. We will also replace a thermo-paper fax with a plain paper fax. We will add a color copier to help trim out-of-office copying expenses. Page 3 Food Services: Expenditures for food or preparation and serving of food, which may include catering. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Expenditures Amount 250.00 204.98 250.00 Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Expenditures Amount 3.000.00 292.50 3,000.00 Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals of less than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budget Expenditures Amount 500.00 453.84 500.00 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job pnntmg and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Expenditures Amount 10,340.00 5,077.59 6,000 .00 With last year's purchase of the Duplicating Management Program (DMP) and this year's purchase of a color copier, we will be able to do most printing in-house. The above budget is the annual cost of the DMP ($4,994.36) plus $1,000.00 for printing we cannot do in-house, such as letterhead and - envelopes. Page 4 Professional and Technical Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 1995-96 1995-96 Budoet Exoenditures 28,497.00 22,614.15 Arkansas Financial Services Temporary help/specialized services 1996-97 Budgeted Amount 28,497.00 23,497.00 5 000.00 28,497.00 The 1995-96 expenditures covered the services of three expert witnesses, a computer technologist, and additional office and administrative help. To date, ODM has not needed Arkansas Financial Services (AFS) to complete the terms of a previous agreement. However, because services ultimately may be required, we are electing to maintain the AFS agreement and, thus, have budgeted an allotment for AFS. Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Exoenditures Amount 46,204 00 46 204.00 48 .417.00 According to the lease agreement negotiated in 1995, the 1996-97 rent will increase 4.7%. Repairs and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budget Expendilures Amounl 1,231 00 141493 1.500 00 Page 5 Resource Library: Expenditures for regular or incidental purchases of library books available for general use. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budqet Expenditures Amount 1.00000 372.11 500.00 Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budqet Expenditures Amount 444 854 .00 425 .981 98 468,904 00 Most of the salary changes between 1995-96 and 1996-97 reflect a 3.29% increase, which is comparable to the annual step increase in the three Pulaski County school districts. Exceptions are noted below: Salaries: I Name of Emeloyee I 1995-96 Salary I 1996-97 Sala!}'. Ann Brown 1 104,1 64.00 Melissa Guldin 2 44.042.00 Gene Jones 3 33,031 .00 Norman Marshall 55,052.00 Marcie Powell 55,052.00 Horace Smith 55,052.00 Research Associate 4 26,000.00 Pollv Ramer 41,323.00 Linda Brvant 22,915.00 Jackie Banks 5 8,223.00 Total 444,854.00 1 Ann Brown declined to accept a salary increase for 1996-97. 2Melissa Guldin works 4/5 time. 104.1 64.00 45.490.00 47.815.00 56.863.00 56,863.00 56,863.00 26.000.00 42.683.00 23.669.00 8,494.00 468.904.00 I 3During 1995-96, Gene Jones increased his work time from 3/5 to 4/5 time. Therefore, his annual salary increased to $45,925.60, which included Gene's election to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits. 4Position not filled. 5Jackie Banks works 25 hours per week. Page 6 Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid in behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but arc over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Expenditures Amount 49.613.00 44.770 84 120,1 09.00 Below is a breakdown by category of each employee's budgeted fringe benefits: Name Travel Social Hospital- Lile Dental Hospital Short Retire- Total Allowance Securitv ization Ins. lndemnitv Term ment Benefits Brown 1,800.00 5.423.88 1,968.00 44.1 6 188.64 60.96 62.88 12.715.68 22.264.20 Guldin 1.200.00 3,571 .79 1,968.00 44.1 6 188.64 60.96 62.88 5,602.80 12.699.23 Jones 960.00 3.731 .29 5,853.00 10.544.29 Marshall 1.200.00 4.441 .82 1,968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 6,967.56 14,934.02 Powell 1,200.00 4 441 .82 1,968.00 44 16 188.64 60.96 62.88 6,967.56 14,934.02 Smith 1.200.00 4.441 .82 1,968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 6.967.56 14,934.02 Research 600.00 2.034.90 1,968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 3,192.00 8,1 51 .54 Ramer 3.265.25 1.968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 5,121 .96 10.n1.85 Brvant 1.810.68 1,968.00 27.60 188.64 60.96 62.88 2.840.28 6.959.04 Banks 649.79 1,968.00 27.60 188.64 60.96 62.88 1.019.28 3.977 15 Total 8.1 60.00 33.813.04 17,712.00 364.32 1.697 76 548.64 565.92 57,247.68 120.109.36 The following changes have occurred since the 1995-96 budget year, and are reflected above in the 1996-97 budget figures:  The State of Arkansas shifted the burden of the expense for health insurance from state funds to the employer, causing hospitalization to increase 227% per employee, from $50. l 0 per month in 1995-96 to $164.00 per month in 1996-97.  Long-term disability (workman's comp) is no longer available as an employee benefit.  Short-term disability increased 7%, from $4.90 per month in 1995-96 to $5.24 per month in 1996-97.  The State of Arkansas shifted the total expense of teacher retirement from state funds to the employer. causing an additional 12% expenditure.  Jackie Banks increased her working hours to 25 per week and, therefore, is now eligible to receive benefits.  Gene Jones again elected to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits. Page 7 Staff Development: Services performed by persons qualified to assist in enhancing the quality of the operation. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Exoenditures Amount 1 00000 1,00700 1 000.00 Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out. or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Exoenditures Amount 7,750.00 7,552.84 7,750.00 Travel: Expenditure for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Exoenditures Amount 15,850.00 18.244.12 19,000.00 The 1995-96 expenditures exceeded the budget as a result of the travel expenses for the three expert witnesses called by Judge Susan Webber Wright. The 1996-97 budget reflects the potential for additional expert witnesses to be called on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors. Page 8 ~ . J l . .:-: i~) us c,~rr;r ~T ~._11,.'.iT ~A~--: i  r . ~7 ...._,~;,.J,''f1.S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOV 1 8 1996 fL'-11) - Dffice of Dosegrega!Jon ;'w.in:il'Jiin~ DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS r. PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DY~TRICT, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AND NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ON TEACHER RETIREMENT AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE ISSUES Introduction In its most recent decision concerning the responsibilities of State of Arkansas pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, this court said: \"The state of Arkansas needs to focus on its obligation in the settlement to give the Pulaski County school districts special consideration to enable these districts to meet their numerous and burdensome obligations under the settlement. The court reminds the state of the Eighth Circuit's specific findings about the state's complicated and lengthy history of promotion of unconstitutional racial segregation which has led to this interminable litigation.\" Memorandum and Order, January 13, 1995, p. 16. Following a ~ulaski County chancery court determination that the Arkansas school finance system was unconstitutional, the state adopted the \"Equitable School Finance System Act of 1995.\" Ark. Code Ann. 6-20- 301 rt seq. Under the new finance system, Arkansas school districts are required to fund certain programs which were previously funded by the state, including teacher retirement and health insurance. The state funds which were previously used to pay the full cost of each Arkansas school district's teacher retirement and employee health insurance obligations are now distributed through the new formula which pays districts according to their average daily membership. As a result, there exists a huge gap between the Pulaski County districts and the rest of the state with respect to the proportion of state funding for teacher retirement and employee heal th insurance. As with the recently decided workers' compensation issue, \"[t]his disparity arose because the state's formula used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d. 1013, 1018 (8th Cir. 1996). The Pulaski County districts' claims for fair treatment with respect to state funding of teacher retirement and employee health insurance are no different than their recent successful claims for a proportional share of workers' compensation funding. The state must distribute funds \"to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" Id. 2 II. Teacher Retirement contribution The state budgeted $134,500,000 to fund teacher retirement for the 1996-97 school year. This money was distributed through the new funding formula according to average daily membership, which bears no rational relationship to a particular district's costs for teacher retirement. As a result, the percentage of actual teacher retirement contributions funded statewide excluding Pulaski County is 102. 89 percent. See Exhibit 1. The average funding in the Pulaski County school districts is 74.66 percent. LRSD receives only 68.57 percent of the cost of its teacher retirement contributions. PCSSD and NLRSD receive only 78.89 percent and 82.94 percent respectively of their cost of teacher retirement contributions. In a recent case squarely on point concerning state distribution of funding for workers' compensation insurance, this court refused to allow the Pulas "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1665","title":"Court filings concerning Joshua intervenor's fee petition of November 1995, LRSD's motion to terminate the court's jurisdiction, PCSSD teacher strike issue, and LRSD program and budget tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-10"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","School management and organization","School employees","School districts","Education and state","Lawyers","Teachers","Employee rights","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Joshua intervenor's fee petition of November 1995, LRSD's motion to terminate the court's jurisdiction, PCSSD teacher strike issue, and LRSD program and budget tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1665"],"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":["13 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) witness list; District Court, order; Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, substituted motion to intervene by the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, substituted claim in intervention of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); District Court, motion for reconsideration; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for reconsideration; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, motion of the Joshua intervenors for reconsideration concerning their fee petition of November 1995; District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors in support of their motion for reconsideration regarding their fee petition; District Court, motion for an extension of time to respond to Joshua's September 1996 motion for an award of attorneys' fees; District Court, opposition of the Joshua intervenors to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for reconsideration of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to terminate the court's jurisdiction; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply and memorandum brief in support of its reply to motion of the Joshua intervenors for reconsideration concerning their fee petition of November 1995; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for reconsideration regarding the teacher strike issue; District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of their motion for reconsideration regarding the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, order; District Court, response of the Joshua intervenors to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) extension request regarding Joshua intervenors' fee petition of October 1996; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) October program planning and budgeting tool FY 1998; District Court, motion to request Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, C:CT O 11996 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 OCi J 1996 Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee for approval of the interdistrict magnet school budget for the 1996-97 school year. The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court in a letter dated September 12, 1996 [attached]. Any objections to this request must be filed on or before October 15, 1996. 5t IT IS SO ORDERED this / day of October 1996. \u003e n1~~~ \\~ TSDIRICJUDGE rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 56 ANO/OR 79(a)FRCP ON I0/1196 BY vs:: \\ i 282 9 Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Direcior September 12, 1996 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Dear Judge Wright: RECEIVED sus.~ER.s OF B=RWRrGrrr SEP 1 7 1996 U. S. DISTRICT Jl.JDGE (501) 758-0156 In a letter dated June 24, 1996, the Magnet Review Comfnittee submitted the 1996-97 interdistrict magnet schools' budget (labeled Draft 4) in the amount of $16,961,535 for your approval. The total amount budgeted was based on a per-pupil expenditure of $4,660 per student and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,639.7 students. This budget submittal also showed an increase of $597 .00 per student over the 1995-96 budget, with the first year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. Draft 4 of the interdistrict magnet schools' budget, however, did not reflect any results of salary negotiations which were in progress. Salary negotiations have now been completed, and Draft 5 of the interdistrict magnet schools' budget is attached herewith. Draft 5 includes the revised salary figures and fringe benefits, as well as the first year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan. These factors have resulted in an upward adjustment for tne 1996-97 budget from $4,660 per-pupil expenditure to $4,782, an increase of $122.00 per student from Draft 4 submitted to you on June 24, 1996, and a resulting overall increase of $719 .00 per student over the 199 5-96 budget. The total revised budget amount for the 1996-97 interdistrict magnet schools' budget is now $17,361,466. The Magnet Review Committee approved this revised budget (Draft 5) during its regular meeting on September l 0, 1996. The MRC now respectfully requests your approval. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. One of our primary goals is to ensure efficient and effective cost containment while continuing to deliver attractive instructional programs. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise prudent oversight of the magnet schools' budget. !. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- September 12, 1996 Thank you for your consideration and response to this important matter. Sincerely, l~~ Magnet Review Committee ATTACHMENT: CC: 1996-97 lnterdistrict Magnet Schools' Budget (Approved Draft 5) Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM , 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6 0 S337,925 6 0 S352 057 60 S3625'2 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10 0 S498.372 10 0 S475 200 10 0 S464 55i 03 Spec1alIsts 39 2 S1 262,967 39.2 $1 ,261 .287 39 2 S1 .327 018 04 Counselors 12.4 $418.344 12.4 S476,775 12 4 S485.416 05 Media Spec. 6.5 S232.294 6 5 $237 .118 65 S246 812 06 Art-Pert/Prod. 00 $0 0.0 so 1 0 S33 000 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 08 Foreign Lano. 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 09 Vocat ional 12.6 S408. 793 12.6 $410,775 12 6 S410 213 10 Special Education 7.7 $303,215 8 2 $291 732 82 S277 703 11 Gifted 54 S197.313 54 $193,626 54 $199 281 12 Classroom 175 9 S5 544 709 176 9 S5. 770 069 177 9 S5 929 2;-5 13 Substitutes 0.0 S141 .654 co S162 174 00 S154 99C 14 Other-K1nderqarten 14.0 S430.419 14 0 S470.419 14 0 S493 279 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 289 7 S9 776.005 291 2 S10 101 232 293 2 S10 384 452 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 19 0 S331 .216 20 0 S360 466 20 0 S345 , ~ STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 S153,060 54 $159 275 54 S167 347 17 Custodians 28.5 S351 .307 29 0 S361 256 29 0 S394 758 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 SC 00 so 00 SC 19 Para professionals-Other 60 S130.786 60 S126 778 60 S147 035 20 Other-Aides 37 0 S269 245 37 0 S294 451 37 0 S305 326 21 Fringe 8enef1ts (20) xxxxxxxx S1 221 .133 S1 261 .!44 xxxxxxxx S3 207 241 TOT AL SUPPORT SAL.ARY 95 9 S2.456.748. 97 4 S2 563 571 97 4 S4 567 425 TOTAL (10-20) XXXXJO()O( S12 232.753 S12.664 903 xxxxxxxx S1.! 951 a:-s PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es x:xxxxxxx S529.201 $583 967 xxxxxxxx S5.91 944 SERVICES 23 Travel lOOOOOOO( S28.648 S44 557 xxxx:xxxx S33 .600 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOOO( so so xxxxxxxx SB 15J 25 Other lOOOOOOO( S125.316 S63 614 xxxx:xxxx S75 97  TOTAL (30) lOOOOOOO( S683.165 $692,137 S710 265 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office xxxxxxxx so so S3 600 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxxx S353.697 y S336 537 S373 203 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxxx $38,223 S47 864 S29 65J 29 Other $17,581 S21 , 103 $28 476 TOTAL (40) S409 501 y S405 .503 S434.929 CAPITAL 30 Equipment )()()00000( S122.540 S98 368 xxxxxx:xx S351 816 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair etc. xxxxxxxx so so xxxx:xxxx S5.500 (50) 32 Other lOOOOOOO( $0 y yy so S35C TOTAL (50) $122.540 y S98 368 xxxxxxxx S357 566 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )()()00000( $13,975 S15994 xxxxxxxx s~ .. 54.; (60) 34 other )()()00000( so so xxxxxxxx S~ I TOTAL (60) lOOOOOOO( S13.975 S16 994 xxxx:xxxx S11 64.! I TOTAL (30-601 )()()00000( S1 ,229, 181 $1 213 802 xxxx:xxxx S1 514 5:;.; I TOTAL (10-60 ) 385 6 S 13.461 ,934 388 6 $13 877 905 390 6 S16.466 382 TOTAL LINE ITEMS {SECOND PAGE) $816,096 S874 401 S895 064 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $14,278,030 xxxxxx $14,752,306 xxxxxx $17,361.466 Line Item Costs  Actual Actual Budaet 1994-95 1995-96 1996 -97 Stipends S 18 594 S20 833 S68 323 Other Ob1ects $0 so so Indirect Costs St35.687 S769 926 s-11 251 Vocational $15 065 $31 996 S32.000 Athletics $25 586 S30 952 S32 .000 Gifted Proqrams $498 S377 S500 Plant Services $17,460 $15 000 S 15.000 Read1nq S188 S417 $500 Science $0 so so Enol1sh $500 S900 S1 500 Special Education S2.518 S3 999 S4 000 xxxxxx $0 so so xxxxxx so so so xxxxxx so so so Total Line Items S816.096 $874 401 S895 064 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 3,522.80 3,630.89 3 630.89 Total r::osts $14.278,030 $14,752.306 $17 361 ,466 Per Pupil Cost $4,053 $4,063 $4,782 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94.95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Booker Magnet School . F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 $56,095 1 0 $57 ,267 1 0 S59 663 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $52,333 1 0 S41 ,994 1 0 S40,672 03 Specialists 7.0 $217,496 7.0 $254,408 7 0 S261 ,827 04 Counselors 2.0 S67,432 20 $70,167 2.0 S,3 553 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,190 1.0 S39 000 1 0 S39.960 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 00 so 1.0 S33 000 07 MUSIC 00 $0 0.0 so 00 so 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 00 so 00 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 10 Special Education 1.3 $51,870 1.3 $52,948 1 3 S34 ,055 11 Gifted 1.0 $37,221 1.0 $38,031 1.0 S38,946 12 Cla ssroom 30.2 $965,196 30 2 S1 ,016,033 30.2 S1 031 ,056 13 Substitutes 0.0 $25,235 0.0 $16,708 00 S20 COO 14 Other-Kindergarten 40 $126,536 4 0 $127935 4 0 S134 40C TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1 .637,604 48.5 S1,714 .490 49 5 S1 767 31 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31 ,932 20 $32 915 20 S33 -23 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $28.104 1 0 S30. 747 1 0 S30 :'25 17 Custodians 40 $50 716 4.0 S45.217 4 0 S53 110 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 so 00 so 00 so 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 00 so 00 so 00 so 20 Other-Aides 70 S55,860 70 $64 468 7 0 S62.894 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx:x S199,799 $209,864 S528.136 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14 0 $366.411 14 0 -$383,212 14.0 $708 596 TOTAL (10-20) . S2,004 016 $2.097 701 $2,475 727 .I PURCHASED 22 Ut!l1t1es $66.393  $77,731 $78 070 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxx:x S3.817 $6 721 S5 000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aoreements xxxxxxxx 25 Other xxxxxxxx $10.475 S4 657 S2 780 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx:x S80 685 S89 108 S85 35C MATERIALS, 26 Princ1pa l's Office XlOOCOOO( xxxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Reaular Classroom XlOOCOOO( $48 677 $19 417 xxxxxxxx 342 J,9 (40) 28 Media XlOOCOOO( so S5 922 S6 sc 29 Other xxx:xxxxx S3 218 xxxxxxxx S3 518 S4 205 TOTAL (40) xxx:xxxxx $51 ,895 - S28 35- xxxxxxxx ~52 ~3! CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxx:xxxxx $15 651 S5.581 S4t Q\" I OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1nq Repair, etc. S2 500 (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $15.651 $5.581 S46 .921 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $0 $245 $250 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $0 $245 S250 TOTAL (30-60) $148,231 $123.791 $185455 TOTAL (10-60) 62.5 $2,152,247 62.5 $2,221 492 63 5 $2,661 182 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) S130,151 $134 187 S142998 GRAND TOTAL XlOCXXX $2,282,398 xxxxxx $2,355,680 xxxxxx $2,804,180 Line Item Costs  Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Stipends $2,550 $7,428 S20.733 Other Objects Indirect Costs $117.710 $123,189 S118,602 Vocational $2,410 so so Athletics $4,094 50 so Gifted Programs $80 5117 $155 Plant Services $2,794 S2.550 S2.505 Reading $30 571 $84 Science 50 so so English $80 S153 $251 Special Education S403 S680 S668 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $130 151 5134 187 s~2 998 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 19%-97 3rd Qtr ADM or Pro1 559 60 594 05 594 05 Total Costs S2 282.398 $2 355 680 $2804,180 Per Pupil Cost $4,079 $3,965 $4,720 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Carver Magnet School . F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budoet CERTIFIED 01 Pr1nc1pal 1.0 $49,673 1.0 S53,423 1 0 S55 761 STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 1 0 $39,816 1.0 $41,602 1.0 S43 871 03 Specialists 8 0 S287,352 8.0 $238,979 80 S262.515 04 Counselors 20 $63,337 20 S65,001 20 S68.259 05 Media Spec 1 5 $48,897 1 5 $50 145 1 5 S52 230 06 Art-Pert /Prod 00 $0 00 $0 00 so 07 Music 00 so 00 so 00 so 08 Fore1qn Lano 00 $0 0.0 so 00 so 09 Vocational 00 $0 00 so 00 so 10 Special Education 1 0 $45,076 1 5 S46.511 1 5 S48 9G1 11 Gifted 1.4 $52,136 1 4 $45.188 1 4 S57 800 12 Classroom 24 3 S630 244 24 3 S683,406 24 3 S707 479 13 Substitutes 0.0 $23,223 0.0 S36.998 00 S17.150 14 Other-K1nderQarten 4 0 S88 ,097 4 0 S121 858 40 S131 099 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44 2 S1,327 849 44 7 S1 383 111 .!4 7 S1445C64 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 S47,887 3 0 S47.543 30 ss 1 ce2 STAFF 16 Nurses 1 0 S31,806 1 0 S30,330 1 0 S34 275 17 Custodians 4 0 S41 ,564 40 S43,474 4 0 S45 328 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 0.0 so 00 so 00 SC 19 Pa raprofess1onals-Other 0.0 so 00 so 00 S:J 20 Other-Aides 11 0 $89,247 11 0 S91 .044 11.0 S94 342 21 Fnnqe Benefits(20) XXXX)O()O( S177,960 S185 651 S4 75.080 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $388,465 19.0 S398,042 19 0 S700 945 TOTAL (10-20) S1,716,314 S1.,781 ,153 S2, 146,009 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es $67,508 S65,064 S7.1.899 SERVICES 23 Travel $7,524 S18,594 $9 000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $14,292 $7.181 S8 591 TOTAL (30) $89.324 S90.839 S89 490 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office XXXX)O()O( SUPPLIES 27 ReQular Classroom XXXX)O()O( S66 .365 S60 846 S68 OCO (40) 28 Media XXXX)O()O( $1 ,039 S11 530 S2 000 29 Other S3, 113 S3 942 xxxxxxxx S3 .500 TOTAL (40) XXXX)O()O( S?0,517 S76 318 xxxxxxxx S73,500 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXXX)O()O( $14,917 $6,070 xxxxxxxx S56.240 OUTLAY 31 Bulld1nq Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other XXXX)O()O( TOTAL (50) $14,917 S6 070 S56.240 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $6,495 S6,863 S3,000 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $6,495 $6 ,863 S3 .000 TOTAL (30-60 ) S181 .253 S180,090 S222.230 TOTAL (10-60 ) 63 2 S1 ,897 567 63 .7 S1 961 243 63 7 S2 368.239 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) S145 549 S123.660 S143 566 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $2,043,116 xxxxxx $2,084,903 xxxxxx $2,511 ,905 Line Item Co5ts - Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Stipends S9,973 S4 811 S28 990 Other Ob1ects Ind irect Costs $125,067 S115 -189 s111 189 Vocational S2.561 so so Athletics S4,350 so so Gifted Proqrams $85 S109 S145 Plant Services S2. 968 $2 400 S2 385 Reading S32 $67 S82 Science so so so English S85 S144 :5239 Special Education $428 S640 S636 xxxxxx XXJOOO( XXJOOO( Total Line Items $145549 S123 660 S143 666 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3rd Otr ADM or ProJ. 582.50 595.67 595 67 Total Costs $2,043.116 S2.084 903 S2 511 905 Per Pupil Cost $3,507 $3,500 $4,217 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94-95 94.95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Gibbs Magnet School - F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 $40,467 1.0 $46.100 1 0 $45 602 STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 1.0 $65,021 1 0 S44,974 1 0 S47 .653 03 Spec1al1sts 58 $164 ,180 5 8 $169808 5 8 $182 294 04 Counselors 1 0 $41 ,051 1.0 $41 ,861 1 0 $42,870 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $39,625 1.0 S39 140 1 0 $42,303 06 Art-Perf /Prod. 00 so 00 $0 00 so 07 Music 0.0 $0 00 $0 00 so 08 Fore1qn Lang. 0.0 $0 00 $0 00 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 00 so 10 Special Education 1 5 $71,708 1.5 $58 950 1 5 $56.132 11 Gifted 1 0 $34,567 1 0 S35 377 1.0 S24 850 12 Classroom 15 0 $423,335 15 0 S442 440 15 0 s~co 12a 13 Substitutes 00 $14 ,238 00 S9 030 00 S14.CCC 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $60,096 2 0 S6 1. ~17 2 0 S6~ ~37 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 29 3 $954 288 29 3 S949 396 29 3 s s8o -5a SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1 4 S12, 127 1 4 S19 010 1 4 S20 060 STAFF 16 Nurses 08 $10,787 0 8 S 12 958 08 S 13 702 17 Custodians 3 0 S40.155 30 $37 ,641 30 S38 323 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 so 00 so 00 SC 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 00 so 00 so 00 so 20 Other-Aides 5 6 S26,814 56 $33 864 5.6 $45 637 21 Fringe Benef1ts(20) xxxxxxxx S119,391 S119 320 S31Q,946 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 S209,274 10.8 S222.793 10.8 S428.668 TOTAL (10-20) $1 ,163,560 $1 ,172.187 XlOOOOOO( S1 ,409 436 PURCHASED 22 Util1t1es xxxxxxxx S31 .890 S35 . 783 S38 ,577 SERVICES 23 Travel $1,479 $2 527 XlOOOOOO( S2.000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aareements XlOOOOOO( S25C 25 Other $7,117 S4 255 XlOOOOOO( $2,100 TOTAL (30) $40.486 S42.565 S42.927 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office xxxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxxx S25.601 II $19 527 )0000000( $35 000 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxxx $2,305 S5 291 S3 500 29 Other $1 ,542 $1 821 $1 860 TOTAL (40) xxxxx:xxx S29,449 S26.638 S40 360 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $12,842 S11 287 $49 035 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair. etc. (50) 32 Other T )0000000( TOTAL (50) )000()()()0( S12,842 S11 287 .xxxxxxxx S49.035 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees S1 321 S1 567 )0000000( S994 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $1 ,321 S1 567 S994 TOTAL (30-60) )000()()()0( S84,098 S82 057 $133 3'6 TOTAL (10-60) 40 1 S1247658 40.1 S1 254 245 40 .1 S1 542.752 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) S55 825 $71 178 S685\" 7 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $1,303,4')3 xxxxxx $1,325,419 xxxxxx $1,611,369 Line Item Costs - Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Stipends so so so Other ObIects Indirect Costs S51 ,498 S69 :94 Sc6 -, 3 Vocational S1 055 so so Athletics S1 .791 so so Gifted Proqrams S35 S60 580 Plant Services S1 222 S' ~50 S' 3C5 Read1na S13 S33 S42 Science so so so Enql1sh S35 S81 s2s Spec1ul Education $176 S360 S348 xxxxxx )()()()00( )()()()00( Total Line Items S55 825 S71 178 S661 - Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3rd Qtr ADM or ProJ. 289 10 290 60 290 60 Total Costs S1 .303.483 $1 ,325.419 $1611 ,369 Per Pupil Cost $4,509 $4,561 $5 ,545 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT 5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96 -97 Williams Magnet School - F.T.E. Actual f .T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budciet CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 S60.896 1 0 S62. 128 1 0 $64 55 - STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 1 0 $40,205 1 0 S41 ,246 1 0 $43 238 03 Speciali sts 5 0 $184 522 5 0 S188.658 5 0 S 195 7J8 04 Coun selors 1 4 S41 ,395 1 4 S50.648 1 4 S43 362 05 Media Spec. 1 0 S29.1 17 1.0 S30, 706 1.0 $32.313 06 Art-Peri /Prod. 0.0 so 0 0 $0 00 so 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 08 Fore1Qn Lanq 00 $0 0.0 so 0 0 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 10 Special Education 1.1 $29,147 1.1 $29,957 1. 1 S42,724 11 Gifted 2.0 $73,389 2.0 $75,030 2 0 $77.685 12 Classroom 20.0 S666 653 20 0 $704 799 20 0 S711 283 13 Substitutes 0.0 S11 467 0.0 $12.190 00 S16 CCO 14 0th er-Kinderciarten 3.0 S114,639 3.0 S117,049 3 0 s;19 _9-3 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.5 S1 .251 ,430 35 5 S1 .312 .612 35 5 S1 346 993 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 26 $37,966 2 6 S41 219 26 SJ2 227 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 S35.551 1 0 S36.694 1.0 S38 t.27 17 Custodians 3 5 S46,384 4 0 S48 426 40 S54,336 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 so 00 so 0.0 so 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 00 so 0.0 so 20 Other-Aides 90 S38 036 90 S42.437 9.0 S4 7 -;-5 21 Frinae Benefits(20' xxxxxxxx S 156.998 S163,340 $422.312 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.1 $314,935 16.6 S332.115 16 6 S605.078 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxxx $1 566,365 S1 644 726 S1 ,952.071 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es xxxxxxxx S39.636 S51 988 S52, 119 SERVICES 23 Travel xxx:xxxxx $558 )()000000( $1 573 $3 -oc (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other xxxxxxxx S13 .763 S3.-66 S4 65C TOTAL (30 ) xxx:xxxxx S53 957 )()C.()()()00( S5 7. 327 S60 .:es MATERIALS, 25 Princ1pal 's Office xxx:xxxxx )()C.()()()00( SUPPLIES 27 Reaular Classroom xxx:xxxxx S54 558 S40 466 x:xxxxxxx S59 35t. (40) 28 Media xxx:xxxxx S4 034 )()00()()00( S5 163 S5,000 29 Other xxxxxxxx S1 713 S2 096 S1 366 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxxx S60,306  S47, 726 S65 750 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxxx S15,921 )()000000( S28 553 S38 6J0 OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1ng Repair etc. XXXXXlOO( (50) 32 Other S350 TOTAL /50) S15,921 $28.553 S38 950 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees XXXXXlOO( $1 ,544 S3 304 S200 (60) 34 Other XXXXXlOO( TOTAL (60) $1 ,544 $3,304 S800 TOTAL (30-60) $131 ,729 S136 910 $165 969 TOTAL (1 0-60) 51 .6 $1 ,698,094 52.1 S1 781 ,636 52.1 $2.118 040 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) $106,906 $106,894 $109,192 GRANO TOTAL xxxxxx $1,805,000 xxxxxx $1,888,530 xxxxxx $2,227,232 Line Item Costs - Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Stipends S3.232 S4 Oi2 S10.000 Other Objects Indirect Costs S95,639 $100 091 S96 364 Vocation al S1 ,958 so so Athletics S3 326 :50 so Gifted Proorams S65 $90 $120 Plant Services $2,270 $1 ,950 $1 935 Reading $24 $54 $63 Science $0 so so Enolls~ $65 $117 $194 Special Education S327 S520 ssc xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items S106 906 S106694 S109 192 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 . 1996-97 3rd Qtr ADM or ProJ. 449.80 496 17 496 17 Total Costs S1 805,000 $1 ,888 530 S2 227 232 Per Pupil Cost $4,013 $3,806 $4,489 1996-87 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Mann Magnet School . F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. BudQet CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 $64 646 1 0 S65 818 1 0 S67 16C STAFF 02 Asst Pr1n 3 0 5146 643 3 0 5147 909 3 0 s31 J,2 03 Spec1al1sts 3.6 S102.932 3.6 S103 631 3 6 so3 o:o 04 Counselors 3 0 574 142 3 0 5114 903 3 0 Sl 19 49;- 05 Media Spec. 1 0 S42.120 1 0 S42 951 1 J S43 98 06 Art-Pert /Prod. 00 so 00 SC 00 so 07 Music 00 so 00 so 0 0 so 08 Fore1qn Lang 0.0 so 00 so 0 0 so 09 Vocational 5 6 5192 183 5 6 $198 :\"36 5 6 S'91 956 10 Special Education 1 3 S50.553 1 3 550 898 1 3 540 94;- 11 Gifted 00 so 00 so 00 so 12 Classroom 46 8 S 1 464,542 46 8 S1 ,524 966 4, 8 Si 5.!6 :-73 13 Substitutes 0.0 S36,319 00 S37,832 0 0 S36.200 14 Other-Kinderqarten 0.0 so 00 so 00 so TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 65 3 S2.174.080 65 3 S2.287 643 66 3 S2 281 232 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 40 568,815 5.0 S82.502 5 0 sa5 41 ~ STAFF 16 Nurses 1 0 S32,359 1 0 S33 4 72 1 0 $34 275 17 Custodians 6.0 $66,778 6.0 S73 986 60 S74 94, 18 Paraorofess1onals-Chptr 1 0.0 so 0.0 so 00 SC 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1 0 $33,357 1.0 S31 ,444 1 0 S31 937 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $33,285 2.4 $33,901 2 4 S29445 21 Fringe Benef1ts(20) xxxxxxxx S263.037 $275 972 S682 54c TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14 4 $497,631. 15.4 $531 ,276 15.4 S938 .558 TOTAL (10-20) $2,671.701 $2,818 921 $3 219 791 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es xxxxxxxx $155,343 $160,645 S169 940 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxxx $10,011 $6,563 xx:xxxxxx $6,900 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements $4 500 25 Other xxxxxxxx $45,210 $35,376 $36 980 TOTAL (30) )000()000( $210,564 S202.583 xx:xxxxxx S218320 MATERIALS, 26 Princ1pal's Office xxxxxxxx S2 750 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XXXXlOOO( $81 026 S98 .129 S76 2r (40) 28 Media lOOOOOOO( S9.486 XXX)OOO()( 59 981 xx:xxxxxx S7 COC 29 Other xxxxxxxx $2,421 . S3. 929 xx:xxxxxx S5 90C TOTAL (40) xxxxxxxx S92.933 S112.039 S91 927 CAPITAL 30 Equipment )000()000( $37 285 $21 987 xxxxxxxx S80 520 OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1nq Repair. etc. )000()()00( S3 OOC (50) 32 Other xxxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $37 285 $21 987 S83 520 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )000()000( $1 ,104 $1 277 S2 400 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $1 ,104 $1 ,277 S2.400 TOTAL (30-60) $341 ,886 S337 886 S396 167 TOTAL (10-60) 79 7 $3013,587 80 7 $3,156.807 81 7 S3 615 958 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $191 880 $205 681 S203 007 GRANO TOTAL xxxxxx $3,205,467 xxxxxx $3 ,362,488 xxxxxx $3,818,965 Line Item Costs - Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 St1oends $480 $1 698 $4 600 Other Ob1ects Indirect Costs $176,565 $169 384 $163 077 Vocational $3,616 $15 998 $16 000 Athletics $6,140 $13 928 $14 500 Gifted Programs $118 so $0 Plant Services $4 190 $3 450 $3 450 Reading $46 $96 S115 Science $0 so so English $120 S207 S345 Special Education $605 S920 S92C XX)()()()( xxxxxx xxxxxx Tota l Line Items S191 880 $205 681 S203 007 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3ro Otr ADM or Pro1 842 80 82 1 75 s2 1 ,5 Total Costs S3 205,467 $3,362 488 S3818965 Per Pupil Cost $3,803 $4,092 $4,647 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Parkview Magnet School - F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 S66 148 1 0 $67 ,321 1 0 S69 939 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin 30 S 154,354 30 $157 ,476 3 0 S158. 145 03 Spec1alIsts 9 8 $306 ,485 98 $305 ,803 98 $321 014 04 Counselors 30 S130 987 3.0 $133,995 3.0 $137,875 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,345 1.0 S35, 176 1.0 S36.020 06 Art-P erf./P rod. 0.0 $0 00 so 0.0 so 07 Music 0.0 $0 00 $0 0.0 so 08 Fore1qn Lanq. 00 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 so 09 Vocatio nal 7 0 $216,610 7 0 $212,039 7.0 $218,257 10 Special Education 1 5 $54 861 1 5 $52,468 1 5 $54 946 11 Gifted 0 0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 12 Classroom 39 6 $1 394 739 40 6 $1,398.425 40 6 S1 472.557 13 Substitutes 0.0 S31 172 00 $49,417 00 S51 640 14 Other-Kind erg art en 1 0 S41 051 1 0 S41 .861 1 0 S42 e-c TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66 9 S2.430 752 67 9 S2 453 979 67 9 S2 563 :252 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 6.0 S132 489 60 S137 277 60 s1 1 2.:39 STAFF 16 Nurses 06 S14 453 0.6 S15 075 06 S15 9.;,: 17 Custodians 80 S105.710 80 $112.513 8 0 s12e e48 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 so 00 so 00 so 19 Paraorofess1ona ls-Other 5 0 S97.429 so S95 334 so S1i5C98 20 Other-Aides 20 S26,003 2.0 S28 739 2.0 S25. 231 21 Fringe Benefits(20} lOOOOOOOC $303.948 $307 297 $788 222 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21 .6 $680,032  21 .6 $696,234 21 6 $1 ,185581 TOTAL (10-20) $3,110,784 $3,150,214 $3.748844 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es lOOOOOOOC $168,431 $192,757 S181 ,339 SERVICES 23 Travel SS,259 $8.580 S7 000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements lOOOOOOOC S4 COO 25 Other lOOOOOOOC S34 459 S8,379 S20 :::-D TOTAL (30) S208.149 S209,715 s2132:;9 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office Sc::O SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom S77 470 S98, 152 XlOOOOO\u003cX S92 .:s3 (40) 28 Media S21,359 $9.976 S6 COO 29 Other $5 574 $5,796 S11 625 TOTAL (40) $104 403 $113,924 $110 958 CAPITAL 30 Equipment S25.924 S24,889 S83 000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. vvvvvvvv (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $25,924 S24,889 . S83.000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees S3 511 S3. 738 S4 200 (60) 34 Other xx:xxxxxx )()0()()000( TOTAL (60) xx:xxxxxx S3 511 S3. 738 XlOOOOO\u003cX S4 2CJO TOTAL (30-60) )()()0()()00( S341 987 S352 267 XlOOOOO\u003cX S41 1 367 TOTAL (10-60) 88 5 S3452,771 89 5 $3 502,481 89 5 S4160211 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) $185 785 $232 801 S227 ::'.l4 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $3,638,556 xxxxxx $3 ,735,282 xxxxxx $4,387,815 Line Item Costs  Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 St1oends $2 359 S2 824 $4 000 Other Ob1ects Indirect Costs S,69 208 5192 482 S'.85 316 Vocationa l SJ 465 S15 998 S16 000 Ath let ics S5 885 517023 S 17 500 Gifted Proorams $115 so so Plant Services $4 016 SJ 300 S3 420 Read1nq $43 596 S 114 Science so so SC Enolish $115 S198 5342 Special Eaucat1on 5579 S880 :591: XXXXX:\u003c XX)()()()( XX)()()()( Total Line Items S185,785 5232 801 S227 604 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3rd Otr. ADM or ProJ. 799.00 832.65 832 65 Total Costs S3.638.556 $3.735 282 S4387815 Per Pupil Cost $4,554 $4,486 $5 ,270 IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF Pllli A!Kfe'duNTY, ARKANSAS ~ 4~ o'3 R LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 Ot) oc1 -, r EC Er .r\"F?~ OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS; ME.KiBER~ ~- ,' '-. ts~.Y, OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, J.L. WILS~ffQ~~~,b,.R\\\\~~sP-S OCT i PRESIDENT; ODELL DA VIS, JR., VICE PRES'ID'ENT; 1996 SIDNEY FITZHUGH, SR., MEMBER; IRMA MOREHOUSE, SECRETARY; WILLIAM WARD, Office of Desegregat;or, IAOOi!011fl MEMBER; VELMA LARKIN, MEMBER; GENORA ......, FRAZIER, MEMBER; AND LEON PHILLIPS, JR., SUPERINTENDENT PLAINTIFFS vs. NO. 92-5318 MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; JIMMIE LOU FISHER LUMPKIN, TREASURER OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; REP. BOBBY HOGUE, SPEAKER OF THE ARKANSAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; STANLEY RUSS, PRESIDENT PROTEMPORE OF THE ARKANSAS SENATE; ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; GENE WILHOIT, DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JAMES McCLARTY, CHAIRMAN; EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., MEMBER; CARL E. BAGGETT, MEMBER; GARY BEASLEY, MEMBER; MARTHA DIXON, MEMBER; WILLIAM B. FISHER, MEMBER; JAMES WHITMORE, MEMBER; LUKE GORDY, MEMBER; BETTY PICKETT, MEMBER; ELAINE SCOTT, MEMBER; RICHARD SMITH, MEMBER; SHERRY WALKER, MEMBER WITNESS LIST DEFENDANTS Comes now the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") by and through its attorneys, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A., pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order, and for its Witness List, states as follows: James Smith, Superintendent orth Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street, Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-8000 Barry K.incl North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street, Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-8000 and Danny Reed Director of Special Education North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street, Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-8000 These witnesses will testify generally concerning the impact of the state funding formula on the North Little Rock School District. Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (50n1) 375-1122 d-;p ;f{ \u0026J :- /J ! vU-~Y STEPHEN W. JONES # ZJS083 ALLEN CARNEY #94122 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 1st day of October, 1996 sent via U.S. Mail one copy of the foregoing to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 William P. Thompson James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Avenue, Ste. 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jimmy Lee Wilson 801 Perry Street Helena, Arkansas 72342 Bill Llewellyn P.O. Box 287 M~=g;;;;;: u]~ Stephen W. Jones 3 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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., * * * FiL~D ~ US OISTi\":ICT COU~T EA.:, TERIJ DISTRICT I\\R;-ANSAS OCT O 2 1996 JAMi:Sr~~ORivlACK, CLERK By: \\_~JUb\u0026QT\\ / DEP CLER!( OCT 3 1996 Intervenor. * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Office of Desegregation Mornionng * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRQER Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors asking the Court to issue a written order setting forth its ruling on the Pulaski County Special School District's motion for equitable relief [doc. # 2780]. In that motion, the PCSSD asked the Court to order striking teachers back to work. The Court grants the Joshua Intervenors' motion [doc. # 2822]. At the conclusion of the August 29, 1996 hearing on the motion, which the Court treated as a motion for preliminary injunction, the Court directed the court reporter to transcribe the Court's findings and file them as the Court's Order. See doc. # 2786. On August 30, 1996, the findings were filed as a transcript. See doc. # 2801. (sc.t.- .fr.1,1rosa-,f\u003e+ .f.ld ,..,. /i'b,4 .--y) The Court, therefore, pursuant to the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the transcript filed on August 30, 1996, hereby grants the motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District on August 27, 1996. 11\u0026 SO ORDERED this 2-_ day of October 1996. ; fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 5\" AN,A 79(1!}.FRCf' IN ON dJ,fd,/96 BY 17  \\~  2 IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS; MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, J.L. WILSON, PRESIDENT; ODELL DA VIS, JR., VICE PRESIDENT; SIDNEY FITZHUGH, SR., MEMBER; IRMA MOREHOUSE, SECRET ARY; WILLIAM WARD, MEMBER; VELMA LARKIN, MEMBER; GENORA FRAZIER, MEMBER; AND LEON PHILLIPS, JR., SUPERINTENDENT vs. NO. 92-5318 MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; JIMMIE LOU FISHER LUMPKIN, TREASURER OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; REP. BOBBY HOGUE, SPEAKER OF THE ARKANSAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; STANLEY RUSS, PRESIDENT PROTEMPORE OF THE ARKANSAS SENATE; ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; GENE WILHOIT, DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JAl'1ES McCLARTY, CHAIRMAN; EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., MEMBER; CARLE. BAGGETT, MEMBER; GARY BEASLEY, MEMBER "}],"pages":{"current_page":23,"next_page":24,"prev_page":22,"total_pages":46,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":264,"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}}]}}