{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1628","title":"Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of their motion for an award of attorneys' fees","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-09-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Lawyers","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of their motion for an award of attorneys' fees"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1628"],"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.  .  : .. ... FILEO US. DISTRICT COURT ' EASTFRN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SfP 27 1996 ~;~ES W, Mcl.iUHMA~K, CLERK SEP ~ 0 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANSAS Otfice ot Desegregation Monitorm9 WESTERN DIVISION -- -- _ .. ___ -. ___ ..,,_,, ... ~ - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. OEP ClfRI( PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for An Award of Attorneys' Fees (September 1996) The LRSD defendants sought as to LRSD an end to the requirement that the plans be implemented. The district sought an end to the court's jurisdiction, and, thereby, any role for ODM. The Joshua Intervenors filed a comprehensive response. The Joshua Intervenors prevailed on this matter when the court on September 23, 1996 denied LRSD's motion. The Joshua Intervenors are, at minimum, entitled to an award of attorneys' fees for their work on this matter as prevailing parties . .E..,__g_,_, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988; Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 17 F.3d 260 (8th Cir. 1994); Hatfield v. Hayes, 877 F.2d 717, 719-20 (8th Cir. 1989). 1 1 By making this motion and this argument, the Joshua Intervenors do not waive their contention that they are entitled to fee awards at this stage of the case based upon their engaging in reasonable post-judgment monitoring, irrespective of their \"prevailing\" with regard to each separate element of their work. 1 The time claimed for the efforts of Joshua counsel -- 50.16 hours is reasonable. See Declaration of Bob Pressman, para. (12.} and Attachment One. It has been described on a daily basis, based upon contemporaneous records. Id. Time is claimed for one person (lead counsel, John W. Walker's and Ms. Springer's time has been waived}. The intervenors had to take seriously an effort to end, as to LRSD, the requirement that the plans be implemented and the court's jurisdiction. The LRSD memorandum cited 40 court decisions. Preparation of a response required consideration of not only many of these decisions and others, but also, among other things: the LRSD's exhibits (numbering 17}, the text of the various plans and other documents, the testimony of witnesses Armor, Orfield, and Walberg, and the court's various findings about the quality of \"compliance\" by the officials and agents of the LRSD. The rate sought for an attorney with more than 30 years of relevant experience, much in the areas of school desegregation and racial discrimination generally, is proper. First. The rate is supported by rulings of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 2 Second. The rate is shown to be reasonable by reference 2 See McDonald v. Armentrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1460, 1461 (8th Cir. 1988} (in 1988, the court noted its approval in 1986 in this case of the rate of$ 200\\hour for a Washington, D.C. \"cooperating attorney who had been in practice approximately thirty years\" and of the same rate in 1988 in the Kansas City case for \"an experienced civil rights attorney for his services in [that] school desegregation case ... \"}; Planned Parenthood Sioux Falls Clinic v. Miller, 70 F.3d 517 (8th Cir. 1995} (rates of from$ 200 to $ 260 per hour for the work of four attorneys in an appeal}; see also Joshua Intervenors' final submission in support of our earlier comprehensive fee petition documenting that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit made an award recently to lead counsel for work on the Harvell appeal at the rate of$ 250 per hour}. 2 to the ruling in Morgan y. Gittens. see Pressman Dec., para. ( 13. ) ( d) and enclosed copy of the opinion. Third. The rate is supported by the Declaration of Thomas I. Atkins and the affidavits of Geraldine Hines and Jeffrey Kabrick (attached to the motion). Fourth. The rate is supported by the survey conducted by the publication Arkansas Business. See Pressman Dec., para. (13.) (e) and survey attached thereto. Conclusion The motion should be granted, promptly. # 6404 Walker, P.A. 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 ..E,\u003c,~6'~ Bob Pressman MA# 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS TALLULAH MORGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, ( v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 72-911-WAG ROBERT GITTENS, ET AL,, Defendants. JUDGMENT AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES This action came on for hearing before the Court, Honorable w. Arthur Garrity, Jr., District Judge presiding, on plaintiffs' applications for attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1988, and the issues having been duly heard and a - decision having been duly rendered on the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated in the Memorandum of Decision filed contemporaneously herewith, It is Ordered and Adjudged that the plaintiffs Tallulah Morgan et al. recover of the defendants Robert Gittens et al. the sum of $228,162.69, of which $128,162.69 shall be paid to Thomas I. Atkins, Esq., and $100,000 to the Law and Education Center, Inc., for the services of Robert Pressman, Esq. Dated at Boston, Massachusetts, this 3_L day of January, 1996. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS TALLULAH MORGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 72-911-WAG ROBERT GITTENS1 , ET AL., Defendants. GARRITY, D.J. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AS TO ATTORNEYS' FEES January 31, 1996 As noted in the Final Judgment and the Final Judgment as Amended, 2 the Court has under advisement plaintiffs' In keeping with practice, the named defendant is the Chairman of the Boston School Committee. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) (1), defendant Gittens is substituted as the named defendant; and Mayor Thomas M. Menino and other successor municipal officers are automatically substituted as parties defendant. 2 Between May 1990 and July 1994, judgment was amended thrice by this Court, on September 19, 1990, June 21, 1991, and July 30, 1993, and once on February 21, 1991 by the Court of 1 I applications for awards of attorneys fees and expenses pursuant to 42 u.s.c.  1988. In November 1988 Attorneys Atkins and Pressman were awarded compensation for services and expenses through December 14, 1988 and October 5, 1988 respectively, Atkins by court order and Pressman by agreement with defendant. Since then plaintiffs have filed a series of applications, initially in December 1989, followed by several supplements3 covering services and expenses of Atkins and services of Pressman through the summer of 1993. They have not sought compensation for time spent thereafter on miscellaneous matters and preparing further memoranda. 4 Defendant City of Boston has responded to each of plaintiffs' applications, contesting their right to any awards at all and raising several particular objections. The Court heard oral argument on April 18, 1990 and has received voluminous supporting materials, including comprehensive, detailed and contemporaneous records of time spent and expenditures incurred; affidavits of the applicants stating their general qualifications and describing particular services in the instant case; affidavits of members of the bar of this court attesting to the reasonableness of the hourly rates Appeals. Precise dates are omitted partly because unnecessary since they appear on related exhibits and because there are small differences in the filing dates and periods covered by plaintiffs' separate applications and supplements for services. Plaintiffs' last memorandum was filed on June 1, 1995 to which defendants replied on June 16, 1995. 2 charged; reports in legal publications as to fees customarily charged in 1989 by lawyers in law firms in Boston and elsewhere; and transcripts of prior proceedings in this case. 5 In ruling upon the pending applications, the Court has analyzed a small mountain of filings which might in other contexts be overkill but not here because the events to which the services of counsel relate are long past and had to be reconstructed. OVERVIEW OF APPLICATIONS Thomas I. Atkins, Esquire, is in private practice specializing in civil rights litigation, particularly school desegregation cases, with offices in Brooklyn, New York. Due to his scholarship and long specialized experience, Mr. Atkins is in a class by himself representing plaintiffs in this type of litigation. Before moving to the national scene, he was active in Boston civic affairs since his days at Harvard Law School. For example, he was elected as a city councillor for two terms, and learned of the City's racial tensions first hand. Robert Pressman, Esquire, has comparable credentials, outlined in his affidavit filed with plaintiffs' application dated January 24, 1990. Following five years with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, he came in 1970 to the Center for Law and Education in Cambridge, a national support center for the entire legal services program on education issues. Mr. Pressman has tried school desegregation cases in a dozen 5 Especially relevant is the Court's appraisal at a November 15, 1988 hearing of Attorney Atkins' extraordinary qualifications as counsel for plaintiff class. 3 federal district courts, argued appeals in several federal circuits and been a principal contributor for two years to the Education Law Bulletin. Of all the attorneys who have filed appearances for various parties to these proceedings, who probably number in the thirties, he is the only one who was with the case since its inception, attending more hearings and submitting more briefs than any other lawyer. Being an employee of the Center, the Court's award to plaintiffs for his services will go to the Law and Education Center, Inc. Total compensation sought by plaintiffs for Atkins' services is $129,123 plus reimbursement of expenses amounting to $3,162.69, and for Pressman $109,311 for services with no claim for expenses. The application for Atkins is predicated on an hourly rate of $300, and for Pressman a rate of $200. Both applications are approximately $18,000 greater than those submitted on August 27, 1993 for such services and expenses. At that time, as shown in the following tables of applications filed on the dates and covering the time periods specified, hourly rates charged by Atkins increased from $240 in 1988 to $300 in 1991; and by Pressman from $140 in 1988 to $200 in 1991. 6 Plaintiffs are now seeking awards for the first three years, 6 A third set of periodic applications was received from plaintiff intervenors El Comite de Padres Pro Defensa de la Educacion Bilinque, capably represented in these proceedings for two decades by Attorney Caroline B. Playter of Boston. Ms. Playter's hourly charges increased from $125 to $140 in 1990, and her reapplication filed in 1995 was based upon a current hourly rate of $175. As occurred with all previous applications by El Comite de Padres, its final one was settled. 4 - 1988-91, at rates which their attorneys began charging in 1991. ATKINS' P~RIOOIC APP~ICATIOII~ P~RIOO C~R~Q HClJRS ~ !.ill Qill TOTALS SUBMITTED 12/15/88-12/16/89 239 240/hr 57,360.00 2,134.41 59,494.41 1/24/90 1/3/90-4/30/90 4.5 265/hr 12,852.50 192.70 13,045.20 4/30/90 5/1/90-5/18/90 23.25 265/hr 6, 161.25 n.a. 6,161.25 5/18/90 5/19/90-5/21/90 2l .OO 265/hr 5,565.00 308.70 5,873.70 6/6/90 5/30/90-4/2/91 17.75 265/hr 4,703.75 n.a. 2,928.75 4/8/91 9/26/90-12/4/90 7.50 265/hr l,987.50 n.a. l,987.50 4/8/91 4/15/91-8/24/93 73.41 300/hr 22,023.00 526.88 22,549.88 8/24/93 TOTALS: 430.41 110,653.00 3,162.69 113,815.69 PRESSMAN'S PERIOOIC APPLICATIONS AFFIDAVIT DATE OATES OF \\IORK HClJRS RATE TOTAL 12/29/89 l0/6/88-12/29/88 12.40 $140 S 1,736.00 4/9/90 1/13/89-12/28/89 211.TT $160 $33,883.20 5/18/90 1/2/90-5/18/90 114.23 S160\" $18,276.80 4/3/91 7/3/90-4/1/91 83.15 $160 $13,304.00 10/28/93 4/11/91-6/28/93 50% of hours 62.50 $180 S11,250.00 SOX of hours 62.50 $200 $12,500.00 TOTAL HClJRS: 546.55 AMOJNT: $90,950.00 Fees claimed in these periodic filings totalled $201,603; fees now sought total $238,434, an increase of $36,831. Expenses of $3,162.69, 1 all incurred by Atkins, remain the same. Without waiving explicitly a general objection to the Court's continuing jurisdiction to award fees under 1988, defendants have modified their position regarding reasonable hourly rates for services of plaintiffs' attorneys. In two oppositions filed in April, 1990, they first contended that Defendants' initial objection to this item was waived at page 10 of their memorandum filed December 13, 1993-. 5 maximum hourly rates for Atkins' services should be $140 and $90 for Pressman. The second opposition increased these figures to $200 and $140 respectively; but argued that roughly two-thirds of the applicants' services should be classified as \"non-core\" and compensated at the lower hourly rates of $160 and $100 respectively. A later defendants' memorandum in opposition filed in December 1993, applicable to services after April 11, 1991, agrees to increased hourly rates of $300 and $190 for core work8 but suggests $190 and $120 for non-core, respectively. Total fees proposed by defendants in their December 13, 1993 memorandum in opposition, without waiving substantive objections, are $56,674.15 for Atkins and $50,372.20 for Pressman, a total of $107,046.35. Costs of $3,162.69 incurred by Atkins have not been reduced by defendants in relation to fee reductions. Historical Background Consideration of the merits of plaintiffs' pending applications requires an understanding of the relevant history of these proceedings. It is recounted in detail in Morgan v. Nucci, 620 F. Supp. 214, 217-218 (D. Mass. 1985), and Morgan v. Nucci, 831 F.2d 313, 315-17 (1st Cir. 1987), and shows how the Court's remedial orders were lifted incrementally, a procedure later endorsed in Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 489 (1992). The case was closed, except for the pending applications, in similar 8 These were merely token concessions, however, since they pertained to only 4.5 hours of 96 hours claimed by Atkins during a period of more than two years; and to only 24 hours of the 115 hours claimed by Pressman during the same period. 6 incremental fashion by so-called Final Orders dated September 3, 1985 (attached as Appendix A), Final Judgment dated May 31, 1990, Amended Final Judgments dated September 19, 1990 and June 21, 1991 and Final Judgment as Amended dated July 19, 1994. An important closing order, vacating the Court's injunctive orders which had governed the student assignment process, was also issued by the Court of Appeals on September 28, 1987. See 831 F.2d at 326. Thereupon, the Defendant Mayor hired two consultants, Michael Alves and Charles Willie9 , to develop a new student assignment plan. After several months of consultations and hearings, the consultants in December 1988 proposed a plan to the Boston School Committee (\"BSC\") which approved its general framework on December 28, 1988. Following a public hearing on February 14, 1989, the Committee, on February 27, 1989, voted to adopt the plan subject to further modification arising out of the 90-day process ordered in paragraph 8 of the Court's 1985 final orders. The State Board convened eleven negotiating sessions, in which plaintiffs' counsel participated fully, which proposed numerous changes which were eventually adopted in April 1989 by the School Committee. Called the Controlled Choice Plan (\"CCP\"), it was scheduled for implementation at entry elementary grades in September 1989 (Phase I) and systernwide in September 1990 (Phase 9 Both were closely associated with the Court's plan, Alves as Project Director for Boston Desegregation Assistance at the State Board, and Willie as one of the four Masters who designed the plan adopted by the Court in 1975. 7 II); meanwhile the Court plan would continue in effect. Dissatisfied with some aspects of the CCP, and seeking more time for further study and amendments, plaintiffs moved for an injunction against its implementation on the ground that it would tend to resegregate the schools. After hearings on May 26, 30 and 31, 1989, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion, and Phase I of the CCP went into effect in September. In December the Committee again directed its general counsel \"to initiate the 90- day process required for modification of orders in Morgan vs. O'Reilly so that the second phase of the new student Assignment' Plan adopted herewith may be implemented\"; and again plaintiffs' counsel participated actively. Roughly 55% of counsels' services covered by the pending applications (532 hours out of a total of 977) pertains either directly or indirectly to the CCP. Another segment of plaintiffs' applications to which defendants are objecting on legal grounds is hours spent counteracting the efforts of the Boston Teachers Union (\"BTU\") to eliminate and then overturn on appeal paragraph (3) of the Final Judgment dated May 31, 1990, entitled \"Faculty and Staffing.\" The legal point now alleged by the defendants is that time spent defending against an intervenor's claim, which was also resisted by the BSC, is not properly chargeable against the BSC and City defendants. Undisputed Areas Defendants have not questioned several essential 8 components of plaintiffs' overall burden of proving their entitlement to attorneys' fees and expenses during the wind-down phase of these proceedings. The first is plaintiffs' having prevailed in demonstrating pervasive~~ segregation in Boston public schools and obtaining numerous far-ranging remedial orders, nearly all affirmed by the Court of Appeals and left in place by Supreme Court denials of certiorari. Nor have defendants challenged the inter-relationship between the hours for which compensation is now sought and the several claims as to which plaintiffs gained complete success. See Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d 934, 940-41 (1st Cir. 1992). Also undisputed are the hours that plaintiffs' attorneys claimed that they worked, the adequacy of their descriptions of services performed, and the contemporaneity of their diary entries. Clearly they met the record-keeping requirements ordered in Grendel's Den, Inc. v. Larkin, 749 F.2d 945, 952 (1st cir. 1984). It is clear too that Atkins and Pressman exercised sound billing judgment. There was virtually10 no duplication of services; e.g., it is apparent from an exhibit filed with plaintiffs' first supplemental application that, of the 33 meetings and four days of hearings attended by plaintiffs' counsel pertaining to the Controlled Choice Plan, plaintiffs' attorneys attended together only two of them. It is also 10 Agreement on this point is qualified by defendants' contention, addressed post, that charges by Pressman for conferring with Atkins should be disallowed because they are \"duplicative legal services.\" 9 apparent that work on behalf of plaintiffs' interests was divided so as to avoid duplication. All hours claimed were worked by Atkins and Pressman personally; none was referred to paralegals or associate counsel, any of whom would have required timeconsuming orientation and introduction to the complex, even arcane, issues with which plaintiffs' attorneys had become intimately familiar. Since his office was out of state, Atkins did not charge for time spent traveling to and from Boston. In sum, plaintiffs have made a strong prima facie showing of entitlement to the award of fees and expenses sought in the pending applications. It behooves them to show further that the hours claimed were reasonably spent and that their claimed hourly rates of compensation are reasonable. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983}; Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). These essential elements of plaintiffs' applications are disputed by defenda' nts on grounds which we now address. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS As heretofore noted, most of counsels' services for which plaintiffs now seek compensation related to the Controlled Choice Plan. Of such CCP services, three-fourths comprised their participation in 90-day sessions concerning Phases I and II or in 90-day subcommittee work, and the balance pertained to plaintiffs' unsuccessful attempt, by motion for a preliminary injunction denied May 31, 1989, to delay implementation of the CCP until 1990. Defendants central objection to an award for 10 such services rests on the above-mentioned 1987 Court of Appeals decision vacating the Court's orders pertaining to student assignments; and our award of fees for such services reflects our understanding of the relationship of the appellate court's order to provisions of the 1985 Final Orders not appealed from. In the defendants' view, after September 25, 1987, \"plaintiffs no longer had either the status of 'prevailing' parties on the issue of student assignments or the authority to monitor or review the school defendants' actions in developing and implementing the new plan.\" On the contrary, we find that the Court of Appeals ruling did not nullify any rights of the plaintiff class or deprive it of the victory it had achieved in the area of student assignments. Rather it reaffirmed plaintiffs' entitlement to the non-discriminatory treatment that they had received under the Court plan. It was aimed not at the plaintiffs, but at the lower court, which should no longer \"continue to involve itself\" in student assignments. The appellate decision did not affect paragraphs of the Final Orders on the unified facilities plan, parent councils, and faculty and staff. Nor did it disturb provisions of the Final Orders not appealed from, including the permanent injunction in Paragraph (2) and the detailed consent mechanism contained in paragraph (8) for the gradual transfer to the defendants of general responsibility for managing its schools, a transition begun with disengagement orders in 1982 and advanced by orders in 1984 and 1985 terminating the Court's 11 jurisdiction in several areas of school administration. At every turn, starting with negotiations initiated by the State Board in June 1981 aimed at fashioning a comprehensive consent decree, 11 never achieved, the Court relied upon the cooperation and, where obtainable, the collaboration of the defendants. Thus it came as no surprise that the school defendants, after September 25, 1987, resorted to the paragraph (8) procedures of the Final Orders to facilitate their development and implementation of the CCP, sometimes called the Alves-Willie Plan, aptly described by them as representing \"an evolution, not a counterrevolution.\" Until the opening of the 1989-90 school year, the defendants continued to comply with the Court plan and, except for entry elementary grades, did so until September 1990, three years after the Court of Appeals mandate. Plaintiffs' counsel participated fully and constructively in the development of the CCP, not as strangers or volunteers, as defense counsel has suggested in opposing an award of fees, but at the repeated request of the defendants. The details of their services in this regard are set forth in affidavits appended to plaintiffs' applications. Generally speaking, as soon as an executive summary of the proposed new Plan was available on February 9, 1989, BSC's general counsel mailed copies to parties to the paragraph (8) 90- 11 The Court's memorandum dated August 2, 1983 acknowledged the first State Board monitoring report as \"a long step toward a common ground from which the parties can discuss and confront issues of compliance and non-compliance in an intelligent and informed fashion.\" (emphasis added) 12 day process, including plaintiffs, with an assurance that they would receive complete copies when available. Promptly, on February 13, Atkins and Pressman replied with a five-page letter, copied to counsel for other 90-day process parties, raising various issues for discussion, including facilities and programs, seat allocations, transfers of students on the waiting list and opportunities for black pupiis to attend school in East Boston. All these and other issues raised in plaintiffs' letter were agenda items at several meetings moderated by the State Board. 12 Three series of 90-day process meetings were convened, all at the request of the school defendants, as follows: on February 27, 1989, the Boston School Committee approved the following order: ORDERED, That the School Committee approve the Controlled Choice Student Assignment Plan submitted on December 28, 1988 and amended by the School Committee on February 7, 1989 and February 27, 1989, and authorize the School Department to undertake the necessary preparations for implementation of the plan, subject to further modification pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraph 8 of the Final Orders in Morgan v. O'Reilly. (emphasis added) On July 26, 1989, BSC General Counsel asked state Board counsel to convene a 90-day process to consider a package of school closings and consolidations, stating in part: 12 Former Superintendent Wilson's affidavit dated May 25, 1989 stated, at paragraph 15: \"During February and March and April, my staff brought to my attention numerous additional concerns and recommendations for changes in the Plan raised during the course of the paragraph 8 proceedings. I considered them carefully and recommended to the Committee that it approve a number of amendments to the Plan based on those recommendations.\" 13 If you believe that these closings and consolidations conflict with any operative Court orders, the school defendants ask you to determine, pursuant to paragraph 8, that these closings and consolidations are emergency matters, due to the budget crisis, which the School Committee may adopt without negotiation or that these closings and consolidations effect insubstantial modifications of court orders and therefore need not be negotiated. If you determine that negotiations are required, we would appreciate your convening the parties immediately and attempting to expedite negotiations so that these closings and consolidations may be implemented in September 1989. (emphasis added) On December 12, 1989, the BSC adopted the following motion (12 affirmative, 1 absent): Resolved that the School Committee direct their Office of General Counsel to initiate the 90-day process required for modification of orders in Morgan vs. O'Reilly, so that the second phase of the new Student Assignment Plan adopted herewith may be implemented. (emphasis added) Continuing reliance by the BSC on the assistance of plaintiffs' attorneys regarding student assignments was demonstrated repeatedly during the development of the CCP. For example, in April 1989, the BSC established a three-member independent commission to review the pattern of actual assignments made for the 1989-90 school year, to be composed of one member appointed jointly by the City and the School Department, one member appointed by the plaintiffs, and one member appointed by the State Board of Education. By letter dated August 28, 1989, plaintiffs indicated that Pressman would 14 be their representative. For another, early in 1989 the BSC appointed a High School Student Assignment Subcommittee chaired by member Rosina T. (\"Kitty\") Bowman, to recommend development of a viable assignment plan for high school students. Plaintiffs designated Pressman to be their representative on the \"Bowman Subcommittee\" and, on this assignment, he spent 17.5 hours attending eight subcommittee meetings from October 30, 1989 through February 5, 1990. The collaborative relationship between plaintiffs' counsel and the BSC extended to implementation of the CCP and carried forward until the end of 1992. For example, on March 11, 1992, school committee counsel wrote to plaintiffs, in pertinent part as follows: Enclosed are several documents related to the proposed modifications to the Student Assignment Plan. The School Committee adopted the proposal (Attachment 1) conditioned upon satisfactory discussions among the parties. For another, on November 23, 1992, Pressman made a presentation to a BSC subcommittee at English High School with respect to proposed policy changes in the student assignment plan. We find that all the hours spent by Atkins and Pressman preparing and presenting proposals to other participants in the 90-day process negotiations and attending all 90-day process meetings and in related studies, consultations and presentations are compensable under 1988. Several legal theories support this award. One is quantum merrit: the defendants invited counsel's participation and benefitted substantially from it in a 15 context where it knew that plaintiffs' had received from defendants prior awards of attorneys' fees in the same litigation, that they had applied for and expected to receive further awards and that plaintiffs' counsel rendered their services in good faith. See Newfield House, Inc. v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Welfare, 651 F.2d 32, 38 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1114 (1981); see also Transnational Corp. v. Rodie \u0026 Ursillo, Ltd., 920 F.2d 1066, 1070-71 (1st Cir. 1990). Another is that the 90-day process was, from plaintiffs' standpoint and interests, the equivalent of the further hearing authorized by the Court of Appeals in its September 25, 1987 decision, see, 831 F.2d at 326, except that plaintiffs' submissions were addressed to the school defendants rather than to the District Court, and except further that plaintiffs' submissions were not limited to student assignments but pertained also to other matters such as the condition and consolidation of schools, availability of textbooks, proposals of parent groups, etc. It was also in the nature of reasonable post-judgment monitoring, see Brewster v. Dukakis, 786 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1986); Garrity v. Sununu, 752 F.2d 727, 738-39 (1st Cir. 1984), whereby plaintiffs sought and obtained assurance that the desegregation already achieved did not unravel to their disadvantage. Failure to Enjoin CCP Plaintiffs' application regarding services in connection with their unsuccessful attempt by motion filed May 16 15, 1989 to enjoin establishment of the CCP rests also on an additional basis: defendants obligation under paragraph (2) of the Final Orders and 42 u.s.c.  1983 generally to avoid resegregation of Boston's public schools. Plaintiffs contend that some of the CCP's provisions were objectionable on those grounds and that their efforts to change or eliminate objectionable provisions met with substantial if partial success. Plaintiffs point to various revisions in the new Plan made by defendants which had the effect of blunting plaintiffs' objections prior to the Court hearings on their motion. For example, the BSC modified a formula objectionable to plaintiffs for calculating relevant zone racial-ethnic percentages so as to exclude from the calculation students unavailable for assignment to zone schools. For another, the CCP as drafted would have reduced desegregation in East Boston, until the BSC approved a proposal by plaintiffs to permit black students from outside the North Zone to attend schools in East Boston on a space-available basis. On the other hand, plaintiffs' proof of likely resegregation fell short of demonstrating irreparable harm to the plaintiff class or an intent by defendants to turn back the clock to the era of de jure segregation. Quite the opposite: defendants' acceptance of changes sought by plaintiffs, together with other evidence, satisfied the Court that defendants' good faith in promoting desegregation remained strong. Hence plaintiffs' motion for an injunction was denied. Should plaintiffs nevertheless recover fees for time 17 spent by their attorneys (totalling 114.83 hours) preparing and arguing their motion for an injunction? Yes, in our opinion, principally because the claims presented in plaintiffs' motion were essentially an extension of claims they had been advocating throughout the previous decade and were interconnected with claims as to which plaintiffs prevailed. The law in this area has been well settled since first explicated in Hensley, 461 U.S. 424. It has been construed repeatedly in cases in this circuit. See,~, Lipsett, 975 F.2d at 940-41; Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School Dist. v. Pontarelli, 788 F.2d 47 (1st Cir. 1986f; Aubin v. Fudala, 782 F.2d 287 (1st Cir. 1986). Where claims presented by plaintiffs in a civil rights suit are related and plaintiffs have won substantial relief, attorneys fees under 1988 should not be reduced because of a discrete unsuccessful claim by plaintiffs. In the instant case, plaintiff "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1310","title":"Proceedings: ''Temporary Restraining Order''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-09-10"],"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","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School employees","School administrators","School management and organization","Teachers","Employee rights"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Temporary Restraining Order''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1310"],"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":["36 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1651","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee/appellant Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al.","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":["1996-09-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee/appellant Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al."],"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/1651"],"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":["84 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Joshua, Lorene"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  SEP 5 1996 Office of Desegregation Monlicnn~ Michael E. Gans, Clerk U.S. court Of Appeals, 1114 Market Street st. Louis, MO 63101 of Court Eighth Circuit 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 September 3, 1996 Re: Little Rock School Dist. v. Servicemaster Management Services, No. 96-2047EALR Dear Mr. Gans, Enclosed for filing are the original and 9 copies of the brief o~ the Joshua Intervenors (appellees\\appellants). Sincerely, cc: all counsel 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. 96-2047EALR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLANT v. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.P. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. APPELLEE Ilic APPELLEE~ _ .. APPELLANT Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF OF APPELLEE\\APPELLANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Bob Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1, Summary and Reguest for Oral Argument Long after this court in 1990 directed the entry of a fresh order providing for the dismissal of the State (but not the local systems) from this litigation, the LRSD's appeal calls for this court to consider the meaning\\implications of the robust version of continuing jurisdiction provided for by this court in 1990. This court must also consider, with regard to the LRSD motion denied below, the implications of the district court's finding of poor implementation by LRSD, a finding amply supported by the record. The contract issues presented by LRSD involve the application of basic principles of contract interpretation. Such principles call for a different result than the one reached below. Oral argument is warranted, given LRSD's request for a directive that the litigation be dismissed with prejudice. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Appeal of Little Rock Sch. District, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991) 6, 15-16 Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) 1, 13, 15 Continental Bank and Trust Co. v. American Bonding Co., 630 F.2d 606 (8th Cir. 1980) 17 Klein v. Arkoma Production Co., 73 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 1996) 17 Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) passim Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School Dist., 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) 14, 15-16 Press Machinery Corp. v. Smith R.P.M. Corp., 727 F.2d 781 (8th Cir. 1984) 18 Raney v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 443 (1968) 13 st. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 113 s.ct. 2742 (1993) 14 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (1971) 15 Tasby v. Estes, 643 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1981) 12 Union National Bank v. Federal Nat. Mort. Assoc., 860 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988) 19 United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 395 U.S. 225 (1969) 15 Wright v. City Council of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451 (1972) Other Authorities Restatement of Contracts, Second, Sections 202(1), 203(a) 15 1, 18-19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS summary and Request for Oral Argment Table of Contents Table of Authorities Issues Presented on Appeal Statement of the Case A. LRSD's Motion for Dismissal B. The Servicemaster Contract Argument A. The District Court's Denial of LRSD's Motion Dismissal with Prejudice Should be Affirmed for 1. It is Plausible to Construe This Court's 1990 Decision as Not Applying the Provision for Dismissal of the Case as to the Local Districts i ii iii 1 1 1 11 12 12 12 2. If the District Court, in Substance, Rejected a Belated Effort to Implement a Portion of the Settlement Agreement, That Action Was Not an Abuse of Discretion in View of the Evolution of the Case Since 1990 15 B. The Court Erred in Applying Principles of Contract Conclusion Addendum Release as to State Order of Dismissal, Dec. 15, 1989 Order, Jan. 18, 1991 Statement of Judge Wright to LRSD Counsel and Board, March l9, 1993 Transcript Excerpts, March 29, 1993 Transcript Excerpts, June 7, 1994 Transcript Excerpts, June 29, 1994 Excerpts from ODM report, May 17, 1995 Law 17 19 1 5 6 8 16 22 30 40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Issues Presented on Appeal (1.) Whether, in 1990, this court in fact approved, as to LRSD, a provision for dismissal with prejudice of this civil action and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors. * Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) (2.) Whether, alternatively, the district court's denial in 1996 of the motion for dismissal with prejudice was, in view of the evolution of the case since 1990, an appropriate exercise of the court's broad discretion. * Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, supra, 921 F.2d at 1386, 1394 * Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299-301 (1955) (3.) Whether the district court erred in interpreting the contract between the LRSD and Servicemaster Management Services and in declaring the interpretation urged by the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors to be inconsistent with public policy. * Restatement of Contracts, Second, Sections 202(1), 203(a) Statement of the Case A. LRSD's Motion for Dismissal In 1988 and 1989 the parties agreed to settle this desegregation case concerning three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. They presented to the district court separate, detailed, desegregation plans for the three systems, a lengthy interdistrict plan, and a 36-page \"settlement agreement\" 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I resolving the financial liability of the State of Arkansas. 1 Four releases were attached to the settlement agreement, one pertaining to each of the three local school systems and one regarding the State and its agents. A difference in the text of the two categories of releases is noteworthy. The releases pertaining to the LRSD, the NLRSD, and the PCSSD contained the following identical provision (emphasis by use of capitalization and parenthetical explanations added). 2 It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 et al., No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including but not limited to, [identification of other cases applicable to the system] (the 'Litigation') is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the [name of local system] and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. THIS DISMISSAL IS FINAL FOR ALL PURPOSES EXCEPT THAT THE COURT MAY RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ADDRESS ISSUES REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLANS. The release regarding the State and its agents did not include the language regarding the retention of jurisdiction. It read as follows: It is further understood and agreed thast the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1. et al., No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (the 'Litigation') is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the Arkansas State Board of Education and the former and current 1 See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir. 1990). 2 See LRSD Addendum, at 13, 17, 21. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I members of that Board named in the Litigation. 3 Thereafter, the parties appealed to this court the district court's rejection of the five agreements. At the outset of its opinion, this court characterized its resolution of the parties' challenge to the district court's action, as follows. We now reverse the judgment of the District Court. In general, we direct that Court, on remand, to approve the settlement plans and settlement agreement as submitted by the parties. We also make certain other directions for the future of the case. This court discussed the standards governing its review of the parties' settlement. See 921 F.2d at 1383-85, 1388-89. On the one hand, the court emphasized the importance of the parties' agreement and the public policy in favor of settlements. Id., at 1383, 1388. The court also recognized, however, its responsibility to insure that the agreements were not \"unfair to class members ... ,\" or ones inconsistent with the \"[court's] strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in an ongoing equitable decree which is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face.\" Id., at 1383. This court's 1990 opinion emphasized the district court's important responsibilities and its considerable authority and discretion. This language, quoted below, casts doubt on whether this court in fact approved the \"dismiss[al] with prejudice\" of 3 See Joshua Add., at 2.  See Little Rock School District, supra, 921 F.2d at 1376. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I this and the related civil actions as to the LRSD (and NLRSD and PCSSD). This text is as follows: 921 F.2d at 1383 This does not mean that a court must automatically approve anything the parties set before it. In the present case, for example, any remedy will necessarily require some judicial supervision -- monitoring, at least -- for a long time. A court has a strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in an ongoing equitable decree which is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. In addition, this is a class action, and courts are not obliged (indeed they are not permitted) to approve settlements that are unfair to class members, or negotiated by inadequate class representatives. 921 F.2d at 1386 The district court was concerned about the lack of sufficient detail in the plans to guarantee successful implementation. The answer to this concern lies, we think, in the fact, upon which we place a great deal of weight, that the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring. Indeed, such monitoring by the District Court and its agents is essential. It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to -- and here we have in mind especially the kind of programs that the plan contemplates for the incentive schools -- and it will be the job of the District Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. 921 F.2d at 1388 As indicated above, this does not mean that the parties will be free of supervision or monitoring. Quite the contrary: a necessary condition of our holding that the plans are not facially unconstitutional is that the parties' compliance with them will be carefully monitored. As we shall make clear at the conclusion of the opinion, when we set out the directions to be followed by the District Court on remand, the office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, to be headed by a Monitor appointed by the District Court, with such additional personnel as the District Court shall deem appropriate. 921 F.2d at 1390 .. We accept these undertakings [of the districts], 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I again with the reminder that compliance with them will be closely monitored. If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. As the parties agree, the settlement agreement implicitly authorizes the District Court to retain jurisdiction to oversee its implementation. See 14 App. 3466. 921 F.2d at 1394. para. (8.) The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. 921 F.2d at 1394. para. (9.) .. The parties should be able to agree as to whether any such adjustments [for purposes of transition to the new plans] are necessary, and, if so, what they should be. Absent such agreement, the District Court is authorized to take such action as may be just. [explanation added] This court's \"actions\" (921 F.2d at 1394) also addressed explicitly the \"settlement plans,\" the \"settlement agreement,\" and the provision, set forth without qualification, for dismissal of the State and its agents from the litigation. The court directed the district court, on remand, \"to approve\" \"the settlement plans submitted by the parties\" and \"the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" See 921 F.2d at 1394. This court also specified [921 F.2d at 1394, para. (5.), emphasis added] that [i]n Nos. 90-1165, 90-1166, and 90-1167, the District Court's order of December 11, 1989, is reversed, and the order of December 15, 1989, is vacated, with instructions to enter a fresh order dismissing the State as a party pursuant 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement. 5 There was no comparable provision regarding LRSD, NLRSD, or PCSSD. In an order of January 18, 1991, the district court (the Honorable Susan Webber Wright) addressed certain of this court's directives. Judge Wright, inter alia, ordered that \"[t]he state of Arkansas is dismissed as a party to this action pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.\" Joshua Add., at 7. She added that \"[t]he parties' settlement agreement is hereby approved as written by them\" (id.) and paraphrased this court's description of her responsibilities and authority as the case unfolded on remand. Id. In Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991), this court addressed the contention that the district court had employed erroneous legal standards in considering the parties' agreed upon modifications of the settlement. This court concluded that the district court had erred, articulated standards to be used in considering the requested modifications, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the decision. This court added: \"We ask the District Court, to the extent practicable, to give this matter priority on its docket\" (949 F.2d at 258) phraseology seemingly inconsistent with the notion that this case had been or should have dismissed as to the 5 This court referred to the entry of \"a fresh order\" because on December 15, 1989, Judge Henry Woods had, by order, \"dismissed [the State defendants] with prejudice from this case, the cases consolidated herein and their predecessors .... 11 Joshua Addendum, at 5. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I local defendants and the Joshua Intervenors. On November 30, 1995 -- 4 years and 10 months after Judge Wright had provided for the dismissal of the State defendants, the LRSD, alone, filed a \"Motion for Order of Dismissal\" seeking an order dismissing this case with prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD as of January 18, 1991, except to the extent the court retains jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or the desegregation plans. [LRSD App., at 35-36) LRSD did not in its motion or supporting memorandum explain to the court and the parties how, if at all, the conduct of the litigation would change if the motion were granted, whether effective January 18. 1991 as requested, or upon the date of the district court's order. See LRSD App., at 34-43. 6 On March 11, 1996, the district court denied LRSD's motion, reasoning as follows (LRSD Add., at 8-9, emphasis added): Let there be no mistake that, with the entry of the settlement agreement, the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter. The Court finds, however, that no useful purpose would be served by entering an order of disnmissal at this time. The Court of Appeals has instructed this Court 'to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.' Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreements (although some improvements have been made). Therefore. the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and 6 No such explanation is offered here, despite the fact that the Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to LRSD's motion below noted LRSD's silence about its perceived effects. LRSD App., at 56-57. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years. the logistics and complexity of this case are such that this court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering an order of dismissal at this time. The court's earlier statements and reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), created by order of this court, provide ample support for the court's finding about LRSD'~ poor implementation of the settlement. We next provide examples from the record supportive of the court's finding. Judge Wright directed that LRSD's school board members appear in court on March 19, 1993, at which point she \"read the riot act\" to them, beginning as follows (Joshua Add., at 8): .... The Court does not believe that you understand those orders, or if you do understand them, you do not seek to comply. Hopefully, after this morning, you will have an understanding; but whether you do or do not, you must comply. This court has been too lenient with you. The Court has given you ample leeway and opportunity to move toward a unitary school system. Those days of Court leniency and the assumption by the Court of good faith on your part are over. The court's March 19, 1993 statement, encompassing eight pages (Joshua Add., at 8 - 15), provided considerable evidence of failings in the LRSD. The court, for example, noted that it would \"appoint a budget officer to be paid by the [LRSD], who [would] be a part of the [ODM] and who [would] operate under the direction of Ann Brown [ODM Director].\" lg., at 11. This would be done because \"it became increasingly apparent that the [LRSD] could not or would not develop a budget sufficient to identify 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I expenditure of desegregation funds.\" Id., at 10. 7 The district court also provided \"a reminder of some of the provisions of the Plan or Court orders that [LRSD had] yet to fulfill,\" citing 21 examples. Id., at 13 - 15. On March 29, 1993, Judge Wright made the following comments to the lawyers for the parties (Joshua Add., at 18, 20-21): And just letting you as the lawyer for the district work this out with Joshua and the ODM will not help me instill in your Board the importance of starting a process whereby they consider the ramifications of their own actions and whereby they focus on the plan. They must be driven by this plan. The plan has to drive their actions and that has not been happening, clearly. * * * I feel that in dealing with the district that the Court has had to to ask the district at every turn where is this, where is that. You promised this under the plan, where is it? And the district kind of says, oh, yeah, we do need to do this, un-huh. But they drag their feet, and they don't have a plan in place to focus and they don't have a process in place to focus on what needs to be done to fulfill their obligations. And I have waited long enough and I'm tired of waiting .. On June 7, 1994, the district judge alluded to the need to depend upon action by many LRSD employees, in the context of again criticizing the quality of the system's implementation efforts (Joshua Add., at 22, 23-24, 27). THE COURT: I want to inject something right now. I hope that you are right, that people are there ready to, as you 7 The court further explained (id., at 13): \"A budget officer to assist the School District is just a 'make work' situation.\" No, it is not; that is patently false. The Court cannot determine how you are spending your money to achieve desegregation. Your administrators do not know. Your lawyers do not know. And you do not know. If the LRSD were a corporation, I would put it in receivership. By the way, do not think that I have not considered that with regard to LRSD.\" 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I put it, collaborate with the LRSD. I'm willing to assume that that's correct. What I cannot assume is that the LRSD will put in motion the efforts to, in fact, collaborate. The district talks a good game, but a lot of times, doesn't have anyone accountable for putting its promises into action, and we have seen this repeatedly in this case and it's an inherent defect of the Desegregation Plan. The Plan made a lot of promises, but didn't make any one department or person or officer officially accountable, and that's the reason people like you have to be here because nothing was being done. And we are getting things a little more in motion .... * * * THE COURT: Well, that sounds good, but I need to know with some specificity who will do it, when they'll do it, where they'll do it, who the targets are, what the means will be, because so far in this case, it has been difficult to get an organization as big and cumbersome as you school district to coordinate itself to meet these visions you have. I think they're great visions. I mean, no one can say that's a poor idea. I think it's a wonderful idea .... * * * THE COURT: Well, saying that you can do this and saying that that you will do it is not going to be enough in this courtroom any more. You're going to have to say specifically in some detail what you will do, when you'll do it, whom you'll contact and what have you .... 8 This court provided for the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to gather and report facts, therby facilitating and strengthening the district court's monitoring efforts. LRSD's incentive schools, identified by this court as a pivotal part of the settlement (921 F.2d at 1386 ), have been a focus of ODM's monitoring. In its report of May 17, 1995, concerning the incentive schools, ODM concluded (Joshua Add., at 8 See also Joshua Add., at 30-39 (deficiencies in LRSD's performance described by the court at a hearing on June 29, 1994). 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40-44): This year, we found none of the programs that we monitored being fully implemented at all five schools. Beginning with the first ODM incentive schools report in 1991-92, we have pointed to the glaring inconsistencies among the schools. As the number of incentive schools has dwindled from seven to five, the inconsistencies have grown rather than diminished. With four of the five principals being newly assigned this year, and two of them being brandnew principals, it is no wonder that some programmatic offerings have been slighted as the new principals tried to deal with the challenges posed by incentive schools, while adjusting to new jobs as well. In many areas, we were disheartened to see a retreat from the prior level of program implementation .... [details re particular programs omitted] [At 34) In many ways our fourth annual visit to the incentive schools was the most discouraging review we have conducted. While we saw many positive and commendable aspects, we also saw problems and deficiencies that were entirely avoidable and correctable. The LRSD has had a sufficient amount of time to successfully implement the promised programs. These schools were designed to serve as models of instructional excellence, but that level of quality has not been realized throughout. Instead, too many aspects of these schools serve as an object lesson that promises made, but not kept, are meaningless. Successfully implementing the incentive schools programs is not an impossible task by any means. With solid leadership. competent staff, consistent support, and the will and determination to 'be the best,' all these schools can be the high-guality centers of learning they were pledged to be. [At 36; emphasis added] In summary, as of the time of the LRSD's motion, the district court had an ample basis for concluding that LRSD had not \":scrupulously and diligently carr[ied] out the [relevant portions of] the settlement plans ... \" (921 F.2d at 1394), including the provisions regarding the incentive schools. B. The Servicemaster Contract With the exception of expressing the view that the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors agreed to a settlement of intervenors' 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I motion concerning the Servicemaster contract, the intervenors accept LRSD's factual statement regarding this contract. See LRSD Brief, at 4-5. Argument A. The District Court's Denial of LRSD's Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice Should Be Affirmed 1. It Is Plausible to Construe This Court's 1990 Decision as Not Applying the Provision for Dismissal of this Case as to the Local Districts This court is, of course, the best judge of the meaning of its 1990 decision and the specific directives to the district court. 9 It is plausible, we respectfully submit, to construe this court's 1990 decision as not applying the provision for \"dismiss[al] [of this litigation] with prejudice as to the LRSD .\" and its agents. Several factors support this alternative argument. First. This court did not simply state that it approved the settlements. Rather, it cited the responsibility to insure their consistency, facially, with minimum constitutional standards (921 F.2d at 1383) and approved the agrements \"[i)n general\" and subject to \"certain other directions for the future of the case.\" See 921 F.2d at 1376. Second. This court directed the entry of an order dismissing the action agaiamst the State and its agents (921 F.2d at 1394); no similar action was required as to the local systems. 9 See Tasby v. Estes, 643 F.2d 1103, 1106 (5th Cir. 1981) (deference to district court on the standard of compliance established by its own order); Little Rock School District, supra, 921 F.2d at 1391-92 (construing earlier decision in this case). 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Third. This court's description (quoted above) of the district court's future role is hardly consistent with a dismissed case. In the light of five, detailed settlement documents, this court obviously foresaw an active role for the district court -- and, indeed, even required the creation of ODM to facilitate that effort. Fourth. This court may have viewed the key paragraph of the releases quoted above as containing contradictory concepts10 and opted for continuing jurisdiction as necessary to meet the minimum constitutionaal standards to which it alluded. 11 Fifth. This court may have construed the key paragraph of the releases - - by use of the words \"may retain jurisdiction ... \" -- to allow the courts to choose the retention of jurisdiction (i.e., a continued open status), if deemed necessary for the court to conclude that the settlement was lawful. See 921 F.2d at 1390.12 Lastly, we reiterate our point about this court's descrip~ion of the status of this case during a later appeal. See supra at 6. To be sure, our suggested approach may involve some tension with the directive that on remand the district court should \"approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" 10 That is, this case shall be dismissed, this case shall not be dismissed. 11 E.g., Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299-301 (1955); Raney v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 443, 449 (1968). ~ \"As the parties agree, the settlement agreement implicitly authorizes the District Court to retain jurisdiction to oversee its implementation. See 14 App. 3466.\" 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 921 F.2d at 1394, para. (6.). 13 It sometimes happens that all of the content of an opinion resolving a complex matter does not fit neatly together. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 113 s.ct. 2742, 2752-53 (1993). If there is tension, or inconsistency, we respectfully suggest that ours is the best reading of the totality of the 1990 opinion. 14 Intervenors' alternative approach does not leave LRSD without the benefit of its bargain. Rather, the case continues to be deemed open, as realistically it is; 15 and LRSD and the other districts are free to argue that any particular matter (or claim) raised by the Joshua Intervenors is ouside the ambit of the ongoing litigation. That is, the case remains open; its nature is somewhat changed.\" 13 There is no such issue, if the agreement \"as written by [the parties]\" is construed by reason of the phrase \"may retain jurisdiction\" to allow the courts to choose a continuing open status rather than dismissal. 14 The decision in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992), regarding the provision about millages (see LRSD Brief, at 7-9), is factually distinguishable. That issue did not involve an instance of either differing strands in this court's 1990 opinion approving the settlement, or a provision of the settlement open to multiple interpretations. 15 The docket excerpts included in the LRSD Appendix (at i to xv) include, for example, 155 entries from August 31, 1995 through April 30, 1996. 16 It is unclear to intervenors what the district judge meant by stating that \"the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter.\" LRSD Add., at 8. The court, there, did not refer to dismissal of the litigation with prejudice. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. If the District Court, in Substance, Rejected A Belated Effort to Implement a Portion of the Settlement Agreement, That Action Was Not an Abuse of Discretion in View of the Evolution of the Case Since 1990 It may be, depending upon this court's interpretation of its 1990 ruling, that the district court's denial of the motion is accurately characterized as rejecting a part of the \"settlement agreement\" -- at least temporarily.n If so, that action was not an abuse of discretion given the facts of which the district court was aware when it ruled in 1996, and the non-final nature of its ruling. The Supreme Courts's emphasis on the role of district courts in desegregation cases began with Brown v. Board of Education. supra, 349 U.S. at 299-301. This theme was often repeated thereafter by the high court, which emphasized the need to rely upon the informed discretion of the district courts, the judicial bodies most familiar with the facts of each case.~. United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 395 U.S. 225, 227, 235-36 (1969) (noting that on at least one occasion the district court had \"on its own motion, amended his outstanding order ... \"); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educ., 402 u. S. 1, 28 (1971); Wright v. City Council of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451, 470-71 (1972). 18 n The district court wrote that dismissal \"should be deferred\"; the court declined to approve dismissal \"at this time.\" LRSD Add., at 9, 10. 18 In this case, this court has followed the Supreme Court's lead, emphasizing the need for reliance on the district court, as well as that court's discretion. See Little Rock School District. supra, 921 F.2d at 1394, para. (8.); Appeal of Little Rock School 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Turning to the action giving rise to this segment of the appeal, the district court faced a motion seeking dismissal of this litigation in 1995 and 1996, at a point when it had been confronted with and commented upon LRSD's inadequate implementation of the settlement, also evidenced by the work of ODM. The situation, then, was different in a very significant sense from 1989-1990 when this court had considered the facial validity of the settlement. See 921 F.2d at 1383-84. The district court's ruling was based upon \"the facts\"; the court took \"appropriate [action] . to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement .. \"See "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1658","title":"Court filings concerning enforcement of the settlement agreement with the state, motion for asamicus curiae concerning the Servicemaster contract, PCSSD's motion seeking equitable relief, and LRSD final program and planning and budgeting tool for 1996-97 and September program","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":null,"dc_date":["1996-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School facilities","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning enforcement of the settlement agreement with the state, motion for asamicus curiae concerning the Servicemaster contract, PCSSD's motion seeking equitable relief, and LRSD final program and planning and budgeting tool for 1996-97 and September program"],"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/1658"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["52 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to respondent Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) ''amendment and supplement'' to its second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, motion for temporary restraining order; District Court, brief in support of motion for temporary restraining order; Court of Appeals, motion to strike certain portions of the Joshua intervenors' appellee/appellant's brief; District Court, Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, brief in suopport of Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to motion for temporary restraining order; District Court, brief in opposition to motion for temporary restraining order; District Court, motion for enlargement of time; District Court, motion of the Joshua intervenors to be heard asamicus curiae concerning the Servicemaster contract issue; District Court, motion for hearing; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) supplemental motion for costs and attorneys' fees as to the state defendants; District Court, brief in further support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) supplemental motion for costs and attorneys' fees as to the state defendants; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees; District Court, motion for order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) final program and planning and budgeting tool for 1996-97 and September program and planning and budgeting tool; Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, motion to intervene by the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRYANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; FORT SMITH SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST MEMPHIS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ALTUS-DENNING SCHOOL DISTRICT; ASHDOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT; BARTON-LEXA SCHOOL DISTRICT; BATESVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BIGGERS-REYNO SCHOOL DISTRICT; BLACK ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRIGHT STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRINKLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT; CENTERPOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CLARENDON SCHOOL DISTRICT; COTTON PLANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CUTTER MORNING STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INT ERVEN ORS SEP 5 1996 Office of Dss~regation Mcrn1Grn1~ DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOLLARWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT;  -------r FOREMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT; FOUNTAIN LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT; GILLETT SCHOOL DISTRICT; GLEN ROSE SCHOOL DISTRICT; GUY-PERKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT; HOXIE SCHOOL DISTRICT; JONESBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT; KIRBY SCHOOL DISTRICT; LAVACA SCHOOL DISTRICT; LEWISVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MAGAZINE SCHOOL DISTRICT; MALVERN SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAMMOTH SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT; MANILA SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAYNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTHEAST ARKANSAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ODEN SCHOOL DISTRICT; OZ~..RK SCHOO~ DISTRICT; PLAINVIEW-ROVER SCHOOL DISTRICT; POCAHONTAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; PRAIRIE GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT; SOUTH CONWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; SPRING HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT; STAMPS SCHOOL DISTRICT; STEPHENS SCHOOL DISTRICT; TURRELL SCHOOL DISTRICT; VAN BUREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WATSON CHAPEL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT; WHITE HALL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WINSLOW SCHOOL DISTRICT; WONDERVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT; and YELLVILLE-SUMMIT SCHOOL DISTRICT BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS PCSSD'S \"AMENDMENT INT ERVEN ORS AND SUPPLEMENT\" TO ITS SECOND MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE PCSSD adopts and incorporates by reference its brief dated August 5, 1996 which was served in support of its response to ADE's motion to dismiss or have this court abstain from considering PCSSD's second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the State. The PCSSD has no sericus quarrel with the State's description of the \"status of Lake View II\" as set forth at page 2 of the State's brief. The State's Exhaustion Argument Simply stated, the new minimum salary law, an unfunded mandate, substantially interferes with the PCSSD's ability to desegregate by requiring, absent a temporary waiver, the shifting of scarce resources away from instructional activities and desegregation related activities into a salary structure1  This law was imposed without regard, apparently, to the publicly known financial circumstances of the PCSSD and without regard to the fact that the PCSSD is one of four school districts in the state which collectively bargains with it~ certified employees. Thus, whatever policy considerations might underpin the passage of the minimum salary law elsewhere in the State, those policy reasons could not apply in the PCSSD where the District and the union have historically agreed (admittedly, often after much rancor) upon a salary schedule for all certified employees. 1The main thrust of the relief sought by the PCSSD on this issue is for the State to provide the funds for compliance with the law. This is not a case about administrative remedies. In any event, any waiver that could be obtained by the PCSSD is limited to two years. The impact of the minimum salary law will be into the next century at a minimum. That the passage of the minimum salary law substantially interferes with the PCSSD's ability to desegregate was amply demonstrated on August 19, 1996 when the teachers in the PCSSD went on strike. Simply put, to the extent that the existence of the minimum salary law was a key component of the dispute which led to the strike, it \"substantially interfered\" with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate. For a further amplification of this cause and effect scenario, the PCSSD respectfully incorporates by reference the proceedings had in this Court on August 28, 1996, the ruling which issued at the end of those proceedings, and the motion and brief filed by the PCSSD on August 27, 1996. Because the granting of a waiver would only postpone the legal issues and the effects of the minimum salary for a maximum of two years in the context of a case that has been ongoing since 1982, the PCSSD respectfully submits that the minimum salary law issue should be considered in tandem with the other issues raised by the respective PCSSD motions to enforce the settlement agreement. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the relief sought by State defendants be denied and that under the particular circumstances 3 of this case, that abstention should not lie. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ; \"11 ' M. SamELlones III (76060) Atta~ eys or Pulas i County Speci' 1 hool District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 3 , 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 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. o. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 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 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP O 6 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: --------- DEP. CLERK 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. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. REC ,V .. SEP 1996 DEFENDANTS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS Office of Desegregation Monitonn~ BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. INIERVENORS MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Knight, et al. Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL LAW FIRM, for their Motion, state on information and belief: 1. On Thursday, August 29, 1996, the court held a hearing on the Motion of PCS SD for Injunctive Relief with regard to PACT and those of its members who were then engaged in a strike against the District over pay and other related issues. This hearing was commenced upon approximately fifteen (15) hours notice to counsel for the Knight, et al. Intervenors. 2. At the conclusion of the hearing, citing desegregation obligations of the District and PACT in addition to contractual obligations of PACT to the District as contained in the Master Contract between those parties, the Court ordered the teachers back to work on Tuesday, September 3, 1996. Further, the Court ordered PACT and the District to mediate the disputes between them before Mr. Gus Taylor, Chief Conciliator of the United States Department of Justice. 3. As ordered, the teachers returned the work on September 3, 1996, and on September 4, 1996, began the mediation process with Mr. Taylor. Schools were closed by the Board August 19-23; August 26-27; August 29-30. 4. It was clearly the intent of the Court's Order requiring mediation that the parties should mediate in good faith and without retaliation by the District against those teachers engaged in the strike. 5. Despite the Order of the Court for the teachers to return to work which undercut any negotiating position they may have had, the following relevant events have taken place since the order was delivered from the bench: (a) The District has engaged in pay practices which docked three days pay for every classroom teacher regardless of their circumstances on the first regularly scheduled payday. The District has announced actions to dock each classroom teacher regardless of their circumstances for five to seven (5-7) days in the second regularly scheduled pay period which means that there is a potential for many of the District's teachers on that payday to actually owe the District money. (b) The District has docked the pay of classroom teachers who crossed the picket line and worked on the one day that the board voted to hold school open. 2 ( c) Classroom teachers on paid leave of absence were docked the same number of days as teachers who were out on strike. Teachers on paid disability leave were docked the same pay as regular classroom teachers in spite of the fact that they did not participate in the strike. (d) At least one teacher on paid administrative suspension pending termination hearings was docked the same as other classroom teachers. (e) On the other hand, psychological examiners; speech therapists; support staff; and building level administrators were not docked any pay and no docking of pay is planned for the next regularly scheduled pay period. (f) The District is violating the master contract between the parties with regard to pay when schools are closed. For instance, the master contract does not provide for teachers to get their pay docked for such closures of school as inclement weather and the District did not dock pay after the 1988 Strike. (g) Not only are the actions with regard to docking pay contrary to the court's intent in its ruling from the bench, but also, the actions of the District in docking pay of classroom teachers is clearly retaliatory in nature contrary to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (h) The District has made an administrative decision that all makeup days will occur at the end of the school year and it did not alter the twenty-six (26) pay periods set forth in the Master Contract 3 6. The actions of the District seriously jeopardize the success of the mediation process and the successful implementation of the District's Desegregation Plan. 7. AH the Data phase factors for Preliminary Relief are in favor of PACT. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors pray that the court order an immediate hearing and, following said hearing, to make such temporary and permanent orders and rulings as will protect the integrity of the mediation process; protect the classroom teachers of the District from retaliation for the exercise of their constitutional rights; uphold their master contract; grant them attorney's fees; and all other relief to which they may be entitled. 4 ~ctfully submitted, '---~ I~ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 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 September 6, 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 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 5 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, AR 72201 Richard W. Roachell 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. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SEP O 6 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ------D~E...,..P . ...,.C-LE=R-K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INIERVENOR.5 INIERVENOR.5 INIERVENOR.5 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER It is clear that the actions of the School District in docking teachers' pay is contrary to the Court's intent in its ruling from the bench after the hearing of August 29, 1996. Teachers' pay was not docked subsequent to the teacher strike of 1988. Furthermore, the master contract between the parties provides that there shall be twenty-six (26) pay periods during the school year and provides no docking of pay provisions for any circumstances such as inclement weather or other incidents or other circumstances that may interrupt the school year. Even though the Court undercut the bargaining position of the teachers by ordering them back to work, the teachers did honor the Court's Orders and have returned to the bargaining table with Mr. Taylor as mediator. This mediation process which the Court clearly intended to resolve the issues between the parties is severely threatened by the District's retaliatory action against select members of the teacher union in an effort by the District to crush the union or render it ineffective by creating economic hardship among its members. The- events that have taken place and the disparate impact of the docking of pay of the classroom teachers show that the District is bent not upon settlement of the division between the parties and healing the riff between them, but rather to punish the classroom teachers who will now have to wait until the end of the school year to receive their pay. The District did not change the twenty-six (26) period pay provisions of the master contract. Further, that some teachers at the next pay period may actually owe the District money creates such economic hardship with its attendant morale problem in the classroom teachers that the successful implementation of the District's Desegregation Plan may be irreparably harmed. Finally, the rights of freedom of speech and association guaranteed to all citizens of this country, including public employees, has been violated by the District's retaliatory action. To remedy this situation, the Court should, temporarily and permanently enjoin the District from deviating from its normal pay practices without singling out any sub-group of PACT for docking of pay; grant them attorneys fees and all other relief to which they may be entitled. 2 ~tfully submitted, ~~.C)__J__ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL 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. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on September 6, 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 7220 I Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 3 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 TCB Y Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 ~.~ Richard W. Roachell RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT SEP 1 0 1996 Off ice of Desegregauon Morntonng LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 96-047EALR SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.P. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN PORTIONS APPELLANT APPELLEE APPELLEE OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS APPELLEE/ APPELLANT'S BRJEF ServiceMaster Management Services L.P. (\"ServiceMaster\"), for its motion to strike certain portions of the brief filed by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") states: - ... -.,... ___... .... ~ 1. Joshua requested in a letter filed with the Court dated August 21, 1996, that it be heard with respect to \"argument one\" of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Brief as an appellee and that it be heard with respect to \"argument two\" of the LRSD Brief, which involves ServiceMaster, as an appellant. 2. ServiceMaster filed a response to Joshua's Motion on August 23, 1996, whereas ServiceMaster objected to Joshua's request that it be heard as an appellant with respect to argument two of the LRSD Brief. 3. On August 23, 1996, the Court granted Joshua's motion for an extension of time within which to file a brief as an appellee, and the Court denied, without prejudice, ServiceMaster's response, subject to renewal when the brief by Joshua is filed if circumstances warrant. 624\\MOTSTRIK.909 1 4. The brief filed by Joshua is titled: \"Brief of Appellee/Appellant Mrs. Lorene Joshua, ET AL.\" In addition, in its Brief, Joshua took the position of an appellee and appellant. 5. The following references are made in the Joshua Brief with respect to ServiceMaster: Issues Presented on Appeal, Issue number 3, page 1 of the Joshua Brief; Statement of the Case, Part B, page 11-12 of the Brief; and, Argument, Argument B, page 17-19 of the Brief. 6. Joshua advances arguments with respect to ServiceMaster which may only be properly made as an appellant in the case. 7. Joshua was served with a copy of the District Court's Order dated March 11, 1995, and failed to file an appeal of its own accord with respect to the District Court's Order concerning argument two, the ServiceMaster issue, as prescribed by the Rules of Appellate - Procedure. In addition, this appeal is not and cannot be characterized as a cross-appeal. 8. The status of Joshua in this appeal filed by the LRSD can only be entertained as an appellee with respect to argument one presented by the LRSD. WHEREFORE, ServiceMaster requests that all portions of Joshua's Brief which make reference to ServiceMaster be stricken as they are prejudicial to appellee ServiceMaster. 624\\MOTSTRIK.909 2 Respectfully submitted, GIROIR \u0026 GREGORY, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 111 CENTER STREET, SUITE 1900 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 (501) 372-3000 and - - John C. Everett, #70022 EVERETT, MARS \u0026 STILLS P.O. Box 1646 Fayetteville, AR 72702 (501) 443-0292 Attorneys for ServiceMaster Management Services BJYoseS.M:owe~ry, %~ Bar #90l23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Strike Portions of the Joshua's Intervenors Brief has been served on the following people by depositing copy of the same in the United States mail on this 9th day of September, 1996. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 17223 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capital, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Bldg. Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 624\\MOTSTRIK.909 3 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept. of Education 4 State Capital Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 624\\MOTSTRIK.909 4 C IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT' ~-  - ' \"~As EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS .C._':_\",\" ) -A \") - --~ .)  - - ') WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-8'6- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RE: c erv~~ DEFENDANfS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INIERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SEP 1 1 1996 Oifioo of D(\u003cSvc.grsgation Mon~or~VENORS BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. INIERVENORS KNIGHT, ET AL., RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF Knight, et al. Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL LAW FIRM, for their Response to PCSSD's Motion Seeking Equitable Relief, state: 1. Admit paragraph 1 to the extent that the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers' (PACT) job action continued until September 3, 1996, when the Court ordered PACT members back to work. 2. Deny paragraph 2. Asserts affirmatively that PACT' s job action does not prevent PCSSD from delivering the educational services and desegregation programs outlined in the Desegregation Plan and by orders of this Court. Asserts affirmatively that the job action is only delaying the execution of the Desegregation Plan and orders of this Court for the current school year. 3. Denies paragraph 3. Asserts affirmatively that PACT is currently involved in litigation involving the precise issue of PACT' s job action in Pulaski County Chancery Court, Sixth Division, in the case Mike Wilson, et al. v. Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, No. IJ96-5788. .: ...... . Asserts affirmatively that PACT has filed a Motion for Joinder of PCS SD in that action because PCS SD is a necessary party to that action. Asserts affirmatively that they were not aware as of the date of the preliminary hearing of any breach of contract by the PCS SD except the Teacher Minimum Salary law. 4. Denies paragraph 4. 5. Denies each and every allegation ofPCSSD's Motion not specifically admitted herein. WHEREFORE, Knight lntervenors pray for an order of this Court denying PCSSD's Motion Seeking Equitable Relief; that the Court allow PACT to continue its job action pending resolution of the dispute between PCS SD and PACT; and for all other proper legal and equitable relief. Respectfully submitted, ~ . 0--L_ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL 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. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on September 10, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 I Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street 2 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 7220 I M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 7220 I Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0 . Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 3 Mr. Stephen W Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard W. Roachell IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S::? : ~ .:.~3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS J,.\u003c .. ~c: ','/ i~:~:-.:? ~,. -. .=. ~ cL----~ WESTERN DIVISION B, -_______ _-  _ '' 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. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF KNIGHT, ET AL.. RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF Statement of tlte Facts L,_:-c .. :::--.r\u003c PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) were unable to agree on teaching contracts for the 1996-97 school year before the school year began. PACT began a job action because of the failed contract negotiations. Several parents filed a complaint in Pulaski County Chancery Court, asking the Court for injunctive relief Mike Wilson, et al. v. Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, et al., Case No. U96-5788 . The Court denied Plaintiffs requests, and refused to order PACT teachers back to work at the time of the hearing. PACT filed a Motion Seeking Equitable Relief on or about August 27, 1996, in the abovecaptioned case. The Court held a hearing on August 28, 1996. The Court ordered teachers in PCSSD back to work on September 3, 1996. Argument At issue is whether the PCSSD has met its burden for this Court to issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary .injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PCSSD must show (1) the threat of irreparable harm; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that the movant will succeed on the merits; and ( 4) public interest. Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981). There is no threat of irreparable harm on the PCSSD or desegregation because of the teacher strike. The Eighth Circuit has given this Court much discretion to modify details and marginal issues related to the Settlement Agreement. 949 F.2d 253 (1991). The agreed timetables for school are details and/or marginal issues within the Court's discretion to modify. A mere delay in the school year is a detail and/or marginal issue that the Court can modify. Thus, PACT' s job action does not affect the Desegregation case in a substantial way, and neither does it cause irreparable harm to the school district. However, the Court's order that broke PACT's job action greatly injures the bargaining position of PACT with PCS SD. \"The right to strike, as an important symbol of a free society, should not be denied unless such a strike would substantially injury paramount interests of the larger community.\" County Sanitation District No. 2, 69.9 P.2d at 848. Furthermore, PACT joined the Desegregation case to protect its bargaining position. \"An injunction does not settle a dispute -- it simply disables one of the parties.\" Burlington Northern R .. Co. at 107 S. Ct.1854. PACT's bargaining position has been disabled because of the injunction. 2 Furthermore, it is a matter of public _policy in the state of Arkansas to allow organized labor to bargain collectively. \"Freedom of organized labor to bargain collectively ... is declared to be the public policy of the state under Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 34.\" Ark. Code Ann.  11-3-301. Therefore, there is a great interest in letting PACT maintain its bargaining position with PCS SD by allowing it to continue in its peaceful job action. On the one hand, the Court's order renders moot the issue of the probability of success on the merits because ordering teachers back to work means that PCS SD has succeeded on the merits, only to the great detriment to the teachers' bargaining power. On the other hand, because the matter has been directed to federal mediators, success on the merits means that PCS SD and PACT agree to contract terms for the l 996-97 school year. This result would be no more of a success for PCS SD than it would be for PACT. PCSSD contends that it cannot afford to raise teachers' pay. However, the Courts have said repeatedly that lack of money is no excuse. PCSSD must be made to comply with Act 917 of the 1995 legislature for the 1996-97 school year. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors pray for an order of this Court denying PCS SD' s Motion Seeking Equitable Relief; that the Court allow PACT to continue its job action pending resolution of the dispute between PCSSD and PACT; and for all other proper legal and equitable relief Respectfully submitted, 3 ~.c:u___ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 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 September 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 20 I East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 4 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 7220 I Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 7220 I ~.0--L_ Richard W. Roachell 11:20 WRIGHT LINDSEY \u0026 JENN I t--!GS NO.083 POO9/ O20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LRC-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL blSTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. PCSSD's RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), for its response to the motion - of Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") for a temporary restraining order to prohibit PCSSD from \"docking\" teachers' pay for strike days, states: 1. PACT cannot demonstrate any of the Dataphase requirements lo warrant this Court's granting of injunctive relief. 2. PACT must show (1) the threat of irreparable harm, (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant, (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits, and (4) the public interest. 3, PACT cannot establish irreparable harm. It seeks money -- and it is beyond peradventure that purported injury which can be recompensed by monetary damages is not irreparable harm. 11 : 21 WRIGHT LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS NO. 083 P010/ 02O 4. This Court has "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1644","title":"Court Filings: District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants, and affidavits","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":["1996-08-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Lawyers","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants, and affidavits"],"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/1644"],"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.  FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 3 0 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ------;:D:;-;:E~P.--;::C;;-LE;=-;R:;;:;K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-8-66 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL SEP 3 1996 ,i ! S-J?(' .,.., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office ot Des . e~regauon Monitoring ,, ---- -- --- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S- --'-.~  MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AS TO STATE DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. With respect to the loss funding and workers' compensation issues decided -by this court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, LRSD is a prevailing party and is therefore entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs. LRSD is entitled to $42,520.00 in attorneys' fees (Christopher Heller - 262 hours x $160.00 = $41,920.00; Clay Fendley - 6 hours x $100.00 = $600.00) and $563.32 in costs. 2. The fees and costs are supported by the attached Affidavit. 3. LRSD adopts the motion and brief filed on August 16, 1996 by PCSSD concerning attorneys' fees in this matter. blby\\UISD-WC.FEES Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 / .,,,.----., / / - ------------.. / / _,.,.,, ~ ~~~ By:(_,~ ~ Christopher H~ ---- Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Little Rock School District's Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Costs As To The State has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of August, 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham street Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201  _/// / -- wilY\\USD,WC.FEES 3 JJs\\m\\ij:;NS.S E.f\u003e.STtP.N O\\S1RI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT p..l}G 3 0 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Cl\u003c. CLERK WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMA ' By. ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SEP 3 1996 3.:..,.,,,., PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS Office of Dssegregaiion Monitcnno INTERVENORS AFFIDAVIT I, Christopher Heller, after being duly sworn, state under oath: 1. The billing statements attached as Exhibit A to this Affidavit reflect the hours worked on this matter as recorded in contemporaneous time records. All of the time shown on these billing statements have been billed to LRSD and those bills have been paid. 2. My time in this case was devoted primarily to the loss funding and workers' compensation issues. I have reviewed the billing records in an effort to exclude time which was devoted to matters on which LRSD did not prevail, including the APSCN issue and our petition for reconsideration to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3. I have been engaged in the private practice of law at Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark for fifteen (15) years. My normal hourly billing rate is $160.00. That rate is in line with rates typically btloy\\UlSD-WC.AFF charged by lawyers of similar experience and ability in Pulaski County, Arkansas 4. Clay Fendley is an associate with Friday, Eldredge \u0026 .. Clark with four (4) years of experience. His normal hourly billing rate is $100. 00. This rate is in line with billing rates for lawyers of similar ability and experience in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 5. As can be seen from the attached billing statements, the time expended on this matter was originally recorded and billed as a part of the general Little Rock School District Desegregation Case file (LI230-90). Following the district court decision, a separate file was established (LI230-159). In reviewing the general file, I was very conservative in my effort to segregate the time which was devoted to the issues in this discreet matter. Many time entries which were more probably than not related to this matter are not included in the attached exhibit. Further affiant sayeth not. au,y\\LllSD-WC.AFF 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) ss. COUNTY OF PULASKI) on this the 30th day of August, 1996, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, personally appeared Christopher Heller, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the attestation and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purpose therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. Notary Pubf ic ~- My bllo,IIJISl).WC.AFF 3 EXHIBIT A TO AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PAR'ffiERSHIP Of NlMDUAlB l\u003eHO PflOFESSIONAl ASSOCIAllONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ~1 400 WEST CAPITOL ~ LITnE IIOQC, AIIUNIAS 72201 TAX IDENTIFICATION 171-0253837 2000 ARSTCOMMERCW. llUIIJllNG r 1so1 \u003e 37\u0026-2011 r A G E 6/20/94 LENC RESEARCHE~ WHAT L.R. SC~O~L ~IST. wusT aa TG BE DECLARED U~ITARY; ~OCD F~rTH COMPLIANCE o/~l/94 (Jr{ TELEPHONE C:JNfE:REtKE wITH :TE\\I[ JCJNCS RE: BUS Ct. $E PREPARATWN '.JF BUOG!:l ISSUES r~:.JTE ::.\\00!'. ; PR~Ph~ATIGN FOR HEA~ING RESE .. RCH!:r u~-HT:.AY STATUS r::SUi'.\",,, 6/21/94 L~NC USED W~3TLAW TO SHEPA~OIZ~ rrTTT3 A~~ oa~ELL UP TH~U TODAY; ~A~ VARIJU : SE~~CHES TJ SEE WHAT A SCH00l B0A~D ~UST 00 AFTE~ IMPLEMENT[~~ CONS:~T DECREE TO ATTAIN UNITARY STATUS ~~r G~; OUT OF CCJURT'S SUP::R'VISim: 6/Z~/~~ CJH TELEPHONE CCN~E~E~CE WITH JOHN RIG~S LETTE~ F~D~ STEVE JONES RECEIVED~ REVIEWED NlR 3UOGEi LETT=R TO MR. ~tlHOLL[N PREPARATION OF ~OTION TO EXCU:E MR. RIGGS RES~ARCHE~ WGRKERS CG'4P. ISSU~ PRErA~ATI  N JF DUOGET H~ARI~G: 6/22/94 LE '.K ~ES::/,f:.CHED 2 NE~ CASES FC,iND 2!; \\\\::Tu.;.: YE'..TERulV FR0'4 F.:\u003e. SUPPLEM~1:T 6/23/94 CJH TELEPHONE C~N~!:RENCE ~ITH ELIZ ~QVTER P.E: ADE TRIAL; ca~P P~EPARATI~N OF ~OTION TO ~N~nCE SETTLEM~NT RE: WORKERS CO~P TELEPHONE CONFERE~CE WITH ~ARK MILHOLLEN RE: BUOGET HEARING PREPARATION FOR WITNESS MEETrnG:; . A~!O BUDGET Hi:~R I NG TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ~Trvr JJN:~ LETTER FRO~ MR. GANS ~E: ~BEYANCE TELEPHONE CJNFERE~CE WIT~ MAR HILHGLLEN TELEPHONE CONFE~ENCE WITH 0~ JAVELL! - zqT~ PREPARATION OF MOTION TO ~X(U~E 6/23/94 LENC SHEPAROIZED PITTS ANC TOPEKA C~$E~; REVIEWED RELEVA~T CASE~ \u0026/2~/94 tJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH PAT GEE; ;. . REVIEWED STATUTE; FAXED .. LETTER FROM HR. GANS :.-.1,::. , . .'-; RECEIVED t REVI~MEO ORDER .. _i/~V:-: .. ~:i.,'., . TEt.EPH~~E CONFERENCE WITH PAT GEE :_.j(._'tt, _;~,!tii,.~,- _ _. {tl\\E,A,~~qo~ . OF BUOGET HEARING :. h -, --~.f:.,., -: LENC FQUNO_ ALL RELEVANT CASES IN :,!( . .  , f t.;~::P~,E~.i~!iA!~Off CASE; MAOE CCP IS; -~*..,, .. :: J~. ,,:,\u003c ~C~GHT!D   A IQ NlPV ~ .-~:;;, . :. ~:  . I!'\\:V~ ~ 0 -lltll oATr 7/27/o L!~30 .OO:JOO!\"-CJ l.O~ .25 -~s .1c; .25 .25 1.:5 .75 .75  2 5 2.'ic .so .25 .sc  50 .~s .zs .z., z.1~ 3.00 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PAR'ERSIF Of' INllN'llUALS AHO PROf'ESSIONAl ASSOCIATlONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 Fl'IST COMMEJICIAL a.DING \u003cIQ() WEST CAPITOL UTIU 110CX. AIIICANIAI l'22ID1 (501) '79-2011 6/'l.'t/94 WAD RECEIVED ANO R:VH:~EC LETTE\" Fi:'.::'~ 1'.. GANS o/27/94 CJrl CONF::RcNC( ,HTH STEVE JONES. :HE~ STEVE JONE: A~D nae ~ORGA~; C~LL TC NOR~A RJGERS; ~EVIf-MEO BUDGET n~cs; PREPARATION FGR ~IT~ESS ~EfTI~~~ TCLEPHO~E CONFERENCE WITH J~HN TULL~ ~: ~IO',~ P.ECEIYEO ~ REVIEWED FAX FRC~ ~q. lULL TELEPHON:: c:~FERENCE WIT~ FUS~ ~AYC CQNFCREN~C WITH WIT~ESS IN FR[ rA~!~IS~ FOR nuc~rr HEAP.ING LEfTE~ FR~~ RICHARD ROACHELL TEL[PHO~E CJNFERE~:E ~IT~ er JACOVELLf PRErARATICN OF ~OT!ON TC ~x:u:E 6/27/~4 JL~ VARIOUS ~tTTEqS t:,/27/94 LENC BEGAN OUTLINING ~HAT MUST B; DONE AFTE~ DECREE rs E~TEREO t.,/~:1/94 CJt-i PREPARATIQN ANQ APF4RF\"l AI rii,p;,i::r HEA~IT,Gj CALLS IO CJ Fe r.,~YTfQi 6/?.9/'9i. CJH JRAFTEO WJRKERS COMP. ~~TIO~; CALL TO DR. r:!LUAMSj PREPA~ATI:;I: F:'P. COMPLETT?N OE H~ARING LETTER FRO~ STEVE JONES RECEIVEO t ~EVIEWEO NLRSD STATU~ P.[P~~T ~EVIEWEO F~X ~RO~ ~R. ROACHELL R~: HEAR!ttG CONFERENCE ~ITH CLIENTS; PREPA~ATIC~ AND APPEARED FOR BUDGET HEA~I~G LETTER TO DR. WILLIA~$ RE~ NLR STATUS AEPO~ T MEMO FRO~~. BASSA DRAFTED JUNE PRJJECT MGMT TOOL CO~FEP.ENCE ~ITH J[RR~ MALON~ TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CR. hlLLIAM~ LETTER TO OR. ~ILLIA~ SU~MARI!I~G ccc~T PROCEEDINGS ~EVIEWEO JQSHUA PROPC,ED ~RCE~; REPORT(~ TO OR. WILLIA~ RESE.:.RCHEQ ANO PBF 0 4SATTQN ~F \"0T~CJ!; ANC ~TIPULAT!ON RE: ~ORKERS COMPfNS.ntoN 6/Zq/94 JLM REVIEWED ~OCUME~TS FROM OR. ~!TCHELL; NOTE FPOM MS. RODGERS; DRAFTED L[TT~~ TO MS. BOYTER REVIEWED GUOGET HEARl~G ~ATTE~S REVIEWED JUNE MG~T TOOL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH OR. BAS~A MGMT TOOL HATTERS AEVIEHEO FILEi O~AFTEO PLEADING; ?AGr TAX IOENTIFICATI~ 171-0253137 I~vr :0-11111 0.C.Tf 7/27/~ UZ3J  000090-CJ  ....-, C. ' .2s -,c  - J -~ 5  on e.7~  t_r.  :i Q.__ .75 .so .zs 7 ,. (CONTINUED ON PAGE ~I ., FRIDAY, ELDREDGE\u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0MDUAI.S AHO PAOFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL IIUIIJllNG 400 WEST CAPITOL IJTTU IIOCI(, AIIKANUI 722111 (S01) 3711-2011 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY; REVIEhED GRIEF TO 8TH CIR. RE: ELECTION ZONES; REVIEWED CHARLES PL~INTIFFS ORIEF; LETTER TO 8TH CIRCUIT CLE~K RE: RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES 7/07/q4 JLM REVIEWED AND PREPARED OUTLINE RE: AOE KGMT TOOL REVI[tiED ORDER R!:: AOE/MFPA . ,  CALCULATIONS 7/08/94 CJH PREPARATIJN OF AP~EAL - VOTING RIGHT~ RECEIVED REVIEWED PCSS~ LETTER RE: sc.-.o  L SIT ING:: 7/08/94 JU'i 7/09/94 CJH /4/94 CJH 7 /11/qr. CJH TELEPHONE CONFERE~CE WITH D~. WILLIAM: Rf: ADE/CONSTRUCTION REVIEWED ORDER RE: BUDGET INFORr.ATIO~ PREPARATION OF FINAL CRAFT - 8TH CI~. LETTER RE: TWO NEW SUPP. COURT VOTING CASES PREPAR~TICN OF LAWSUIT RE: wGRKERS CO!-IP. I S::iUE MEETING ftITH LRSD COUNCIL RF.: VARIOUS DESEG. ISSUES; PREPARATIO~ FOR euoGET HEARING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH OL.GL. JACOVELLI RE: TRA~SCRIPT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH C  U~T REPORTER RE: TRANSCRIPT CONFERENCE WITH JERRY MALONE RE: CUDGEi HEARINGS ARA TION OF WORK  COMP. MOT 7/ll/q4 JCF REVIEWED LETTER TO STH CI REVISED BY CJH 7/11/94 JLM REVIEWED ~NO REVISED LETTER RE: SCHOCL CONST R UC TI ON REVIEWED MATTEP.$ RE: LRSO BUCGET HEARINGS 7/l~/94 CJH RECEIVED t REVIEWED DRAFT INTEROISTRICT SCHOOL ASS[GNMENT GUIDELINES I AIR COPY MEMO FROM OR. MAYO RE: I~C. SCH. K. SEATSi 4 YR OLO RECEIVED t REVIEWED INFOR~ATION R(: $AO BUS. CASE; CONFERENCE WITH JLH CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY BURNETTE - VOTING APPEAL RECEIVED t REVIEWED APIC BUS. CASE RECEIVED t REVIEWED CR. JENNINGS ANALYSIS OF ASSIGNMENT ZONES RECEIVED t REVIEWED INC- SCHOOL SPANISH SUS. CASE PAGE TAX IOENTIFICATION 171-0253837 IPN ~ 31- l 11 i3 C' DATE 6/25/q LI2JO .OOOO90-CJ 4. 5,J ...?.C. l. 7':, .50 .zs .z~ .2s .5C ...., c: .5r. .~s .25 .75 .zs  7/12/94 JLM 7 I l3/9't CJH 7/t4/94 CJH 7/lS/94 7 /17 /94 CJH 7/18/94 CJH A/RCOPY FRIDAY, ELDREDGE\u0026. CLARK A PARTNERSIIP Of' INllMDUAI.S Nm PAOFESSIONAI. ASSOCIA TlONS ATTORNEYS AT UW 2000 ARST COMMEJICIAI. IIUl.DING G WEST CAPITOL I.ITT1.E 110C1C. A11KAN1A1 722111 (501) 37\u0026-2011 CONFERENCE WITH J(RRY MALONE ~E: PRINCPAL MTG; BUS CASES REVIEWED BUDGET HEARING PREPAQATION~ TRIAL PREPARATION; CONFE~E~CE WITH LR~D WITNESSES - BUDGET HEARING; REVIEhEC OOCUMEt-lTS LETTER FRO~ ATTORNEY ~EffLYN D~VIS RECEIVED C REVIEWED PCBE MEMO A~D CORR: S PONC EJ~Cf Le:TT~R TO ATTOR\"4EY DAVI$ ~E: vbru,G RIGHTS APPEAL LETTER FROM ELIZ BOYTER RECEIVED  REVIE~~ED I.OE RESP01; S[ ~E: MFPA REVIEWED BUDGET FILES; CALL TO BJ f MORGM, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ~iRK MILHOLLEN LETTER FROM DORSEY JACKSON PREPA ELEPHONE C  NFERENCE WITH STEV~ JONES RE: WORKERS COMP. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE \"ITH JGH~ ~ALKER RE: WORKER$ CO~P. OR~FTEO ANO FILE MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT; RESEARCHED AND DRAFTED R REVIEWED A~O REVISED DRAFT BRIEF; FILED TELEPHONE CONFERENCE EPHONE CONFERENCE PREPARATIGN FOR H MILHJLLEN; REVIEWED TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ARMSTRONG WITH WITH t A BUSINESS CAS'1:5 WITH CAROL CONFERENCE WITH JERRY MALONE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH OR. MAYO (2 CALLSI LETTER FRO~ ELIZ BOYTNER RECEIVED t PEVIEWED ADE MONITCRINC REPORT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JOHN wALKER PREPARATION FOR Buo:;er FILING; HEARPlG RESEARCHED WORKERS COMP. ISSUE PREPARATION OF NOTICE OF FILING; CALL TO Ee MATTHIS; CONFERENCE WITH CLIENTS RE: SUBMISSION OF REQUIRED DOCUMENTS; REVIEWED ANO REVISED DOCS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CAROL ARMSTRONG (21; RECEIVED t REVIEWED Pt.GE TAX IDENTIFICATION M71 -0253837 I~Vt 3l-ltl3C CATE 8/l5/C LI23C .CCC090-C J .50 1.00 .so .75 .:s 2.~s 1.00 5.7'5 G) _ ( CONTINUED ON PAGE : .. !i ..,;;:;;;.;a:!!llll~l;l;ailca;a;a,aa,_ _________. ,,.._ _~ -----------------~!!111.-. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PAlffllER:SNP OF INDMDUAI.S NJ \"'\"ESSIONAL ASSOCIA l10NS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMSICIAL IIUIUllNG 400 WEST CAPITOL UTTLE IIOCl(, ~ l'Dl1 (501) Sl'\u0026-2011 COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSIO~ 7/21/94 CJH LETTER FROM ATTORNEY BOYTER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COU~T REPORTER BUDGET HEARINGS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH D~. WILLIAM~ RE: TEACHER SETTLEMENT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH MR. MILHDLLEN TELE0 HONE CONFERENCE WITH ~S. MATTHIS CONFERENCE WITH LRSD AOMINIST~ATCRS RE: NEGOTI A Tt O'.l!S; BUDGE Ti PREP ARl.1YH!N NOTICE OF FILING RECEIVED t REVIEW~D REVISED BUSIN=S: CASE 7/21/94 JL~ REVIE~EO LETTER FROM MS. ~OYTER RE: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTICN 7/22/94 CJH RECEIVEO  REVIEWED ORDER OF HEARI~G TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH MARr. MILHOLLEN TELEPHONE CO~FERENCE WITH BOB MORGAN TELEPHONE CQNFERE~CE WITH POLLY RAMER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE W[TH ROBERT CLOW=R 7/22/94 JLM REVfEWED ORDER RE: BUDGET HEARI~G5 7/22/94 WAP RECEIVED AND R~VIEWEO ORDER Fk0~ JISTRICT COURT 7/:4/94 CJH RECEIVE~ \u0026 PEVIEWED TRANSCRIPT OF STEPHENS/GARLANJ HEARIN:, REVIEwEO JENNINGS ANALYSIS OF ATTE~OANCE ZONES; PREPARED NOTICE OF FILING PREPARATION FOR OUCGET HEARING 7/25/94 COGC P.EVIEWEO POLICY MANUAL RESEARCHED CONSTITUTIONALITY OF POLICY MANUAL 7/25/94 CJH RESEARCHED COURTS AUTHORITY RE~ BUDGET TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ~ARK MILHOLLEN 7 /25/9\" JCF TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE ( 2 J 0P-(FER ENCE CONFERENCE CONFERENCE CONFERENCE WITH WITH ~ ITH WITH SAM J TI~ HUMPHRES ELIZ BOYTNER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE \"ITH DON STEW~RT TELEPHONE CCNFERENCE NITH MARK ~ r-N CONFERENCE WITH JERRY MALONE RE: PUOGcT PREPARATION OF SUOGET HEARING REVIEWED OPINIONS OF 8TH CIR. ANO ORDERS OF DISTRICT COURT; MEMO TO CJH RE: POWER OF DISTRICT COURT TO MONITOR LRSO llUOGET[NG PAG( INV~ OHE LI l 30 .2 '\u003e .25 2.25 -~~ .2 'j -,r '- :::\u003e .25 .50 .z5 .25 .25 -~? c-:. .5G .75 l.75 .50 t. oc 1.25 .25 .25 .75 TAX IDENTIFICATION 171-0253\u002637 5 31-LllB.'.'l'- 8/25/94 .ooooqo-cJH ,, A/RCOPY (CONTINUED ON PAGE FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PAl!ffiERSlP Of' INDMDUAI.S N'1J PAOFESSIONAL ASSOCIA Tl0NS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 F1RST COMMERCIAL BUii.DiNG 400 WEST CAPITOL UTIUIIOCK.AMAMIAl1'Z2t1 (S01) 37\u0026-2011 ~/25/94 JLM PREPARATION RE: auOGET HEARINGS REVtEWEO au~INESS CASE RE: INCE~TIV~ SCHOOLS TAX 10ENT1FICAT1()fj 71-02531137 DAGE ~ tNV~ 31-111204 DATE 8/25/~4 Ll230 .000090-CJ~ 1.00 .5C 7/26/94 CDGC RESE,RCHED CONSTITUTIONALITY OF POLICY MANUAL 3.SC 7/~6/94 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERE~CE ~ITH C. ~RMST~DNG RE: BUDGET .~5 RECEIVED t REV!EW~O PROPJ:;E~ FINAL BUDGET ,  l  2? ~~ CONFERENCE WIT~ KAPK ~ILHOLLEN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ftITH SA~ JON$ RESEARCHED ISSUES RE: STATES rESPON~E WO~K~RS COMP. TELEPHONE C8NFERENCE WITH DGN STEWAF.r T ARM.:;TRONG ATfENDEO BOARO BUDGET WORKSESSIONt CONFERENCE MITH ~ORGAN TELEPHO~E CONFERENCE WITH PSLLV RA~tR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH B~R MCRGA~ ME~O FRO~ OR. CLOwERS RE: PPD MEMO FRO~ OR. CLO~ERS RE: ~GMT. TOCL RECEIVED REVIE~EO LISTING OF TASK CHANGES ON JUNE ~G~T. TQOL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH [STELLE MATTHIS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN LETTER FROM ELIZ BOYTER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE RESPONSE RE: WORKERS COMP. 7/2\u0026/14 Jl~ REVIEWED lTTE~ ANO RESP  NS[ ro LRSO/JCSHUA MOTION ro ENFORCE REVIE~EO LETTER RE: OESEG. LITI;ATICN OVERSIGHT PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARING; P.EVIEWEC BUDGET DOCUMENTS, riUSINf:SS CASES, PROJECTIONS, ETC. REVIEWED ADDITIONAL BUOGET OO(UMENT~; COMP[LEO ISSUES LIST; OTHER MATTERS TRAVELED TO LRSO; REVIEWED BUDGET DOCUMENTS; ATTENDED LRSD BOARC MEETING; HC. 7/27/9~ COGC CONFERENCE WITH JERRY MALONE RE: STUDENT POLICY MANUAL CJH RECEIVED t REVIEWED FAX STEWART RES LOS$ FUNDING CALL RECEIVED t REVIEWED R. WEISS DEPOSITION PREPARATION ANO MET WITH WITNESS FOR .Z5 .so .25 :.so z.oo ,--.._ (CONTINUED ON P E FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0MllUALS ANO PA0FESSIONAL ASSOCIA T10NS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL IIUlDING GI WEST CAPITOL unu IIOCK. AIIIWIIAI TD01 (S01 I 37\u0026-2011 PAGE TAX IDENTIFICATION 01-0253137 INVt' 31-11 l 8 , DATE 8/'l.\"'\u003e/ ' - ~~H~E~A-R:-I:N:-G~ =P--R-~E~PA~=R-A~T=I-O:-N:- --=::.-:-::-:--:-~=:..-:-;:-;;-_.:~~~~~~-~~~-f ~ .oooogo-c. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEANA KEI~HLY RE: 4 YR OLD TELEPHO~E CONFERENCE ~ITH NORMA ROGERS ~ECE1VED t ~EVIEWEO FAX REZ BCA~O ME~5ER .25 PREPARATION OF MOTION TO EX:USE .l5 PREPAR~TION OF NOTICE OF FILI~G .25 PR~PARATIGN FOR ~UOGET HEARING J.7~ RESEARCHED AND PREPARAilON OF RrPLY ~L: CO~P. TELEPHONE CONFER ,,..~ WITH S:.H JON:. TEL PH NE CONFERENCE WITH ANN BRD~N -~~ TELEPHONE CONfERENCE WITH BOB MORGA~ 50 ~En w!LH II DPEOSITICN t COMP. =-8 7/27/94 JLM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MS. ARMSTRO~~ RE: PROJECT MGMT TOOL .~5 REVIEWED DOCUMENTS RE: FOUR-Y[AR OLC AND KI!iOERGAHEt.i VACAtHES; RESEARCliEO RECUIREMENTS/RESTR{CTIONS; PREPARED FOR HEARING~ 1.75 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH OR. CLO~ER~ ~f: PLA~NING AND BUDGETING OOCUHENTS/PROC ESS  25 7/~8/94 CJH PREPARATION FOR HfARING; CONFERENCE WITH WITNESSES; APPEARED FOR LRSO/PCSSD BUDGET HEARINGS ... RECEIVED t REVIEW~O AMENDED ACE RESPONSE - C OIIIP. 7/28/9~ JLM V wEO LETTER FRO~ MS. BOYTER A~ AMENDED RESf\u003eONSE TRAVELED TO LRSO; ATTENDED MEETING WITH OR. CLOWERS RE: PROJECT MG~T TOOLS, PROvRAM PLANNING PRCESS ANO OT~E~ MATTERS; REVIEWED A~D RfVISED COURT FILINGS; CONFERRED WITH MS. ARH~TRONG, MRS. MATHIS, OR. WILL!tH~ aTHER RE: VARIOUS MATTERS REVIE~EO ~OTt~N, ONE AN RAFT REPLY RE: WORKERS' ca~P. FUNDING; .25 7/29/9~\"'j'J~LMM-~P~R~E;P~A;R~A~T~I~O~N~F~O~R~H~E~A~R~I~~G~~ T ~A~TT'TT8r-~N~DO~Eno---..\\.....,!~~~ UUOGET HEARING; CONFERRED WITH MRS. AIR COPY MATT~IS, ETC. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE W[TH BEVERLY GRIFFIN RE: STATE-WICE COMPUTER NETWORK REVIEWED ORDER REI HEARl~G TRANSCRIPTS VARIOUS MATTERS .zs .zs .50 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A P~ OF NllVllUALS NtD PR)fSSl()NAL ASSOOATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 F1RST COMMERCW. BUU.DING I() WEST CAPITOL UTIU IIOCIC. AIIIWIIAI 722e1 (501) S7\u0026-2011 TELEPHONE C3NFERENCE WITH D~. WILL!hMS RE: STATE-WIDE COMPUTER ~ETWQRK TELEPHONE CONFERE~C( WITH~~. AQMST~  NG RE: PROJECT ~GMT TOOL CORRECTIONS TELEPHONE CJNFERENCE WITH M5. ~ATT~I: RE: LRSu COMPUTER TELEPHON~ CONFERENC( ~ITH ~S. ARM~TRONG RE: I-IGP(T TOOL TELEPHONE CONFERE~CE WITH MS. GRIFF!~ RE: JOSHUA$ BUDGET OSJEC!IdN t  REVIEWED FILE A~D CORRESPONOE~CE Rf: STATEWiaE CO~PUTER SY:TEH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH~~. SAM JONE~ ANO ~R. OuN STEWART RE: STATEWIDE C011P~JTER SYSTP~ t~t HUA'S OPPOSITIO~ TO LPS~s BUDGET reVIE~EO FAX FRO~ MS. ARMSTRONG RE: CORRECTED ~G~T TOOL FILING 7/31/94 JCF PR O ADE'S RESP   l ~E: WORKERS COMP. CGST PAG[ TAX IDENTIFICATION 71-0253837 INV# 31-lll90 DATE 8/25/C - L 12 30  OOOOQO-C J 1 .25  .? 5 TOTAL SERVICE~ 166.00 tl654J.7~ CHARLES D~VID GCRISCH CHRISTOPHER JOH~ HELLE~ JOH~ CLAYBURN FENDLEY J~RRY LEE MALONE LANCE Ee ~EWKIRK WALTER A. PAULSON 9 INOING EXPENSE DISBURSEMENT RE: ~EPOSITIO~ EXPENSE COPY CHAPGES LEXIS COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH MESSENGER EXPENSE POSTA-.E FAX 6.25 - 101.25 lb. 50 3g.zs z.50 .2~ T~H Al E.XPE\"-.SE::; TOTAL TM[S INVOICE X ). Y. )( 1-. .,. 40.00 = lO\"-.'JO = 85.0C = 1os.oc = 45.0C ,:; 105.00 = . 25G.OC; l0o3t.:c; 140:.SQ 4121.:s , -- 112.52 Zb.25 3.50 60\u003c;.00 246.QC 372.9C 302 .b~ 13'5. 0(' 39. t 2 211. SC FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOMOUAI.S AND PROFESSIONAL ASS()CIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCW. BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL UTTU IIOCIC. AIIICANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 rAGE U,X IDENTIFICATION 171 -0253637 INVti -11::zc or,H 5/31./c LIZ)O .oaocqc-cJ FUNCING LillGAlIC~ F~C~ ~S. BGYTEA .25 e/o~/q4 CJH RECEIVEJ t REVIE~EC cc~ ~~sSE~VATlONS\" RE: 8UCGET .50 e/C4/G4 JLP. 8/0'5/G', CJH 8/05/qt, JCF 8/CS/G'i JL\" :: 0 A~,H !S\" CF P.E PL 'Y TC ~:JE !sE 1 :  W~RKER') CCMPE~S~TIC~ ISSUf. ... tiR. t-U CONFERENCE ~Ilt- ct,v FENCLEY RECEIVED t REVIE~EC f-) F~O~ O~ ~AYO TELEPHONE CONFE~ENCE W11~ MAR~ 1'1ILl-40LLEN LEllE~ lC ~~~ SPC~~ PREPA~AlIC~ er NCiICE Cf ~!LING: CONFERENCE WIT~ FE~CLE'Y REVIEWE~ CROER RE: ~ce HEARY~G PREPARATIO~ FC~ flll~G eucGEl; CCNFERENCf ftlih FE~CLE'i ciLl TO MtlHOLL~~  2 c; .sa 1.00 TELEPHONE ca~FERENC= Wl1H CLAYTr:N BLACKSTCCK .~5 TELEPHC~E CO~FE~E~CE ~JTt- ~AR~ ~ILH LLEN .2~ TELEPHCNE ca~FERE~CE ~1,~ JERRY MALONE .25 PREPAR~TION CF I~SL~'NCE nEPORT - SlAlES .sn TELEPHONE COhFERfNCE ~ll~ RUSS ~AYO .z~ RECEIV~D t REVlEMEC RE~ISEO PUOGEl .15 RECEIV0  RE~1EMC eusI~ESS ci~E5 .15 TELEPHCNE CONFERENCE ~llr CARCL A~~STRGNG .25 CONFERENCE WlTt- CJ~ PE: FILING =.UCGET TELEPHONE cc~FEQE~CE wllt- ~s. AR~STRONG: ~A~ICUS ~A1TERS RF: 8UOGE1  2 '5 ANO OTHER FILING$ PREPARATION CF ~~OGEl FOR FILTN~ e/~6/q4, JCF TELEPHONE ca~FERENCE ~ll~ ~s. e1oe/q'- J~\" AR~STRCN~; ~~PICUS ~A11E~S 6/10/q4 JL~ TELEPHONE CC~FERENCE ~11~ M~. S\u0026M JONfS RE: uUCGEl HEARI~G lELEPHONE CC~PeREHCE Wll~ MS. ~ATTHIS ,oq. CLOW~RS RE: e~OGEl ~EARING ANC PAO RE'JI!:\\.l TELEPHCNE CCN~ER2NCE Wll~ MS. OORCT~Y GRE:N (P~El RE: PBC RE'JlEW TELEPHCNE CONFERENCE wti~ M~. WALKE~ RE: MOTION FG~ CON1E~P1 ETC. 1ELPHCNE CONcE~SNCE Wll~ OR WILLIA~S  ....  ,J , ( 0 i: : r c \", e .. Pr ., or 1 a N .25 e/12/94 JU' 8/12/q4 WA:\u003e S/14/qt, CJH S/lS/g4 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOMOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOC2A TIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL UTTLE IIOCIC. ARICAHSAS 7%2111 (501) 376-201 1 ARATIC~ FCR ~E,RlNG TELEPHCNE CON~E~ENCE ~Il~ ~rc~ElLE THO~PSO~ QF CEPT. ec.; ~EVI~~ED BUOGET DOCUMENT TELEPHCH CQNFE~E~Ct \\1111- K~  . ;:.oo~gs P.E: r. uCGET Hi;tiRHG t  TELEPHO\"E COhFEqENCE ~~T~ M~. Gq!~FI~ RE: .,Hi ING T~AV~LEC TC LRSCi ~lTEN:EO ~EfTI~G ~ITH ~S. MATTHIS, ~R. INGRA\", Qt. ~ILLIAMS, ~R. ~ILHCLLE~ ~~O OR. ~AYO RE: EUCGET HEAA!NC; CCNFfR~EC ~IT~~~. IhGR~~ ~NO Cl~ERS; CCNFER~EC NITH DH CLGWERS RE: P8C ISSUES; PREPtREO FOR HEARING: REVIE~EC C~JECTION DY JOSHUA TRjVELE~ TC LAM FIR~; REVIEWED O~AFT CF PROGRA~ 8~CGE1 CCCU~E~T er-OURTH CUARTEf:) TELE?HONE ca~~ERENCE ~,1~ DA. (LO~~RS i.e: ;:ioc FILI~G REVIE\"f.C THIRC C~ARlER F!l!~G PREPARATIOh FGR HEARING; ATTE~OE  HEARING RE: LRSC B~CGE1; CON~ERR~O WITH OR. WILLT,~S ANC ~S. MATTHIS R(: TECHNIQUES ANC STRATEGIES; GTH~R MATTERS ~~ ANC RE~lE~EC C~CER ~c COURl LETTER FRO~ J ~ WA KER Ar:: AOE OEPOSIT!CN RECE!VE~ t REVIEaEC CRCER RECEIVEC t ~EVI~wec CEFQSITION NOTICE - ORa QIANA JULI'N RECEIVED t RE~IEkEC JOSHUA ~OTION AND SR IEF FOR euc RECEIVEC t REVIE~EC CEFCS!TIO~ ~OTICES; \"IlHOil; SHAVER; \"EJSSi SCCTT; CKER 8/15/g4 JL~ L HONE CONFERE~CE WIT~ M  ARMST~8~G RE: PBO FILING PREPARAllO~ CF Fll]NC RE: PeO/FCURTH CUARTER TELEPHO~E CONFEP.ENCE Wll~ MS. ARMSTRONG RE: P8C TELEP~CNE CONFeReNCE W]l~ QQ. ClO~EP.S RE: GRAY f'C!J.C I l S/16/Q~ CJH RESEARCHED ISSUES RjISEO SY OR. MAYO; raNFF.~ENCE wIT~ JcR~~ ~ALONE; CALL TC TAX IOENTIFICA TION .,, -0253637 ~AG~ 2 1~ve -llQ2~3 ~Ale 5/31/Q~ LT23D .oocoqc-cJH 1.00 .s1 .-, r .) '3.0C .so .2~ 1.an  2'5 .2., . ,. .... @ FRIDAY, ELDREDGE\u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of 1N[)MOUALS AND pR()fESSK)NAL .t.SS()CIATIONS ; n ATTORNEYS AT LAW . , / / 2000 ARST C()Mt.lERCIAL BUii.DiNG  ,/ ~ WEST CAPITOL . ,. -- ~ e,___,_/, IJTTI.E 11(05C01K). 3A7J6U-2(.0U1I1S Al 72201 I , HLEPHCNE (Ct,FE E 1 E W }1h SA~ JONE5 TEL~P~ONE (ONfERENC~ w1,~ siEVE JONES TELEP~ONE ca~FERENCE wll~ JCY SPRINGE~ ~E: OEPOS!11Ct-. MlEAL TE\"TFHH ICSN E CCNFERENCE Wll~ ~AR~ 1  MILHCLLE~~ CffICE B/l6/q4 JL~ RE~I=~EC ORCE~ RE: A:E HE~R!NG TELEPHONE CCNfERcNC: ~llh ~s. A~M~T~O~G RE: K{NCERGARlEN A~t FCUF-VEAR OL~ 6/111 (JH f, JLING No CONFERENCE wit\u003e SAM JONES se, WILHOITE A~D ClHER ACE OEPOSTTtON: CALL TC co~~, REPOR : TRANSC~Iri; ~ RV !SH lRA~SCRJP1 RECEIVED t REVIE~EC FA~ fRC~ RUSS MlYC RTEELl EPlo lG!i'i TCOL f:! I= it- OE~NNA IN r. 8/18/~4 CJh RESEARCHEC A~S PPEFAPA1ICN FCR ADE HEARIN~ - ~ORKER5 CC~P. LETTE~ FPC~ SA~ JC~ES RlEELCE;P1Hv OhE CCcN cERENCE wl1~ RUSS ~AYO TELEPHONE CONFERENCE Wll~ OEJ~NA RE: QCf'I B/1G/G4 CJ~ TELEPHONE CCNfERENCE ~]lr P.G8~R~ COUNSEL W 11~ St.t' JO\"IE S CPRFErI CAER AilO~ FCR ~FPA A~C ~OQKER: cavP. HEARING e/1G/G4 JL E\"EC ~illERS Rf: fCU~TH QUA~TER STATUS REPC~l RE~IE~EO ME~C FRC~ ~s. ~iTH(R 10 oR. MAYO RE? RECRUll~E~i ~EVIE~ REVISEO CRAFT Of P~O ~ECEIVEO REPOflT e12z/q~ CJH TELEPHONE CONfERENC ~1,~ SAM JONES MEMO F~OM OR CLEVERS Rece1ven t ~evlEEt ppe PRO(ESS Or~C,(clJ~MoEcN~l Cf ~IT~ JE~~, ~ALONE RE: TAX IOENTIFICA TION 71-0253837 PAGE !'IIVe D!:.TE L!2::30 \" -U\u003c:i2C3 5/3 i./~5 .OOOO.,Q-CJH .25 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INOMOUALS AND pROfESSl()NAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMEROAI. BUIL.l)ING .00 WEST CAPITOL UTTU IIOCK. AIIKANIAI 7%201 (501) 376-2011 VARlOUS OESEG. ISSUE VARIOUS MAllSRS R: CESEG CASE 8/22/q4 JLM RE~I5wEO ~EMCS RE: pee; PROJECT ~GMT TOOL; GRAV COCK REV1S1C~S flCi PREP~RED FCR HEARING RE: AOE ISSUES A~D OTHE~ MA iT ER S ~ EV I =,H C P tl C G! . ,e \"' P l A N~ 1 NG AN C et J 0C, E 1' I Iii u suo~ISSIC~ fRO~ CR. CLG~ER5 DRAFTED NOTICE nf fllI~G ANC CCRRESPONOENCE RE: PEC VARIOUS MA'THRS OEPOSil ICN CCNf~RENCE ~ll~ ecvTER A~O ~H~VER LETlER FRC~ JOY SPRI~GER RE: AO: OEPCSIT PREPARATIO~ FOR ~EIRING; CALL TC MARK MlLHOLLi:1' TELEPHC~E C~NFERENCE ft)l~ AN~ B~CWN LE?HCNE CQNFtRENCE Wll~ SA~ J  N~S (2) PRE~4RATIO~ FGR SH,~E~ A~O WILHJ!T OEP  SITICN TELEPHC~E ca~FERENCE ~lT~ LQU!S LA~~E~T RE: AOE lELEPHONE CONPERENCE ~llH JSY SPRINGER RE: TRAt,SCRIPl TELEPHONE CQNCERENCE Wll~ DR. ~!LLIAMS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIE~EC CRAFl JOINT MOTION TG ENFCACE SETTLE~E~l INC~ REVIEWED ANC REVISEC ORAFT INTEROISlRlCl SC~OCL PCLJCY TELEPHONE CONFE~ENC Wll~ HAR~ MIL~OLLEN RE~IEWEO TRA~scnlPl ANC PREPARATION OF STATUS REPGRT RE: :E~OLllION ~c STEPHENS SCHCCL TE . HCNE CONFERENCE Wll~ JOY SPR!NG[~ l21 R~: OEPOSITICN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WIT~ $AM J~NES REl EPOSITIONi MEARING LET  L1A~ AEt STEPHENS PREPARATIO~ OF Wll~ESS LIST 8/23/q~ JLM REVIEWEO OESEGAEGAllCN PL4N; COURT OAOERSt ETC.; REVlE~Et CCRRE!.PONOENC~ ANO OOCU~ENTS RE: AECR~IlMENT, REGtSTRATIO~ ANO ENACLL~ENT; O~AFlEO MOTION 10 RELEASE SEATS, 8AIEF IN SUPPORT ANC CCRRSPC~Ce~ce AE~IEWEQ VARIOUS ~Al1ERS RE: ~EARING; rn~~cR~~c; ~e: ?ENul~G ~eSEARCH T ,-x IOENTIFIC,-TION 71 -0253937 P :.GE INV~ OH~ LI~)C' 1.00 .75 .sc .25 l o 2.50 5 -11qz r, 3 5/31/\u003c15 ~COCOQO-CJt-i ..---:::::- isklUAt, t.LU.Kt.Uut.. d.: LLAK.I\\. A PARTNERSHIP OF INOMOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIOHS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 ARST COMMEACW. BUii.DiNG .a0 WEST CAPITOl l.lTTI.E IIOCI(, AIUCANUS l'Z2111 (501) 376-2011 CJ RECEIVED  REVIEMEC FA~ FRO~ JOHN PAG!: !NV:: OU[ L 1230 WAL~E~ RE: OcPCSJTIO~S .zr, . TELEPHCNE CCNr.ERENCE ~JT~ JOY SPR!NGEQ (2J .5~ TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WJT~ TI~ MUMPHRIF.S RE: OEPOSITICN .2~ LETTER FRO~ JG~N WAlkER RE: ADE .2~ TELEPHCNE CONFERENCE WlT~ SA~ JONES .so RECEIVE  t R~VlE\"EC J05HuA ~OTION FOR EXTENSION .2~ PREPARAT!O~ OF~ CONFERENCE WiT~ JE~A PREPARA h FON S~iVEA CEPOSI~!ON AP?~AREO S~AVE~ CEFOSil!CN 8/i~/g~ JL~ ~ V ~C FILING ~EVIEWEC BUCGET CRCER REVIEWEC A,c REVI~EC A~IEF, MCT!O~ AhS CGRRSSPONOENCE RE: VACJ~l SEATS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WIT~ MS. C. ARMSTRONG REVIE~EO A~C REVISE~ CRAFT C~ PLEADYNGS TELEPHONE CONFE~ENCE WIT~ ~R. MILHOLLrN RE: FUNDING CALCUL~ltJN~ 8/25/q~ JCF ~EVIEWEO PCSSr. PCCLING BRIEF TO 8TH er~. ANO ACGENCU~ CCCU~ENTS ?/25/9~ JL~ REVI=WEC ANO FIN~LIZE: PLEADI~G~; VARIOUS ~ATTERS RE: FILING fREL~ASE OF SEATS\u003e TELEPHONE CONFEPENCE WITH JUOGE WRIGHTS OFFICE ~(: A~E HEARING EXHI9IT EXCHANGE VARICUS MAlTERS RE2 Pee PROCESS a/25/~4 WAP RECEIVED ANO REVIEkEC CR:E~ ~E: euoGETS 8/26/q4 JL~ REVIEWED OROER ~E: ACE HEARING SCHEOUlE TELEPHG~E C  hFERE~CE Wll~ H~. WALf.ER RE: AOE O~PC5ITICN5 TRAVELED TC MR. ~AlKtR'S OFFICE: AlTE~OEC ~EPOSITIC~ CF RJCH~RO WEISS ANO MR. BOB SHAVEP E/29/q4 JL~ R~VltWEO QAOER A~C CRAFTED LETTf~ TO MR. ~ ILHOLL EN REVIEWED ccqRESPC~CENCE RE: DISCOVERY REVIEWED OROER ~E: P(SSC ~UOGET; ORAFTEG LETTER TC CR. MIL~IA~S TELEPHONE CONFE~ENCE WIT~ ~S. ARMSTRC~G RE: PROJECl ~G~T. TC~t 8/30/q4 CJ~ NCE ~Jl~ STEVE JONES TELEPHONE CQNPERfNCE WJTH SA~ JONES AfRCOPY PREPAATION ANC SE11lE~E~T CONFERENCE .75 .sc  2 c;  2., .2'; .2\", .. 25 71-0253537 t -uc;zc:: 5/31/q~  ooco\u003crn-c J1- 0) tCONTINUEO ON PAGE 71 I I I ~ I an 11q1i CJH 8/3 l/q', JI.~ G/C2/94 ATT q/oZJq'- CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOMOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIA TlONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BU1L.DING 0:l WEST CAPITOL UTTU IIOCIC, ARK.UISAI 7'22Cl1 (501) 376-2011 TH ACE A~O PiR1!ES RECEIVED  REVIEEC JC~H~A ~GTION TC SUPPLEH1-4T LETTER FRO~ JC~N WAL~E~ RE: SETTLEMENT LETTER F~O~ SA~ JO~E~ - FOIA TC ACE iELEPHCNE CONFE~P~  ' \"' \"' \"' ONES TELE , c ONFERENCE Wll~ ~S. AR~STRONG RE: FILING t  TRAVELED TC L~SC; CC~FER~E~ WITH M~. ARMSTRONG ~NO CT~ERS; CCNF~RqEC WITH OR. CLOWERS RE: F~CJECl ~~MT TOOL; RETURNED TC GFFICE C~AFTEO NOl!CES CF FILlNG ANO CORRESPONOENCE VARIOUS MATT ER EVItWEO ~CllO~ 10 eNFCRCE SETTLE~ENT ~NO M TC~ SlIP; ERIEF TRAVELEC LRSO; CO~FERR: 1 W VARIOUS A  ~INISTRAlCRSi VARI~U~ ~ATT:RS RE: PRCJECl NG~l TOOL; TRAVELLED TO KING SCHOCL RE: GREAT EXPECTATIONS I~SE~~ICE REVIEWEO OCNNfll BROCKS CO~PLAI~T;RESEA~CH ~: S~~ RECEIVEC C ~EVI=~EC CO~PUTE~ NETWCKK DOCUMENTS LETTER fRO~ SA~ JO~E5 RECEIVE  t ~evtE~EC Prssc BUCGE~ TELEPHCNE caNr-ERENCE WIT~ ~AM JONES LETT:~ FROM JO~N WALKER REt AOE LEllER fRQ~ A110RNE~ 8CVlER RECEIVED t REVIE~EC AOE ~ROJECT ~G~T TOOL LETTER FRO~ Ve ORYA~l ~/02/q~ JCF ~EVIEW~t HA~~ELL CECISJON Re: vaTING q C4/94 CJH PR P TON FOR AOE HEARING qecEIVEC t \"EVIE~EC JO HUA QPPOSITIC~ TO LRS  MOlIC~ T~ PELEASE, SEATS LETTEn FROM S1ERLING I~GAA~ WITH EXT OAY SCHEDULES PREPARATION CF CRAFT SlIPULATraN 9/0~/q4 CJH RESEARCHED NEW ARKAN5A~ ABILITY GROUPING CASE CONFERS~CE W1T~ JL~ RE: ~ITNESS AND EXtiUHT LISl!l q/06/q~ ATT CONFERREO Mil~ OR. ~ILLIA~S ANO OR. MATTHIS, PREPA~EC FOR ~EAP.ING q/Qc/qi, JI.M TEl.EPH  MtLMOlLEl'j R6: AOE 1 ~,1qJNG TAX IOENTIFICATIOIII 71 -0253837 PAGE 7 1'1\\lti -llQ2C3 CATE 5/31/g5 l  7 5 2 .2 5 . .75 .25  50 .25 .2,; .25 .25 .25 .50 .so .25 1.so .aac.oqo-cJ1-  c;/07/qi.. ,-tSHC \u003cl/08/q4 t.TT t kllJA 1, t.L,U1'.~ ...... ~ -   A PARTNERSHIP Of INOMOUALS AND PROfESSK)NAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING ~ WEST CAPfTOL IJTl\\.E IIOCK. ~ 7Z201 (501) 376-2011 REVIEWED FILES ~e: 51A1E!D~ COMPUTER NElWORKA Tia~ FCR ~OE ~EJRING; DRAFTED WITNESS ~NC EX~IeI1 LIS1i TRA~ELLEO T~ LASO; CCNFE~REC ~JT~ ~R. ~!lHOtLEN A~C ClHERS; RE\"lE~EC FILES ~~D EXHIBlTr U TC CFFI _; -~?LE ED RE\"IEWEO JCSHU~ RESPCN~E TC MCTION TO RELEASE Kt~CERG~RTEN SEAlS/~CU~ YEA~ OLG S~ATS VA~!GUS ~~TTERS RE: ~ELctSE OF. Sft.TS ETC. t  ~E\"IEWE: ~E~CS Rf: Pee UPQ~Tt~; ~u~T RTOEOVLIE WUEPDD ATEECSU CA1!CNAL ECUlTY MONITORING REPO~T - FIRST SE~ESlER \"ARIOUS 111AllE?5 e~oor.s ATlENCEO HE~RING; PREPARE~ ~OR NEXT DAV'S HEARI~G RECEIVEC t RE\"IEMEC lRIAL ORGER RECEIVED ( REVIEMEC co~ REPORT RE: PRI~CIPAl SF.CP.ETlON PRCC~S: REC~IVED C RE\"l:MEC CRCE~ R=: PRE-Va SEA'TS COPIED CASE FDR CJhw q CCPIES eROOKS-PR=PAREC FOR ,Ne ATTEN1EC HEARING; PRFPARA1ICN fC~ NEX1 OAVS PAGE E t~Vfl -11qzc! DATE ~/3l/q5 LI230 .aoocqo-cJ~ .25 e  2 'i HEA~ING q/C~/q4 (JH T~LEPHONE CCNi-ERENCE ~l'Tr o~. MAYG -t----i:n:ic\"\"ie:i1r'\\:v.ce:roi-rr.-\"--a\"R-:t:vr=-;:--r-~.,.......-r'T'T\"\"'1rri-:\u003c:r---...:__----..c:::.::::~ RECEIVED t RE\"JE~EC ~oe RESPONSE - LOSS fUfllOING ISSUE G/OS/q4 JL~ ~ t h ~R. JOH ANO REVIEWED flLES RE: CESEGRtGATI  N CASES REV!E~EO OROER RE: FCUR~EAR GLO/KINOEqGAAlE~ SEA1S ~1oqJq4 ATT aqOOKS-PREPAR:C FCR ANC ~TTENDEO HEAP I~G CJH CONFERENCE wtn SAM JCN~S ANO JOHN GILL TELEPHONE CONFER ENC~ \\,jJH MA~I\" ~ILHILLON TELEPHONE CONFERENCE w1nI eoe MORGAN RE: VARIOUS ISSUES ANO PREPARA FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOMOUALS ANO PROFESSIOHAI- ASSOCIATlOHS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUIUllNG 400 WEST CAPITOL UTIU IIOCK. AJIKAHS,\\S 72201  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1698","title":"Court Filings: District Court, supplemental response of Joshua intervenors concerning their fee petition; District Court, affidavit of John W. Walker; District Court, second supplemental affidavit of Joy C. Springer","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":["Walker, John W.","Springer, Joy C."],"dc_date":["1996-08-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, supplemental response of Joshua intervenors concerning their fee petition; District Court, affidavit of John W. Walker; District Court, second supplemental affidavit of Joy C. Springer"],"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/1698"],"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":["112 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Springer, Joy C.","Walker, John W."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  Date: To: From: Re: John W. Wall(er, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 ENCLOSURE MEMORANDUM August 30, 1996 All Attorneys John W. Walker, Esq. LRSD v. PCSSD AUG j O 1996 Office of Desegrega1ion Moni!Ofin~ Enclosure(s): Letter \u0026Attachments to Judge Wright Supplemental Response of the Joshua Intervenors Concerning Their Fee Petition Affidavit of John W. Walker Second Supplemental Affidavit of Joy C. Springer IF ANY OF THE ABOVE LISTED DOCUMENT(S) ARE NOT ENCLOSED, PLEASE CALL THE ABOVE NUMBER. THANK YOU. JOHN W. WAIJ(ER/ RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. JOHN W. WALICER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Roc.k, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FILED U.S. D1srn1c; WURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 2 9 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: -----n'.DE;:-;P:a_--c: =L=ER~K August 29, 1996 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States Federal Court Building AUG j O 1996 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD; No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright: Office of Des . e9regat1cn Mon#.oring - In preparing our reponse to LRSD's detailed analysis, we determined some additional errors in calculation after our detail analysis of the time records. You will find enclosed a revised Attachment One to our Motion of November 22, 1995, summarizing our entire claim based upon our most recent analysis oftime. The following correction should be made in our Memorandum filed on November 22, 1995: at page 12 - the first full paragraph should read as follows: The Joshua Intervenors seek, for the substantive work on the case through October 28, 1995, an award for 2,016 hours of attorney time and 3,444.4 hours of paralegal time, as well as reimbursement of the amount actually paid to six persons who worked on the Joshua monitoring reports. See motion, Attachment One. This includes: [attorneys] John W. Walker, (1761.0 hours), Wiley Branton, Jr. (79.8 hrs), Austin Porter (175.2 hrs.); and paralegals Joy C. Springer (3123.4 hrs.) and Opal Sims (365.3 hrs.) Intervenors submission,. viewed in the light of the record in this case, establishes that a claim is made for time \"reasonablv expended on this litigation.\" Page Two August 29, 1996 at page 19 - in the first paragraph, the lodestar total for the work, other than for pursuing the fee award, should be for $742,590.81 for personnel and $17,636.00 for litigation costs. Thank you for your consideration JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel Of Record .. ATTACHMENT ONE Revised 8/29/96 SUMMARY OF AWARD SOUGHT A. Substantive Work On Case Number Individual Year(s) of Hours Rate Atty. John W. Walker  1990 6.85 $250.00 1991 562.4 same as above 1992 308.5 same as above 1993 329.2 same as above 1994 218.2 same as above 1995 335.85 same as above Sub-Total 1,761.00 $440,250.00 Atty. Wiley A. Branton, Jr 1990 1991 9.3 1395.00 1992 64.0 9600.00 1993 6.5 975.00 1994 1995 1 Sub-Total 79.8 $11,970.00 Atty. Mark Burnette [Time Waived] Atty. Austin Porter Jr. 1991-1995 175.2 $130.00 Sub-Total 175.2 $22,TT6.00 : Joy Charles Springer (Paralegal) 1990 27.5 $50.00 1991 854.7 same as above 1992 714.7 same as above 1993 553.9 same as above 1994 505.8 same as above 1995 466.8 same as above Sub-Total 3,123.4 $156,170.00 Opal Sims (Paralegal) 1991 365.3 $40.00 Sub-Total 365.3 $14,612.00  2 Other Paralegal Costs: (Reimbursement of amounts paid for work on Joshua Monitoring Reports). Amount Individual Year(s) Paid Kirke Herman 1991 $16,675.00 1992 $8,400.00 1993 $12,732.00 1994 $4,587.00 Evelyn Jackson 1991 $2,700.00 Debbie Parker 1992 $26,225.81 LaRhonda Pondexter 1991 $5,218.00 1992 $6,875.00 Clementine Rouse 1991 $2,200.00 1992 $1,000.00 1993 $2,000.00 Delores Sykes 1992 $1,000.00 1993 $3,600.00 1994 $3,600.00 Sub-Total $96,812.81 Sub-1 otal Substantive Nork on case (Personnel) $742,590.81 .. 3 B. Work on this Motion Individual Number of Hours Rate Amount Atty. John W. Walker 37.0 $250.00 $ 9,250.00 Robert Pressman 120.0 $175.00 $21,000.00 Joy C. Springer 90.0 $ 50.00 $ 3,650.00 Austin Porter Jr. 2.5 $130.00 $ 325.00 Sub-Total 249.5 $35,075.00 C. Litigation Expenses Description Amount Reimbursement provided to Joy C. Springer for mileage costs anc $ 4,742.00 other monitoring expenses; see J. Springer Aff., para. 21 Reimbursement to Kirke Herman for monitoring costs; see $ 100.00 J. Springer Aff., para. 21 Cost of copying docket in clerk's office; see J. Springer Aff., $ 60.00 para. 21 Witness fees for LRSD budget Hearing and other costs; see $ 294.00 J.Springer Aff., para. 21 Copying and fax charges; see J. Springer Aff., para. 22 $ 9,250.00 4 Postage charges, see J. Springer Aft., para. 22 $ 3,190.00 Sub-Total 17,636.00 GRAND TOTAL $795,301.81 .. 5 INTHEUNITEDSTATESDIS~CTCO fl J:D E S DISTRICT OF   1\\~cr\"couAr A TERN RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION AUG 2 9 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK Cl F..RL.- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. By: PL\"JUNlli'.rS D!:P. CL!:RK V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,Ft AL.  -LIBFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. E Ef V ~ DINTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. AUG :5 0 1996 INTERVENORS Office of Desegregation M . . SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE OF THE JOSHUA INTE~~RS CONCERNING THEIR FEYPETm6N- -... _, This memorandum responds to the belated analysis of the Joshua intervenors' time entries by the LRSD. It also describes a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on August 19, 1996 compensating lead counsel's time for work on a successful appeal. A LRSD's Belated Time Analysis Should Not Be Considered Near the completion of the hearing on August 19, 1996, the LRSD presented to the court a 99-page analysis of the time entries oflead counsel, Austin Porter, Jr., and Wiley A Branton, Jr. This analysis was based upon the activity schedules provided to LRSD counsel on or about November 22, 1995. Thus, it was presented to the intervenors and the court approximately nine months after the underlying material was made available to LRSD counsel. Moreover, it was advanced approximately five and one-half months after the date on which LRSD's response to the fee petition was due (March 1, 1996).  The court should set aside the belated analysis as untimely. Contrary to LRSD's position, it did not satisfy its rebuttal burden by complaining generally about intervenors' time records without 1 particular examples.1 As the court observed at the recent hearing, the hearing was delayed due to the court's superseding obligations. It is simply unfair for intervenors to be presented with a task of such a great magnitude at the hearing, when so much time, which could have been used productively, elapsed between the presentation of material to LRSD and its response. If the court after studying this memorandum considers that a revised version of lead counsel's activity statement is needed, the court, we respectfully submit, should provide (i) for an interim award and prompt payment to intervenors, reflecting the fact that they will be entitled to a substantial award in any event, 2 and (ii) for a reasonable period for the filing of the revised statement (30 days).3 Materials submitted more recently by the Joshua Interveors are of a different character. Revisions of the chart summarizing our overall claim (see Enclosure One) make relatively minor changes in an item filed in November 1995 (and somewhat reduce the overall claim). Documents regarding the fairness hearing and its aftermath, and the 1990-91 appeal, involved materials long part of the record, as well as events in which LRSD counsel participated. The LRSD analysis should also be set aside because of the extent to which it is argumenative and otherwise flawed. The following examples illustrate this point. First. LRSD eliminates all of lead counsel's time for work on the fee petition. See 10\\23\\95, 10\\30\\95, etc. Second. LRSD views as noncompensable, \"unrelated matters\" all work designed to prevent individual class members from being subjected to discrimination in discipline, placement, and extracurricular activities. See 6\\24\\92, 1 See Joshua Intervenors' reply memorandum filed on April 1, 1996, at 7-9, and in particular the decisions cited in note 5. 2 See intervenor's initial memorandum of November 22, 1995, at 23, regarding interim' awards. 3 A prelminary analysis of legal counsel's time is attached to this supplemental response. 2 9\\18\\92, 11\\17\\92, 5\\18\\93, 12\\15\\93, 10\\24\\95, 10\\26\\95.4 Third. LRSD views efforts to promote racial diversity in the administrative corps and to prevent discriminatory treatment of staff members to be non-compensable. See 8\\22\\95, 9\\14\\95.5 Fourth. LRSD's position is not consistent with the recognition in ARC v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008, 1011, 1012 (8th Cir. 1996) that in the post-judgment phase a party is to be compensated for reasonable efforts to defend its victory, even if not totally successful - a principle of obvious significance where, as here, the court has repeatedly characterized LRSD's implementation performance in negative terms. See 6\\8\\93, 6\\9\\93, 6\\6\\94, 6\\7\\94, 6\\22\\95, 6\\23\\95, 7\\6\\95, 7\\76\\95, 9\\1\\95. B. The Allocation of Time Among the Districts LRSD notes, properly, that some of the time claimed for lead counsel pertains to the other systems. Of course, intervenors did not request that the LRSD pay the entire award. Paragrapgh (8.) of the motion provides: \"The award which is sought should be apportioned among the three school districts as follows: Little Rock School District (75 to 80 percent), North Little Rock School District (5 to 10 percent), and Pulaski County Special School District Number 1 (15 to 20 percent) (with the final percentages totalling 100 percent). See the accompanying memorandum [at 22], and the affidavit of John W. Walker, paragraph [18].\" 4 Compare LRSD Desegregation Plan, 4\\29\\92, at 1 (Para. F), at 3 (last paragraph), 28 (paras. 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14), 33, 39, 40, 45; Inter-District Desegregation Plan, April 1992, Overview, Part XIII (presumption against racial disparity in programs and activities in any school; special attention given to imbalance in various placements, extracurricular activities, and discipline); Affidavit of John W. Walker, Nov. 21, 1995, para. 10; Affidavit ofJoy C. Springer, Nov. 21, 1995, at paras. 12-19; Joshua Intervenors' reply memorandum, filed April 1, 1996, at 10-11 (work on discipline issues); Joshua Intervenors' supplemental memorandum filed August 9, 1996 (summarizing precedent establishing the compensability of work on behalfof individual class members).  5 Compare LRSD Desegregation Plan, 4\\29\\92, at 1 (para. H), 2 (sixth \"bullet\"), 3 (last full paragraph). 3 These suggested allocations were based upon lead counsel's \"assessment of the time spent litigating against the three systems, including reviewing information and filings, and their relative culpability.\" Id.6 It is proper, under controlling precedent, for the court to follow this approach, based upon its familiarity with the post-judgment phase of the case. See citations to Jenkins and Hendrickson decisions at page 22 of our initial memorandum, filed November 22, 1995; see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436-37 (1983) (recognizing that a district court has broad discretion to resolve fee questions by approximation). This submission provides additional information bearing upon an allocation among the districts. See the attached Second Supplemental Affidavit of Joy C. Springer, showing the amouts of time which she, Ms. Sims, and Messrs. Branton and Porter expended with regard to each district. See also the attached statement of John W. Walker. C. Other Contentions Regarding Individuals Are Without Merit LRSD's contentions regarding the time of other persons are without merit. Joy Springer LRSD contends in its after hours submission that none of Ms. Springer's time is compensable. This is error. First. Her Second Supplemental Affidavit filed with this memorandum allocates her time by district. Second. More fundamentally, we have demonstrated that under the controlling principles all of her time is compensable.7 6 With regard to the greater culpability of the LRSD in the post-judgment period, we note the court's many statements which we submitted with our opposition to the LRSD's motion to terminate jurisdiction and the findings of ODM which we summarized in our recent motions regarding the incentive schools and ODM's recommendations.  7 See, for example, Mc Donald v. Annontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1461 (8th Cir. 1988); Keith v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850, 856-57 (9th Cir. 1987); Duran v. Carruthers, 885 F.2d 1492, 1496 (10th Cir. 4 Bob Pressman LRSD asserts in part that \"most of Pressman's time\" was spent reconstructing time records. This is error. Pressman's affidavit filed on November 22, 1955 documented 238.98 hours spent on this large project. The affidavit, confirmed by all versions of intervenors' summary chart, evidenced a claim limited to 120 of these hours. Aff., at para. (13.). This was attributed in part to \"the nature of some of the work .. .. \" Id. A review of Pressman's detailed statement of time shows that if all hours are totalled -- for the days on which any of the work supported efforts by other persons to reconstruct their time -- the total is 94.5 hours8 (a smaller total than the number of hours set aside). Thus, in substance, there is no claim for the time spent supporting efforts to reconstruct records. Austin Porter, Jr. Some of the time expended by Mr. Porter involved representation of students deflected by the systems to the juvenile process. Our position is that this is a facet of disriminatory discipline. Our approach is supported by the gross disparities in discipline rates, cited most recently at the August 19 hearing. Other Joshua Monitors Regarding the other monitors, LRSD is content with arguing that \"Joshua has already been 1989), citing with approval Brewster v. Dukakis, 544 F.Supp. 1069, 1072 (D.Mass. 1982), affirmed as modified, 786 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1986); Joshua Intervenors' reply memorandum, filed April 1, 1996, at 10-11 (work on discipline issues); Joshua Intervenors' supplemental memorandum filed August 9, 1996 ( summarizing precedent establishing the compensability of work on behalf of individual class members).  8 Thisinfonnationis9\\28(4.5), 10\\24(3.0), 10\\30(1.0), 11\\1 (1.0), 11\\8(3.75), 11\\9(8.5), 11\\10 (9.0), 11\\11 (9.5), 11\\12 (10.25), 11\\13 (9.75), 11\\14 (9.5), 11\\15 (10.25), I 1\\16 (10.25), 11\\290 (4.25). Moreover, some other work was done on seven of these days. 5 compensated for monitoring during the life of the decree .... \" Supplemental analysis, 8\\19\\96, at 2-3. However, LRSD has yet to offer an explanation for the fact that the 36-page settlement agreement contains no such provision - despite the fact that it has all the earmarks of a document setting forth the parties' full agreement, and in its specific section on attorneys' fees it begins with a statement that LRSD (but not Joshua) agrees not to seek further fees. The fact that, as here, a witness can later give testimony based upon what is \"clear in my mind,\" \"my understanding,\" and \"what I in good faith thought\" is, why, we submit, modern contract theory emphasizes the text of documents like this one. Moreover, as the hearing revealed, Mr. Chachkin did not participate in the negotiations in question, and the objective evidence from the Court of Appeals' opinion reveals no reliance on his statement, or the somewhat different statement of Mr. Heller. See 921 F.2d at 1392. D. Prevailing Party Status We have noted, given the stage of this proceeding, that LRSD has over-emphasized to a considerable degree to extent to which an award is to be predicated on assessing whether the label \"prevailing\" is to be attached to each piece of intervenors' work. We submit that the recent decision in the ARC case validates our approach. That decision emphasizes that a party can not walk away from a case and that defensive efforts must be made, with the resulting time compen!:able. See 83 F.3d at 1010-11, 1012. To the extent that ARC indicates that some consideration should be given to \"overall success\" (88 F.3d at 1011), the Joshua Intervenors have had considerable success, taking account of the inadequacies in the LRSD which they have faced. Intervenors' input at hearings led to directives or suggestions by the court to LRSD representatives. AS ODM does not have counsel, Joshua Intervenors have been the advocates for ODM recommendations adopted by the court.' ' Joshua's contempt motion led to an agreement for regular meetings with LRSD representatives to 6 enhance intervenors' consultative role. The time statements oflead counsel and Ms. Springer show that our participation in discipline hearings has often been of benefit to students. See also J. Springer Aff., 11/21/95, at paras. 13, 17, 18. E. Recent Precedent Regarding Lead Counsel's Rate On August 19, 1996 the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit entered an order in the case of Harvell v. Blytheville School District, Appeal No. 93-1009EAJ, approving the requested rate of $ 250 per hour for the time oflead counsel for work on a successful appeal. See Enclosure Two. F. Correction of Claim for Day-Hollowell Case LRSD and NLRSD have referred to the total time claimed for lead counsel on August 11, 1995 - one of the 175 days in 1995 alone, for which time has been claimed for him in this case. As explained in open court on August 19, 1996, the Walker firm's Reply filed in the Day-Hollowell case, LR-C-94-849, on July 10, 1996, corrected errors accounting for the example cited by the parties here [an entry in Day-Hollowell should have been .5 rather than 5.5, and some of the time for the Davis case, No. 88-4082 (W.D. Ark.) should have been claimed for August 12, 1996]. Respectfully submitted,  11-i l, I// !f 0!4,,, Jo~' Walker# 64046 John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Bob Pressman MA # 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 7 .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Supplemental Response, as well as Enclosure One and Enclosure Two, were sent via United States mail to all counsel of record on this 29th of August, I 996. l t tJ /ild;L ~ V .. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAN~ LED WESTERN DMSION U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS LITI1..E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. AUG 2 9 1996 PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ETA-;L; -_------;:D;~EP:;.- -c,D.J#ij!:::n:r.,,,..,....-NDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. STATE OF ARKANSAS ) )ss. COUNTY OF PULASKI ) AFFIDAVIT INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS 4UG JO 1996 Office of Desegregation Monitoring I, JOHN W. WALKER, affiant herein, states under oath the following:~- - -- ____ . _ _ - ... ~~-' _.,. I hereby state that I have made a preliminary appraisal of my fee petition and determined the approximate time whicn I have expended on work for each of the districts and for joint work involving all the districts. It is attached hereto. I have not had time to make a thorough analysis using concepts such as monitoring, or unrelated work. I have read the foregoing statement and certify that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief \\) - /~ / ,./ 41_ ,/'' ~ .__-f'/\u003c ~W. Walker SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 29th day of August 996. My Commission Expires: C, j 17 ) -:z.C03 ,  . . ..:  io \\ : I \\ ~ ~ ~. ... ...~.... ,_~,,,,,. . . ATTACHMENT ONE ANALYSIS OF JOO W. WALKER'S TIME 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 TOTAL , LRSD 6.25 253.9 132.2 163.8 118.4 221.65 896.2 50.9% PCCSD .6 70.3 35.4 68.8 48.6 33.0 256.7 .. 14.6% NLRSD 13.8 24.5 18.7 5.3 9.9 72.2 4.1% JOINT 224.4 116.4 77.9 45.9 71.3 535.9 30.4% TOTAL 6.85 562.4 308.5 329.2 218.2 335.85 1761  UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 93-1009EAJ Shirley M. Harvell, et al., Appellants, vs.       Blytheville School District, etc.,  et al.,   Appellees.  Appeal from the United States District Cou.rt fox the  Eastern District of Arkansas Appellants' motion fox attorneys' fees and costs and appellees' response to the motion have been considered by the court. It is hereby ordered that appellants shall recover from appellees $53,280.81 fox attorneys' fees and costs on appeal. The clerk of the United States District Court is directed to place these - costs and fees in the previously issued mandate. August 19, 1996 o~J:;rt~irection of the Court: Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.  I I - XII TD UllITBD STATBS COURT OJ' APPBALS l'OR TD BIGBTB CIRCUIT HO. 93-1009 SHIRLEY M. HARVELL; BKKAHUEL LOFTON, Reverend; HATTIE JUDDLEBROOX; ALICE JOHBS; and JACQUELINE HlDl'TOH APPELLANTS v. DR. PRAHX LADD, Individually and in hi  official capacity as Superintendent of the Blytheville School District Ho. 5; BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 5, a PUblio Body Corporate; THE BOARD 07 DIRECTORS OF THE BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT Ho.5; and Individual Board Members: WILLIAM \"BILL\" TOKLIHSOH; NORVELL KOORE WILLIAM \"BILL\" SULLIVAN; HAROLD StJDBtJRY; HBLBH HtJNN7 KAREN FRAZIER; STEVE LITTRELL; AND WILLIAM \"BILL STOVELL, JR.; Individually and in Their Official Capacities as School Board Members of the Blytheville School District Ho. 5. APPELLBBS MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REQUEST TO REMAND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES TO DISTRICT COURT Come the Plaintiffs/ Appellants by and through their undersigned counsel and move for an award of attorneys' fees and cost pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1973l(e) in the above styled appeal and in the predecessor appeals in this case, Harvell v. Ladd, CA Nos. 91-1914 EAJ, and 91-2037EAJ and request remand of this Motion to the district court. In support of their motion, appellants submit 1. That this Court's en bane opinion of December 5, 1995 establishes for the first .. time in these appeals that plaintiffs/ appellants are \"prevailing parties\" for purposes of a fee award. 2 A Brief in Support of Motion for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs to I I - .. the Plaintiffs/ Appellants as the prevailing parties in this action. 3. The attached Affidavits of Mark Burnette and John W. Walker, attorneys for the plaintiffs/ appellants describing their general qualifications and the time each reasonably expended; 4. A summary of the work performed in this case by John W. Walker and Mark Burnette, and the expenses necessarily incurred. 5. Plaintiffs/ Appellants are entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs in the amount detailed in the accompanying submissions. The hours detailed in this application represent the minimum hours for which an award must be granted. 6. Plaintiffs have not petitioned the district cout for fees yet, as additional work on remand of this case is inevitable. In order to conserve judicial resources, and, in light of the district court's familiarity with the overall work in the case, plaintiffs' request that this motion be remanded for consideration with plaintiffs' petition for fees in that court Plaintiffs/ Appellants also seek reimbursement of all costs incurred which were reasonably necessary for the appellant's success in the court of appeals as is described herein below. Accordingly, Plaintiffs/ Appellants move for an award of attorneys' fees and costs in the Court of Appeals in the following amounts: ATTORNEY HOURS John W. Walker 16.8 Mark Burnette 341.5 RATE $250.00 $135.00 Sub Total (Fees) TOTAL $ 4,200.00 $46,102.50 .. $50,275.50 Court Fee Transcript Travel and accomodations Photocopying Postage By: COSTS Sub Total (Costs) GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 Mark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE $ 210.00 900.00 942.70 727.16 198.35 $2,978.21 $53,280.71 .. I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has mailed, postage prepaid to Mr. Robert Llgh~ Friday Eldridge and Oark, 400 West Capitol, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 thisg'Ldayo!December, 1995. ~~ \u0026 ;\u0026- . ~aU Mark umette Re:Harvell, et al. v. Ladd, et al. SUMMARY OF COSTS Description Amount Court Fee [04/17/91] [12/23/93] $ 210.00 Postage charges $ 198.35 Transcript $ 900.00 Copies $ 727.16 Hotel $ 356.70 Transportation $ 586.00 Total $2,978.21  . .. . ... IR TD mlITED STATBS COUJlT 0~ APPllLS :r0R TD EIGB'l'II CIRCUIT HO. 93-1009 SHIRLEY x. HARVBLL; BKJIMltJBL LOFTON, Reverend; HATTIE MIDDLBBROOlt; ALICE JOHBS; and JACQOBLIHB HBHTOH APPELLANTS v. DR. PRAHX LADD, Individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Blytheville School District Ho. 5; BLxTHBYILLB SCHOOL DISTRICT No. s, a PUblic Body Corporate; TD BOARD OP DIRBCTORS OP TD BL'xTHBYILLB SCHOOL DISTRICT No.5; and Individual Board Kamber: WILLIAM \"BILL\" TOKLIHSON; NORVELL KOORB WILLIAM \"BILL\" SULLIVAN; HAROLD SUDBURY; HBLBN HmDI; KAREN PRAZIER; STEVE LITTRELL; AND WILLIAM \"BILL STOVELL, JR.; Individually and in Their Official capacities as School Board Members of the Blytheville School District No. s. APPELLBBS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEE I. BACKGROUND OF CASE Plaintiffs filed this action in federal district court on November 14, 1989, under the Voting Rights Act, 42 u.s.c. 1973, to secure equal voting rights pursuant to the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. After trial, the district court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove a violation of the statute. Harvell Y, Ladd, 759 F.Supp. 525 (E.D.Ark. 1991). Plaintiffs appealed that decision to this court. .. Defendants cross appealed as to the district court's denial of a motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs and their attorneys. On appeal, this Court held that the district court had ~fred in its decision on the merits, affirmed the denial of sanctions, and remanded the case for further findings pursuant to the guidance of the court of Appea1s decision. Harvell y.Ladd, 958 F.2d 226 (8th cir. 1992). Since that decision remanded the case for further findings, it did not establish plaintiffs as \"prevailing parties;\" hence no petition for fees was submitted even though that was a successful appeal for plaintiffs. on remand, the district court again held that plaintiffs had failed to establish a violation of the Voting Rights Act. (unpublished Opinion). Plaintiffs again appealed. A panel of this Court reversed the district court on August 24, 1994, holding that the plaintiff had proved a violation of the Voting Rights Act, and instructed the district court to implement a remedy. Harvell v, Blytheville School District No, 5, 33 F.3d 910, (8th Cir. 1994). Defendants moved for rehearing en bane. Their motion was granted and the panel opinion was vacated. Finally, on December 5, 1995, the full Court reversed the district court and remanded the case for a remedy order. Harvell v, Blytheville school District, __ F.3d __ (8th cir. 1995) (en bane). II. 11:NTITLEHENT TO F1!3!:S 'C7N'IlE:R U. S. C. 19 7 31. ( e J In order for individuals to pursue their rights to equal protection under the voting rights act, Congress provided for the recovery of a prevailing party's costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, with the following provision: In any action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment, the court, in it., di.,cretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a ' ' . .. reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. - 42 u.s.c. 1973l(e). In this case, all -of the proceedings before this court in the two appeals of the case are \"proceedings to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment,\" and therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to . an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs were not \"prevailing parties\" under the statute until the conclusion of the final appeal. Therefore; application for fees for the first appeal is appropriately made now. see Hester y. McGee, 815 F.2d 1193, 1198 (8th Cir. 1987)(Holding that plaintiff's attorney in an earlier appeal, which merely reversed the granting of summary judgment to the defendants in a section 1983 action, was entitled to submit application for fees in light of the ultimate success of plaintiff on second appeal after trial . .Id.). III. ESXABLISHING A REASomlB.Lr FD The standards for awarding attorney's fees under 42 u.s.c. 19731(e) are the same standards applied under 42 U.s.c. 1988. ~ .e....a,..., Riddell Y, National Democratic Party, 624 F.2d 539, 543 (5th Cir. 1980); campaign for Progressive Bronx v, Black, 632 F.Supp. 647 (S.D.N.Y 1986); and Connor v, winter, 519 F.supp. 1337, 1339 (S.D. Miss. 1981). The appropriate standard for \"prevailing party\" status is whether \"plaintiff has succeeded on 'any significant issue in litigation which achieve[d] some of the benefit the. parties sought in bringing the suit.'\" Texas State Teachers Association Y, Garland Independent school District, 489 u.s. 782, - 792, 103 L.Ed.2d 866, 877 109 S.ct. 1486 (1989) (citation omitted). .. ' . . , As with other federal civil rights tee statutes, e.g. 42 u.s.c. 1988, and 42 u.s.c. 2000, the Supreme Court directs that: \"The most useful starting point tor determining a reasonable fee is the number of hours . reasonably expended on the litigation I multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.\" Hensley y. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.ct. 1933 (1983). In this case, plaintiffs are 100% successful on the appeal and on the underlying claim. Thus, no reduction is necessary for work on unsuccessful claims. Each of the plaintiffs/appellants' lawyers' time and rate, and a description of their expertise are itemized in the accompanying affidavits, actvity statements, and motion. These submissions represent the time reasonably expended by each attorney for particular activity necessary to the successful resolution in favor of plaintiffs/appellants before this court. The hours submitted were screened to remove redundant or excessive time. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasorr, plaintiffs/appellants' urge the Court to grant their motion for attorney's fees and costs as set forth in the accompanying motion. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway  Arkansas 72206 ( ~ .. Mark Burnette, No.880'18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has mailed, postage prepaid to Mr. Robe~ Jdght Friday Eldridge and Clar~ 400 West Capitol, Llttle Roe~ Arkansas 72201 this.2,J_ day of December, 1995. 220/lh \u0026t~~- Mark Burnette  l'.)I THB tJIIITBD STATES COmlT 01' APPDLS l'OR THB BIGJl'l'B CIRCUIT )IQ. 93-1009 SHIRLEY x. HARVELL; BKKAliTIJEL LOFTOH, Reverend; BATTIB KIDDLBBROOlt; ALICB JOHBS; and JACQOBLIHB BEHTOH APPBLLAN'l'S v. DR. FRANX LADD, Individually and in hia official capacity as superintendent of the Blytheville School District Ho. 5; BLY'l'BBVILLB SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 5 1 a Public Body Corporate; '1'HB BOARD OJ' DIRBC'l'ORS OF TBB BLXTBEYILLB SCHOOL DISTRICT Ho.s; and Individual Board Members: WILLIAM 11BILL11 TOMLINSON; NORVELL KOORB WILLIAM 11BILL11 SULLIVAN; HAROLD SUDBURY; BELEN NtJNH; KAR.EN FRAZIER; STBVB LITTRELL; AND WILLIAM \"BILL STOVELL, JR.; Individually and in Their Official Capacities as School Board Members of the Blytheville School District No. s. AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W, WALKER STATE OF ARKANSAS) )SS. COUNTY OF PULASKI) APPELLBES Comes now the affiant, JOlDI w. WALDR, who submits the following affidavit under oath: 1. I graduated from Arkansas AM\u0026N College in Pine Bluff, Arkansas in 1958 with a major in Sociology. In 1960, I was awarded a John Hay Whitney Opportunity Fellowship which I used to obtain a Master's Degree from New York University in Education (Human Relations) in 1961. In 1961, I enrolled in the Yale University Law School from which I received my law degree in 1964. At Yale Law school in 1964, I was a finalist in the Thurman Arnold Appellate Moot court Competition. I have studied further at Fisk University (the Race Relations Institute) and at many legal training seminars which focused upon the subject of civil rights law in particular. 2. In 1964, I was admitted to practice before the Bar of Arkansas. Subsequently, I was admitted to, and still practice before, the United States Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth, Fifth, Eleventh, and Tenth Circuits, the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, and the United States District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. 3. I completed a legal training internship in New York City with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) in September, 1965. I "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1692","title":"Court Filings: District Court, second supplemental affidavit of Joy C. Springer with attachments","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)","Springer, Joy C."],"dc_date":["1996-08-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Lawyers","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, second supplemental affidavit of Joy C. Springer with attachments"],"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/1692"],"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":["31 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Springer, Joy C."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. AUG 2 9 1996 P~~~CORMACK,CLERK By: -----....,De--=E=P.. . ..,C~L=ER-K DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENO SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER t\\llG j O 1996 STATE OF ARKANSAS) SS) Office of Desegregation Momtorin9 COUNTY OF ___ ) Comes now the affiant, Joy c. Springer, who after first being duly sworn, states as follows: 1. This affidavit supplements my affidavit dated November 21, 1995, in which I described work performed in this case totaling over 3100 hours. 2. This supplemental affidavit responds further to questions raised by counsel for the Little Rock School District and the North Little Rock School District at the hearing on August 19, 1996 by providing a more detail analysis of my time among the Pulaski county districts. This analysis is attached hereto as Attachment One through the use contemporaneous time records and notes. Also attached hereto as Attachment Two is an updated copy of my schedule of hours by district. As these 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I attachments show, when my joint time is allocated equally among the three districts, the total allocations are LRSD, 63.6 percent of my time, PCSSD, 23.8 percent and NLRSD, 12.6 percent. 3. I have also reviewed the time records of Opal Sims. Ms. Sims also maintained contemporaneous time records. Attached hereto as Attachment Three is an allocation of her time among the Pulaski county districts. A new schedule of her hours is attached hereto as Attachment Four. As these attachments show, when 2.4 percent of Ms. Sims' joint time is allocated to LRSD and PCSSD and 2.3 percent to NLRSD, the total allocations are LRSD, 72.2 percent, PCSSD, 16.9 percent, and NLRSD, 5.9 percent. 4. Based upon my knowledge of the facts of this case, I have been able to allocate the time claimed for Attorney Wiley A. Branton, Jr. to the three districts. As Attachment Five and Six to this affidavit show, when his joint time is allocated equally among the districts, the allocations are LRSD 60.8 hours (65.6 percent) and PCSSD 25.5 hours, (31.9 percent). 5. Based upon my knowledge of the facts of this case, I have also been able to allocate the time claimed for Attorney Austin Porter Jr. to the three districts. As Attachment Seven and Eight to this affidavit show, when his joint time is allocated equally among the districts, the allocations are LRSD 73.95 hours (43.8 percent), and PCSSD 96.75 hours, (56.2 percent). I have read the foregoing affidavit and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information. 2 I I 1- 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Joy C. Springer SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1996. Notary Public MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 9P~ ? 3 ;:J'l day of August, --. I ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LRSD PCSSD NLRSD JOINT TOTAL ATTACHMENT ONE ANALYSIS OF JOY CHARLES SPRINGER'S TIME 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 19.0 425.1 356.9 385.3 360.5 304.4 4.0 190.2 156.1 79.5 86.8 91.6 2.5 106.4 80.0 32.5 22.1 16.1 2.0 133.0 121. 7 56.6 36.4 54.7 27.5 854.7 714.7 553.9 505.8 466.8 TOTAL 1851.2 59.3% 608.2 19.5% 259.6 8.3% 404.4 12.9% 3123.4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - /+ffa(2/1 ft1h 11 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL PLAINTIFF DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ACTIVITY STATEMENT OF JOY CHARLES SPRINGER DATE ACTIVITY TIME AMOUNT 6/28/90 Conference with JWW regarding Pulaski .5 Joint County School case 6/28/90 Reading and review of Pulaski County 1.5 Joint school settlement agreement 6/29/90 Conference with JWW regarding Incentive 3.5 LRSD school hearing; Preparation for hearing; review of Incentive school plan 6/30/90 Prehearing conference with JWW; Hearing 8.0 LRSD before Judge Wright re: Incentive school hearing; abstract of witness testimony 8/5/90 Review of LRSD desegregation plan 3.5 LRSD 8/21/90 Review of LRSD desegregation plan 4.0 LRSD 9/8/90 Review of PCSSD desegregation plan 4.0 PCSSD 10/15/90 Review of NLRSD desegregation plan 2.5 NLRSD c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 1 - I I I I I I I I I I .,I I I I I I I I 1/5/91 Conference with JW\\/v re: implemetationn JOINT of desegregation plan and discussion re: assistance Joshua can provide to parties re: implementation and identification of problem areas 1/6/91 Conference with JW\\/v re: plan JOINT implementation, assistance to District, and identification of problem areas 1/8/91 Pre-meeting conference with JW\\/v; JOINT meeting school district officials and lawyers regarding modifications to desegregation plan; took notes; post meeting conference 1/9/91 Meeting with school district officials and JOINT lawyers regarding plan modifications; post meeting conference with JW\\/v 1/10/91 Meeting with school districts officials and JOINT lawyers regarding plan modifications 1/11/91 Conference with PCSSD attorney, SJ, to PCSSD discuss plan modifications; travel to his office; parking $4.25 1/11/91 Preparation of memorandum to JW\\/v re: JOINT meetings with respect to plan modifications 1/14/91 Discussion of monitoring instrument with JOINT JW\\/v; preparation of same 1/15/91 Preparation of monitoring instrument JOINT 1/24/91 Preparation for hearing re: Aersospace LRSD proposal; telephone confemce with CJ re: implementation procedure; telephone with PCSSD,NLRD, LRSD re: implmentation procedure; preparation of exhibits; conference with JW\\/v re: trial strategy 1/25/91 Hearing before Judge Wright re: LRSD Aerospace grant proposal c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 2 3.0 1.0 1.9 6.0 5.5 3.0 2.0 2.5 4.0 4.5 1.0 I I I I I -1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1/30/91 Continued review of Aerospace proposal 2.0 LRSD 2/4/91 Continued review of Aerospace proposal 2.0 LRSD and LRSD desegregation plan 2/18/91 Deafted proposal for monitoring activities 6.5 JOINT and instrument for Joshua monitoring team 2/25/91 Conference with Joshua team members to 3.0 LRSD discuss monitoring activities and instrument; updated monitoring instrument; discussed LRSD schools to be monitored; conference with JW'N 2/26/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Mitchell 1.5 JOINT Incentive school to monitor Incentive school program with Joshua team members; conference with principal and visted classrooms 2/26/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to lsh 1.5 LRSD Incentive school to monitor Incentive school program with Joshua team members; conference with principal and visted classrooms 2/27/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Garland 2.0 LRSD Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; conference with principal and visited classrooms 2/27/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to 1.5 LRSD Stephens lncentve school to mointor incentive school program; conference with principal and visted classrooms 2/27/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to 1.5 LRSD Rightsell Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; confemce with principal and visited classrooms c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2/28/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LASO Rockefeller Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; conference with principal and visited clasrooms 2/28/91 Conference with team members to discuss LRSO results of monitoring visits and discussion of monitoring instrument for Incentive schools 3/1/91 Conference with team members to further LRSO discuss findings from incentive school visits and formulate draft report on findings 3/4/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to lsh and LRSO Mitchell Incentive schools to observe extended programs 3/4/91 Preparation of draft report re: first week's LRSO observations and findings at Incentive schools 3/5/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LASO LRSO elementary schools -Geyer Springs and Cloverdale for discussion and inspection of construction at these school with administration. Court approval? 3/5/91 Preparation of report regarding visits to LRSO elementary schools undergoing new construction 3/6/91 Conference with team members re: LASO findings with respect to Incentive school extended day programs 3/6/91 Preparation of report with respect to team LRSO findings at incentive school extended day programs 3/7/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LASO elementary schools-Baseline and Chicot for monitoring visit c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 4 2.0 2.5 1.5 2.3 2.5 1.5 1.3 2.0 1.0 1.8 I I I I I I I .1 I I I I .I I I I I I I 3/7/91 Conference with team members to discuss Letter to team members re: meeting to formulate plans for further monitoring activities monitoring instrument; updated same 3/7/91 Conference with Billy Bowles re: placement PCSSD of TAG program at Fuller Jr. High and concerns about school within school 3/8/91 Conference with parent in LRSD, A.Milner LRSD re: concerns at Booker Arts Magnet; educational placement for daughter, J. Milner 3/8/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD LRSD elementary schools-Gibbs and Pulaski Heights for monitoring visit 3/14/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD LRSD elementary schools for observation and informal visits to Wakefield, Chicot Mabelvale and Watson 3/15/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD LRSD elementary schools for observations - Meadowcliff and Wakefield *note: Wakefield's principal was off on 3/14/91 3/15/91 Conference with JWW to discuss findings LRSD with respect to previous weeks visits to schools 3/15/91 Telephone conference with parent, C. LRSD Sanders regarding student suspension, A. Burgess, a student at Pulaski Heights Jr. High; letter to LRSD atty, CH re: same 3/18/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Wakefield elementary school for observation c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 5 2.7 .5 2.5 2.4 4.0 1.0 1.0 .7 1.3 I I I I I I I I I I I  , I I I I I I I 3/18/91 Telephone conference with M. Mooney a PCSSD.3 parent of a student in PCSSD; voiced LRSD 2.2 concerns about segregation of certain programs; Preparation for LRSD hearing 3/19/91 Preparation for LR hearing; review of LRSD monitoring report re: on site visits to construction sites; conference with K. Herman and JWW 3/20/91 Prehearing conference with JWW; Court LRSD appearance with respect to plaintiff's and Joshua's concerns re: new construction in LR; post hearing conference with JWW 3/20/91 Conference with team members; preparation of monitoring instrument 3/21/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to PCSSD-PCSSD visited Sylvan Hill Jr. High school: observations of classrooms and conference with principal 3/21/91 Conference with team members regarding JOINT monitoring instrument; update instrument 3/22/91 Updated monitoring instrument JOINT 3/22/91 Telephone confernce with and review of PCSSD information provided by PCSSD parent, D . Blockmon-Mason re: suspension of son, W. Blackmon; failure of PCSSD to provide educational opportunities to son; memo to JWW regarding same 3/25/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD, JOINT PCSSD and NLRSD student assignment offices to pick up student enrollment numbers; analyze numbers and reviewed for compliance with desegregation commitments 3/25/91 Conference with team member, Rouse to JOINT assist in dissemination of tasks and strategies to be used by team members on Mure visits c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 6 3.5 4.0 2.5 2.0 2.3 1.0 1.5 .6 3.2 1.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3/27/91 Telephone confemce with LRSD parent, S. LRSD Pansy re: concerns at Central with respect to her daughter, K. Pansy and services received from school counselor; review of materials/documentation; Trip to Central; observations of school and conference with counselor and other staff members 3/28/91 Review of report prepared by LRSD Supt. LASO Steele re: 2.0 GPA as requirement for high school graduation 3/28/91 Telephone conference with NLRSD Deseg. NLRSD Supt. M. Bynum re: information in Monitor's report completed on district per Democrat article of 3/24/91 3/28/91 Review of information submitted to office PCSSD from PCSSD personal regarding \"phanthom figures\" being submitted and complaints about PCSSD 3/29/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to NLRSD NLRSD administrative offices to pick up 1st semester's monitoring report by biracial committees; review of report 4/2/91 Meeting/conference with team members to JOINT discuss monitoring instrument; Updated monitoring instrument 4/4/91 Review of letter from J. Huff regarding LRSD Incentive schools 4/4/91 Conference with team members re: JOINT monitoring instrument; reviewed instrument as updated; updated monitoring instrument 4/8/91 Orientation of new team member, 0. Sims JOINT 4/9/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to lsh LRSD Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; classroom visits and conference with principal, Dean c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 7 2.2 .3 .2 .3 1.5 9.0 .3 4.8 2.5 4.3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4/10/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Mitchell LRSD Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; classroom visits and conference with principal, Hudspeth 4/12/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Rockefeller Incentive school to monitor incentive program; classroom visits and confemce with principal, Mangum 4/12/91 Telephone conference and letter to LRSD LRSD hearing officer, R. Howard to request discipline statistics 4/13/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Garland LRSD Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; classroom visits and conference with principal, Dr. Simmons 4/15/91 Conference with JWW re: lack of parental LRSD involvement at Garland Incentive school; drafted letter to parents re: same; contacted LRSD for parent list for Garland; used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD administration office to pick up parent's list 4/16/91 Finalized letter to Garland parents and LRSD prepared mail out 4/17/91 Used personal vehicle for monitoring visit LRSD to Brady Elementary; conference with principal and visit to classrooms 4/17/91 Review and preparation of revised JOINT lnterdistrict plan 4/18/91 Conference with PCSSD officials regarding PCSSD revised desegregation plan; review of revised plan with JWW 4/22/91 Conference with LRSD officials, PACT \u0026 LRSD CTA regarding revised plan; review of revised LRSD plan c:\\wpdoe\\jce.stmt 8 3.5 2.5 .5 2.5 1.2 2.5 3.0 2.0 9.0 9.0 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 4/23/91 Review of LRSD plan LRSD 4/24/91 Used personal vehicle for visit to Baseline LRSD and Meadowcliff Elementary schools; confernce with principals and visits to classrooms 4/25/91 Used personal vehicle for visit to Jefferson. LRSD Fullbright and Williams Magnet elementaries; conference with principals and visits to classrooms 4/26/91 Review of LRSD plan LRSD 4/30/91 Review of data and conference with LRSD Garland Incentive school staff members and parents re: concerns about the school; Meeting with Garland parents re: same 5/1/91 Meeting with LRSD officials \u0026 JWW re: LRSD plan modifications 5/2/91 Reviewed LRSD plan modifications LRSD 5/7/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Cloverdale and Watson elementaries to pick up survey data 5/8/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Woodruff Elementary school; conference with principal and visit to classrooms 5/9/91 Used personal vehicle for trip to LRSD Metropolitan Vo-Tech and Southwest Jr. High School; conference with principals and classroom observations 5/10/91 Conference with team members to discuss LRSD observations during previous school visits c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 9 2.0 3.2 4.5 2.0 4.3 8.0 4.0 .7 1.5 5.0 2.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5/13/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Mabelvale Jr. High school; conference with principal and classroom observations 5/14/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD 6.7 McClellan High school; conference with PCSSD.7 principal and classroom observations; Conference with B. Bowles to advise of monitoring activities for PCSSD; attented meeting with Garland Incentive school parents 5/15/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to PCSSD PCSSD school- College Station elementary; conference with principal and classroom observations 5/15/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to North NLRSD Little Rock High School-West Campus; conference with principal and classroom observations 5/16/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to PCSSD PCSSD 6.0 schools-Fuller Elementary, Fuller Jr. High LRSD N/C and Mills High School; conference with principals and classroom observations; picked up survey from Metro. Cloverdale and Pulaski Heights 5/20/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Oak PCSSD 6.4 Grove Elementary and High schools; LRSD.6 conference with principal and classroom observations; Conference with parent, J. Tucker re: selection process for cheerleaders at Parkview; parent believes there were violations in process 5/21/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to PCSSD PCSSD schools-Robinson Elemntary, Jr. High and High schools; conference with principals and classroom observations c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 10 2.5 7.4 3.0 3.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5/22/91 Used personal vehicle for visit to PCSSD PCSSD schools-Sylvan Hills Elementary, Jr. High, and High schools; conference with principals and classroom observations 5/23/91 Used personal vehicle for visit to North NLRSD Little Rock Schools-Pine Elementary and Lakewood Middle; conference with principals and class observations 5/24/91 Conference with parent regarding drill NLRSD team selections at NLR East campus; telephone contact and letter to principal to secure handbook, selection criteria, etc. 5/28/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD LRSD Metro Vo-Tech; confemce with principal and obesevation in classrooms 5/29/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD LRSD schools- Mabelvale Jr. , Chicot, Bates, Gibbs to pick up survey data 5/30/91 Conference with NLR parent regarding NLRSD.7 questionable practices of selecting LRSD .6 cheerleading and drill team members; conference with parent, D. Walker regarding disparate treatment in NLR schools; used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Alternative school and travel to Central High school, conferences with principals and classroom observations 5/31/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to NLR - NLRSD Pine Elementary and LRSD-McCLellan High to pick up survey data; conference with Marty Moore regarding unfair treatment of her son by school officials 6/1/91 Preparation of conference material for JOINT ODM meeting c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 11 7.0 6.0 2.0 1.8 2.0 6.7 2.5 1.5 I I, . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6/2/91 Conference with Arma Hart of ODM's office JOINT re: monitoring plans 6/3/91 Conference with team members after JOINT meeting with ODM to strategize about monitoring activities 6/4/91 Conference with Ann Brown of ODM's JOINT office re: their plans for monitoring in the future 6/4/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive for interviews with potential teachers filling new Incentive school vacancies 6/4/91 Preparation of monitoring report for LRSD LRSD note: (evening work at home) 6/5/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive school for interviews with potential teachers; preparation of monitoring report (note: evening work at home) 6/10/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive school for interviews of potential staff; preparation of monitoring report including evening at home 6/11/91 Preparation of monitoring report including LRSD work at home until midnight 6/11/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive school for interviews with potential staff 6/12/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive school for interviews with potential staf; preparation of monitoring report including evening work at home to midnight c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 12 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 6.0 9.0 7.0 3.0 9.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6/13/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Booker LRSD Arts Magnet; conference with food service mgr re: disparate treatment; preparation of monitoring report including evening work at home 6/14/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive school for staff interviews; Interview with parent, Clayton regarding disparate treatment of students at Fair Park; preparation of monioring report including evening work at home to midnight 6/15/91 Preparation of monitoring work includes LRSD evening work at home 6/16/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD evening work at home 6/17/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 7.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/18/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 7.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/19/91 Conference with Asst. Supt. Matthis LRSD regarding monitoring results; preparation of monitoring report 6/20/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 7.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/21/91 Review of Court's order; Preparation of LRSD 8.0 monitoring report includes evening work at PCSSD 2.0 home NLRSD 1.0 c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 13 8.0 8.5 2.0 2.0 10.0 10.0 5.5 10.0 11.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6/24/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 8.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/25/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 8.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/26/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 7.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/27/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 8.5 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/28/91 Conference with teachers from Cloverdale LRSD 8.0 Jr. High school re: complaints about PCSSD 2.0 principal Bradford; preparation of NLRSD 1.0 monitoring report includes evening work at home 6/29/91 Preparation of monitoring report LRSD 6/30/91 Preparation of monitoring report LRSD 7/1/91 Preparation of monitoring reports for PCSSD 6.0 PCSSD and NLRSD including evening NLRSD 4.0 work; conference with LRSD principal LRSD 1.0 regarding monitoring report; review of parties motion for reconsideration of Court's order of 6/21/91; Discussed wtih JWW 7/2/91 Conference with JWW and team members PCSSD 6.0 regarding monitoring report; preparation of NLRSD 5.0 monitoring report including evening work c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 14 11.0 11.0 10.0 11.5 11.0 3.0 4.0 11.0 11 .0 I ,I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7/3/91 Conference with parent, S. Jones on 6.6 PCSSD 3.6 behalf of son, T. Jones re: complaint vs NLRSD 3.0 PCSSD involving discipline; Conference with Supt. Lester re: Jones complaint; preparation of monitoring report for PCSSD and NLRSD 7/8/91 Preparation of monitoring report for LRSD, 11.0 LRSD 1.0 PCSSD and NLRSD including evening PCSSD 5.0 work NLRSD 5.0 7/9/91 Conference with S. Jones regarding 2.8 PCSSD PCSSD complaint; Used personal vehicle for travel to PCSSD Board meeting and made presentation on behalf of parent, S. Jones to Board of Education 7/9/91 Preparation of recommendations for LRSD 9.3 LRSD monitoring report; Discussed with JW'N 7/10/91 Preparation of recommendations LASO 10.5 LASO monitoring report; review of monitoring report 7/11/91 Review and preparation of monitoring 9.5 NLRSD 5.0 report for NLRSD \u0026 PCSSD PCSSD 4.5 7/12/91 Preparation of monitoring report NLRSD 7.0 NLRSD 4.0 and PCSSD PCSSD 3.0 7/15/91 Preparation and review of monitoring 6.0 PCSSD 3.0 report PCSSD and NLRSD NLRSD 3.0 7/16/91 Conference with LRSD, PCSSD and 8.8 JOINT 6.0 NLRSD attorneys re: court's order of LRSD 2.8 7/15/91 denying motion for reconsideration re: plan modifications; Used personal vehicle for travel to Parkview to monitor summer school; conference with principal and classroom observations; preparation and review of monitoring report including evening work c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 15 I I I I I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I 7/17/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to J.A. Fair 9.8 LRSD High school to monitor summer school, conference with principal and classroom observations; preparation and review of monitoring report and recommendations including evening work 7/18/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Forest 8.8 LRSD Heights Jr. High school to monitor summer school, conference with principal and classroom observations; preparation and review of monitoring report and recommendations including evening work 7/19/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to 7.0 LRSD Rockefeller Incentive school to monitor summer school, conference with principal and classroom observations; preparation and review of monitoring report recommendations 7/20/91 Review of monitoring report draft 2.0 JOINT 7/22/91 Review of monitoring report draft 4.0 JOINT 7/22/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to 1.5 LRSD Washington elementary to monitor summer school program; conference with principal and classroom observations 7/23/91 Telephone conference with PCSSD Asst 1.2 PCSSD Supt B. Bowles regarding new interdistrict school, Crystal Hill and draft monitoring report; used personl vehicle for travel to administrative offices to delivert monitoring report to Bowles 7/23/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to 5.2 LRSD 4.6 Wakefield elementary to monitor summer NLRSD.6 school program; Review of monitoring report; Letter to NLR Supt Smith and Asst Supt Bynum re: results of desegregation monitoring c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 16 I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I 7/24/91 Conference with PCSSD officials including PCSSD Asst. Supt. regarding monitoring report results; review of monitoring report; Discussed with JWN and S. Jones 7/25/91 Letter to court, ODM and attorneys re: JOINT .4 Joshua monitoring report; conference wtih LRSD 1.6 LRSD officials re: administrative changes; PCSSD 2.0 review of PCSSD monitoring report 7/26/91 Review and finalized monitoring report JOINT draft 7/29/91 Conference with AR State Press reporter, JOINT A Smith re: Joshua's monitoring and report 7/31/91 Conference with parent, J. Morris re: son's JOINT course assignment; additional conferences with principal Anderson, and Supt E. Matthis 8/5/91 Revise and review monitoring instrument JOINT 8/6/91 Revision of monitoring instrument JOINT 8/7/91 Court appearance regarding motion for JOINT 2.5 stay on revised settlement; Telephone LRSD 1.0 conference with B.Brown and Supt Steele re: concerns at Garland; Letter to Supt Steele re: Garland c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 17 5.3 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 2.0 4.0 3.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8/12/91 Telephone and personal conferences with LRSD teacher with concerns about Chicot elementary which include: PAL program deficiencies, referral of students to spec ed, parental consent and involvement, disparate treatment between back and white staff and unprofessional actions of teachers towards students; review of LRSD schools improvement plans (evening work) 8/13/91 Review of LRSD schools improvement LRSD plans(evening work at home) 8/14/91 Telephone conference with parent of LRSD 5.6 student who attends Carver Magnet PCSSD.6 regarding the G/T program placements; telephone conference with spec ed teacher @ Sylvan Hills re: appropriate placement of spec ed student; review of LRSD school improvement plans(evening work at home); Telephone conference with parent of K. Wilson re: disparate treatment in PCSSD school 8/15/91 Letter to principal Guinn at Carver Magnet LRSD regarding G/T placements; review of LRSD improvement plans 8/16/91 Telephone conference with PCSSD Asst. PCSSD Supt B. Bowles re: PCSSD monitoring report and complaint parent of K. Wilson 8/26/91 Conference with staff members re: NLRSD disparate treatment of students@ NLRSD West campus 8/27/91 Orientation with new team member, JOINT 3.0 LaRhonda Pondexter and discussion of NLRSD.7 monitoring process and plans; Conference with parent S. Smith re: staff assignments at NLR West c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 18 6.2 2.0 6.2 8.0 .5 .3 3.7 I I I I I I I .1 I I I I .I I I I I I I 8/28/91 Meeting with team members regarding 2.5 JOINT new procedures for monitoring activities 8/28/91 Orientation with new team member, 4.0 JOINT 3.0 Pondexter; disscussion of plans and NLRSD 1.0 monitoring process; used personal vehicle for travel to NLR West campus 8/29/91 Orientation with new team member 3.0 JOINT Pondexter, discussion of plans and monitoring process 8/30/91 Orientation with new team member 2.0 JOINT Pondexter, discussions of plans and monitoring process 9/3/91 Orientation withe new team member 2.0 JOINT Pondexter, discussions of plans and monitoring process 9/4/91 Court appearance before 8th Circuit Court 2.5 JOINT 2.2 judges re: the proposed plan LRSD .3 modifications, abstract testimony and arguments; conference with principal at Garland Incentive school re: concerns 9/5/91 Meeting with incentive school parent 1.5 LRSD coordinator, C. Gill 9/9/91 Telephone conference with parent, L. 2.9 LRSD .4 Frierson re: transportation concerns of her PCSSD 1.0 children who attended Washington JOINT 1.0 elementary; telephone call to Dist. transporation to remedy and reinstate service; telephone conference with PCSSD parent, Wood re: District's failure to implement IEP for her two sons; conference with ODM regarding plans for future monitoring, tour of office and meeting with staff c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 19 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 9/10/91 Meeting with PCSSD Supt. B. Bowles re: PCSSD 2.0 Joshua plans for future monitoring of LRSD.5 District; telephone confernce with H. Fogg custodian at Chicot elementary re: disparate treatment by principal 9/12/91 Conference with LRSD Supt. J. Jennings LRSD re: Joshua plans for future monitoring and Incentive schools 9/13/91 Conference with NLRSD Supt. M. Bynum NLRSD 1.5 re: Joshua plans for future monitoring and LRSD.5 dates of visits; confemce with principal Guinn at Carver LRSD Conference with parent, L.\u0026 W. Ward re: disparate treatment of daughter L. Hunt, student @ J.A. Fair 9/18/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to J.A. Fair LRSD and McClellan to discuss LRSD's motion for class renovations with principals Carter and Niven; used personal vehicle for travel to Incentive schools: Stephens, Franklin Mitchell and Garland for informal monitoring visits 9/19/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Incentive schools: lsh, Rockefeller, and Rlghtsell for informal visits 9/20/91 Conference with JWW re: findings at LRSD Incentive schools, J.A. Fair and McClelllan; File organization 9/23/91 Review of Incentive school monitoring LRSD report information; letter to J. Jennings re: monitoring visits to Incentive schools c: \\wpdos\\jcs. stmt 20 2.5 2.5 2.0 .3 6.0 3.0 4.0 2.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9/24/91 Monitoring visits to PCSSD school- PCSSD Jacksonville High; conference with principal and clasroom visits 9/25/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD schools-North PCSSD Pulaski High school and Arnold Drive elementary; conference with principal and classroom visits 9/26/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD school- PCSSD 2.5 Pinewood Elementary; conference with LRSD .5 principal and classroom observations; conference with parent, P. Simmons re: excessive corporal punishment by music teacher at Mabelvale elementary 9/30/91 Monitoring visit to Sylvan Hills elementary; PCSSD 2.5 conference with principal and clasroom LRSD .7 observations; telephone conference and personal conference with principal at LRSD Alternative school; Principal wants JWW to request adequate compenstion and benefits on her behalf 10/1/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD school- Dupree PCSSD 3.0 Elementary; conference with principal and LRSD .5 classroom observations; telephone confemce with parent, Bell re: expulsion recommendation 10/2/91 Telephone confemce with parent, T. Calvin LRSD re: suspension of son, M. Murphy from school at Horace Mann; conference with principal; telephone conferenc with parent, L. Bell re: expulsion recommendation; Hearing before Howard; charge modified c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 21 5.0 6.0 2.8 3.2 3.5 1.6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10/3/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD school- Sylvan PCSSD Hills Jr. High; conference with principal and classroom observations 10/8/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD schools - Oak PCSSD Grove Elementary, Jr. High and High schools; conference with principal and classroom observations; discipline hearing before PCSSD Board 10/9/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD - Jacksonville PCSSD 3.5 South Jr. High; conference with principal LRSD.2 and classroom observations; telephone conference with parent, A. Wayne re: explusion recommendation of son from Mabelvale Jr. High school 10/10/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD schools- Scott PCSSD elementary and Scott Alternative school; conference with principal and classroom observations 10/11/91 Hearin "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1358","title":"Proceedings: ''Motion to Consider Teachers' Strike''","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":["1996-08-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School employees","Teachers","Employee rights","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Motion to Consider Teachers' Strike''"],"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/1358"],"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":["281 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1323","title":"Proceedings: ''Motion to Consider Teachers' Strike''","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":["1996-08-28"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School employees","School management and organization","Teachers","Court records","Employee rights"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Motion to Consider Teachers' Strike''"],"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/1323"],"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":["198 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1654","title":"Court Filings concerning ADE's motion to dismiss, PCSSD's motions regarding the minimum teacher salary law and the court's orders, planning and budgeting plans, and LRSD's motion to end federal court jurisdiction","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":["1996-08-22/1996-08-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Teachers","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning ADE's motion to dismiss, PCSSD's motions regarding the minimum teacher salary law and the court's orders, planning and budgeting plans, and LRSD's motion to end federal court jurisdiction"],"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/1654"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["54 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Court of Appeals, response to motion to extend time by Joshua intervenors; District Court, response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss; District Court, response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to abstain; District Court, response to separate school districts' motion to intervene; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to the Knight intervenors' responses to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motions regarding the minimum teacher salary law and the court's orders of June 15, 1993, and July 14, 1993; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) brief in support of its motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, intervening school districts' reply to the response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) to motion for intervention; District Court, memorandum brief in support of intervening school districts' reply to the response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) to motion for intervention; District Court, second supplemental affidavit of Joy C. Springer; District Court, supplemental brief; Court of Appeals, summary of argument, Servicemaster Management Services L.P.; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) August 1996 program planning and budgeting process and Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) August program planning and budgeting tool for FY 1996-97 and FY 1997-98; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply to Joshua's response to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to end federal court jurisdiction; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, portion of transcript  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  !  AUG 2 6 1996 Office f\u003ef D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS asegregauon Mon1tormg FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ......_ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 96-047EALR SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.P. APPELLANT APPELLEE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO EXTEND TIME BY JOSHUA INTERVENORS ServiceMaster Management Services L.P. (\"ServiceMaster\"), for its response to the motion to extend time made by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") states: 1. Joshua requested in a letter filed with the Court dated August 21, 1996, that it be heard with respect to \"argument one\" of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Brief as an appellee and that it be heard with respect to \"argument two\" of the LRSD Brief, which involves ServiceMaster, as an appellant. 2. Subject to the positions taken hereinbelow, ServiceMaster has no objection to Joshua's request that it be heard as an appellee only with respect to argument one of the LRSD Brief and to any extension of time granted to Joshua for that purpose. However, ServiceMaster hereby objects to Joshua's request that it be heard as an appellant with respect to argument two of the LRSD Brief. 3. Joshua was served a copy of the District Court's Order dated March 11, 1995, which was appropriately styled and was in no way misleading~ Joshua knowingly failed to file an appeal of its own accord with respect the District Court's Order concerning argument two, the ServiceMaster issue, as prescribed by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In addition, this appeal is not and cannot be characterized as a cross-appeal. 4. The status of Joshua in this appeal filed by the LRSD can only be as an appellee with respect to the argument one presented by the LRSD. WHEREFORE, ServiceMaster requests that any order granting Joshua's request to file a brief in this case be qualified and limited to allow Joshua as an appellee only and that Joshua not be allowed to argue or make references to ServiceMaster and argument two presented by the LRSD in its appellee's brief or in oral argument. Respectfully submitted, Joseph S. Mowery Giroir \u0026 Gregory, Professional Association 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 372-3000 and John C. Everett Everett, Shemin, Mars \u0026 Stills P.O. Box 1646 Fayetteville, AR 72202 (501) 443-0292 Attorneys for Appellee ServiceMaster Management Services L.P. \"\" ' , ... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to the Motion to Extend Time has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of the same in the United States mail on this 23rd day _of August 1996. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 17223 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capital, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Bldg. Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept. of Education 4 State Capital Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 624/RESP JOSH.823 FILED  U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 2 3 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION B y: DEP. CLERK NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. NO . LR--C - 8 2 - 8 6 6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. DEFENDANTS AUG 2 o 1996 IlITERVENORS Office of Desegregation Moniton~VENORS RESPONSE TO ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS Comes now North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"), by and through its attorneys, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A., and for its Response to the Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to Dismiss, states as follows: 1. On or about July 23, 1996, the Arkansas Department of Education filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Abstention. 2. Subsequently, the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") filed Responses to the Department of Education's Motion to Dismiss. 3. Upon careful review of the PCSSD' s Responses, and in order to promote economy and avoid burdening the Court with repetitious filings, NLRSD joins in and adopts the motions and corresponding memoranda referenced in paragraph No. 2. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, NLRSD respectfully requests this Court: (a) Dismiss the Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to C, Dismiss; (b) Award NLRSD its costs and attorneys fees; (c) Award .NLRSD all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 By, s~~Caa, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 23rd day of August, 1996 served one copy of the foregoing via United States mail 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 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 G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 RECEJl/~~ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AUG 2 B 1996 DEFENDANTS Office Of Desegr . INTERVENORS _ esation Monitoring  - ~- - - INTERVENORS .RESPONSE TO ARKAN~AS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO ABSTAIN For its response, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: LRSD adopts Pulaski County Special School District's response to ADE's motion. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By:~ cw~: :::~ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Arkansas Department of Education's Motion Dismiss Or, In The Alternative To Abstain has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 23rd day of August, 1996. 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 Mr. William P. Thompson Mr. James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2 \\ FILED. U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 3 1996 WESTERN DIVISION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. NO. LR-C-82-866 AUG t o 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ------,0::-::E\"\"P.--:aC\"\"\"LE=-==R=K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. Office of Desegre9allcn Momtorm~ INTERVENORS INTERVENORS -  ~- -  RESPONSE TO SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS' MOTION TO INTERVENE Comes now the North Little Rock School District ( 11NLRSD 11 ), by and through its attorneys, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A., and for its Response to Separate School District's Motion to Intervene and Answer, states as follows: 1. On or about July 23, 1996, a number of Arkansas school districts filed a Motion to Intervene and an Answer in the above referenced matter. 2. The Pulaski County Special School District ( \"PCSSD\") filed Responses to such Motion and Answer on or about August 2, 1996. 3 . Upon careful review of the PCSSD' s Response, and in order to promote economy and avoid burdening the Court with repetitious filings, NLRSD joins in and adopts the motions and corresponding memoranda referenced in paragraph No. 2. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, NLRSD respectfully requests this Court: (a) Award the relief sought by the PCSSD; (b) Award NLRSD its costs and attorneys fees; (c) Award NLRSD all other relief to which it may be entitled. By: Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 )iii:~Jo~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 23rd day of August, 1996 served one copy of the foregoing via United States mail 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 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 G. Gauger Assistant .Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stepnen w. Jon~ AUG 2 3 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Dasagregilllon Munitonn~ ----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. PCSSD REPLY TO THE KNIGHT INTERVENORS' RESPONSES TO THE PCSSD MOTIONS REGARDING THE MINIMUM TEACHER SALARY LAW AND DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INT ERVEN ORS THE COURT'S ORDERS OF JUNE 15, 1993 AND JULY 14, 1993 The Pulaski County Special School District {\"PCSSD\") for its reply states: 1. The negotiated agreement between the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") and the PCSSD explicitly recognizes that any savings generated by the early retirement incentive program are to be used to reestablish the District reserves. 2. Compliance by the District at this point in time with the new minimum salary law will interfere with the PCSSD's ability to desegregate since it cannot now reasonably project sufficient funds to justify compliance and PACT has not, and cannot reasonably project such funds 3. The PCSSD incorporates by reference its motion for equitable relief and brief in support filed August 27, 1996 in further support of this reply. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By~ M. mue (76060) At~orneys for 1 Pulaski county Sp~School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August ;'1 7 ,7- , 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 Mr~7Jones~ \\ _______/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL ~ f\\ECENEO liUG 2 9 1996~ AUG 2 7 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS . I oeseNegation Mon~o1111~ Olhce o ,., _.. ...- I.NTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to release previously reserved four-year-old program seats throughout the distric~ and kindergarten seats in the incentive schools (doc.#2729]. The Court previously issued oral approval of the motion and follows with this Order. The LRSD states that it engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts during the 1995-96 school year and that, while those efforts yielded positive results, seats still remain vacant in the LRSD's four-year-old classes and also in the kindergarten level in the incentive schools. The c~urt has repeatedly been reluctant to condone releasing seats reserved for white children because relinquishing those seats makes it more difficult for the district to desegregate the schools, especially the incentive schools. In previous orders granting the LRSD's request to assign black students to seats set 2 7 8 ~ aside for white students, 1 the Court has noted that it is not - satisfied that the district has engaged in timely, vigorous, and sustained recruitment which is targeted at filling the reserved seats. Again this year, the LRSD's recruitment record does not convince the Court that the district has been significantly more energetic or diligent in recruiting students. Further, the Court has previously observed that the district has repeatedly filled incentive school kindergarten seats in proportions that are outside the guidelines, indicating that the district had either already released seats to black children or never reserved them for whites in the first place. Such is the case again this year. Despite these recurrent problems, the Court is mindful that another major goal of the early childhood programs, in addition to racial integration, is to promote the academic achievement of black students. The desegregation plan provides that vacant seats reserved for white children will not remain unfilled. (LRSD Desegregation Plan, pg; 140.) The Court notes that the LRSD has pledged, in its motion, to continue \"vigorous recruitment efforts\" and also to determine what adjustments are necessary and appropriate to ensure that the effect of releasing the seats is minimized on future year enrollments. The Court encourages the parties to consider amending the district's racial balance goals in the plan so _that the district will have more flexibility in filling these seats. More realistic goals, together with vigorous 1 See Orders of September 7, 1994 and Seplemb~r 7, 1995. -2- recruitmentr could assist the LRSD in meeting its desegregation obligations. 2 .., 7/J1.__ IT IS SO ORDERED this._ day of August 1996. -UNITED ST.Z TES DISTR.i,cT JUDGE rHIS DOCUMENT t:NTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN : C.,MPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND10R 79(a) FRCP )N ?J ~ '3' /'J~ BY k7t:: ;c;::::: 2 The Court refers the parties to the testimony of Dr. David J. Armor, who t.:stilied dunng May 1996 with respect to his studies and conclusions regarding achievement disparity and student assignm.:nt. -3- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ' v. LR-C-82-866 RECEfVED PLAINTIFF AUG 2 8 1996 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Monitiffi..ENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the district court Order of July 3 O, 19 9 6 by which the district court interpreted the \"pooling\" provision of the Settlement Agreement to require that LRSD pay PCSSD $345,294. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL- DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (50~~ BY:~ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been served on the following counsel of record by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 27th day of August, 1996: ~r. 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 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 Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership ORDER i1UG 2 7 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Upon motion of the Little Rock School District, the time within which it must file its application for attorneys' fees with respect to this Court's January 13, 1995 decision and the May 15, 1996 decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is hereby extended to and including August 30, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this )- ... ?\" 1\\ day of August 1996. 2782 MAR 2 7 1997 li1L.::U OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOrmORING U.S. DISTRICT COUAT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR~\u003c;TERNOISTRIC'tARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 7 1996 WESTERN DMSION 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. MCI.UK1v1~1.,K, 1.:LERK By: -----,,.pm.~-. l\"\"lf....,.,F DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. The teachers in the PCSSD are on strike. 2. As a result of this unilateral action by a party to this case, the PCSSD cannot deliver the educational services and desegregation programs outlined in the Desegregation Plan and by orders of this Court. 3. As more fully set forth in the accompanying memorandum, this Court should order striking teachers to return to work in the PCSSD because their unilateral action precludes the PCSSD from performing its constitutionally mandated role as a desegregating school district, because the issues which underpin the strike are already before this Court, because this Court already has a mediator in place, because the strike is inconsistent with the negotiated agreement between the parties, and because PACT has a remedy at law to allege breach of contract or specific performance of the agreement. 4. This Court possesses broad equitable powers to take all reasonable acts and to fashion all reasonable orders necessary to accomplish the remedial goals of the Desegregation Plans. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court directing that PACT end its strike, that the PCSSD teachers return to work pending resolution of the issues already before this Court, and, as appropriate, for a reference to the United States Department of Justice Community Conciliation Service and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By __ ...,,c...-.i.:----~-====-----M. S Atto Dis Special School CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August n._, 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 3 ' r :~ .. . -  RECEniED U.S. DISTRICT COURT MAR 2 7 1997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cc:MR'flNo,srn,cTARKANsAs 0:=FICE OF DESEGREGATIOi'J MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 7 1996 WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JAMES W. MCliUliMAliK, CLERK 3y: PLiUm'IFF DEP C'.. : DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS PCSSD BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF Introduction The teachers in the PCSSD are on strike. As a result of their unilateral action, the - PCSSD cannot operate its schools as required to deliver the education and desegregation services envisioned by the desegregation plan and the orders of this Court. The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") is a party before this Court. It has been since July, 31, 1984. Procedural History On July 31, 1984, the Knight Intervenors, which specifically include the PACT, filed their complaint in intervention in this case. Paragraph 1 of the complaint in intervention states that: Intervenors intervene for the purpose of requesting that the Court order the protection of their rights to bargain and the rights they have bargained, pursuant to the agreements and policies between Intervenors and their respective districts. The District Court's order granting intervention followed an order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit directing that the intervention be granted. The concluding paragraph of the opinion of the Court of Appeals, dated July 6, 1984, states in pertinent part that: The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the district court with instructions to grant the appellants' motion for leave to intervene as parties in the remedy phase of this case. Their intervention shall be for the purpose of litigating the issues raised in their complaint, the protection of their existing contractual rights and their right to bargain collectively. Thus, as parties to the remedial phase of this litigation, PACT is decidedly subject to the remedial orders of this Court as is any other party. The Applicable Law The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its decision approving the Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plan in 1990. In that decision, it also outlined the rules for implementation. 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). The Court of Appeals delivered both broad responsibilities as well as a broad charter and grant of authority to the District Court in respect of the Settlement Agreement and the Plans. As it held at page 1394: 8. The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. In its subsequent decision, reported at 949 F.2d 253, the Court of Appeals evaluated the status of changes to the desegregation plans proposed by the parties but rejected by the District Court. In a passage often quoted by the District Court since then, the Court of Appeals held that: It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 Plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows ... (3) operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools acco~ding to the agreed timetable; ( 4) intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agreed timetable; 949 F.2d 253 at 255. The Issues Underpinning the Ongoing Strike Are Alread,y Before This Court On May 22, 1996, this Court delivered a letter to the parties in this case informing them that Mr. Gus Taylor, Chief Conciliator for the United States Department of Justice Community Conciliation Service, was being made available to the parties. As the Court directed: There are a number of disputes among these parties in which your services might be of great value. I will not attempt to list them for you now. By sending you this letter I am inviting you and the attorneys for the parties to contact each other. Mr. Taylor's services to the parties, which have been rendered on several occasions in the past in this case, are free of charge. On August 5, 1996, the PCSSD filed and served its amendment and supplement to second motion to enforce the settlement agreement with the State. Among the issues advanced by the PCSSD in that filing is the proposition that the State's new minimum salary law violates that provision of the Settlement Agreement which prohibits the enactment of any legislation which substantially interferes with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate. On August 19, 1996 -- ironically the day the strike began -- the Knight Intervenors, including PACT, filed a response denying that the new minimum salary law substantially interferes with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate and that the minimum salary law did 3 not violate any provision of the Settlement Agreement. Indeed, PACT affirmatively requested the federal court to find that the minimum salary law should be enforced in all respects including those issues raised in PCSSD's motion to clarify the Court's orders of June 15, 1993 and July 14, 1993 and to grant to them \"all relief to which they may be entitled\". The referenced PCSSD motion, as it relates to the Court's orders of June 15, 1993 and July 14, 1993, deals with the issue whether the \"savings\" realized by the PCSSD from the previous refunding of its bonded indebtedness and the savings generated from its early retirement program are or should be available to the District to fund teacher raises this year. PACT has contended from the outset of the strike that the District should use its contingency fund, a fund generated by the savings realized by the refinancing of the debt and the early - retirement program, to fund raises to comply with the minimum salary law. In their memorandum also dated August 19, 1996, PACT contends that the Court should clarify its June and July, 1993 orders to declare that: \"The savings may, in the discretion of the District, be used to increase teachers' salaries.\" Accordingly, the two central issues around which the strike seems to revolve are already before the District Court and the issues have been joined between the parties. Further, the District Court has already placed a mediator in place to resolve the disputes that may exist or may arise between and among the parties. In sum, PACT specifically intervened in the federal court action with regard to its negotiated agreement and it is respectfully submitted that all strike issues should be resolved by the District Court, particularly given the resources the Court possesses through the Office 4 of Desegregation Monitoring to evaluate any budget and revenue claims that may be advanced by either of the parties. The Negotiated Agreement Is Inconsistent With The Present Strike As a preliminary matter, it should be observed that Section 8, Item C of the negotiated agreement between the Board of Directors of the PCSSD and the PACT provides: \"The parties agree that state and federal statutes and court orders are incorporated into this Agreement.\" (emphasis added). Accordingly, the parties explicitly recognize as part of their negotiations and agreement that the orders of this Court would be part of and control. The PCSSD declared impasse no later than August 26, 1996. Section 12 of the negotiated agreement sets forth the \"impasse resolution procedure\". It is clear from the structure of the impasse procedure -- which begins with mediation, continues with fact finding and ultimately places authority for a final decision with the Board -- that the agreement contemplates that all parties are working and that no job action is occurring when impasse is declared. Among other reasons, the status quo between the parties should be restored so that the impasse procedure can proceed in normal fashion which requires that the teachers return to work. Further, Article VI, Section 2A of the Agreement provides that: The Association agrees that the Board shall have the right to establish the work year and annual school calendar. Thereafter, certain provisions and conditions associated with establishing the calendar are set forth including days when school can be held and days when it cannot. Singularly absent 5 from the Agreement is any term which would support the proposition that the teachers are entitled to interrupt or change the work calendar by striking, when they explicitly recognize that the Board shall establish the working days. The teachers' publicly espoused position that raises can be funded from savings generated by the early retirement incentive program are specifically refuted by Article IX, Section 8 of the Agreement which explicitly recognizes that: The purpose of the early Retirement Incentive Program is to reduce District expenditures in order to build a reserve which will off set the cessation of State Desegregation Settlement Funds in 1995-96 and 1996- 97. As previously observed, this issue is presently and squarely before this Court and issue has been joined. Finally, any contention that the teachers are presently operating without the benefit of a contract is specifically refuted by Article XVII, Section 1 of the Agreement which provides: The Collective Bargaining Agreement after ratification by the Board and the Association shall be effective upon the signing by the President of the Board and the President of the Association and shall remain in effect until a successor a~reement is ne~otiated. (emphasis added). Ar~ument PACT sought, and w "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1629","title":"Court Filings concerning PCSSD's motion to modify desegregation plan with regard to class sizes, Joshua's motion for an interim award of attorneys' fees and costs for post-judgment monitoring, settlement agreement with the state, and LRSD 1995-96 fourth quarter status report and budget","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":["1996-08-12/1996-08-22"],"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","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School integration","Lawyers","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning PCSSD's motion to modify desegregation plan with regard to class sizes, Joshua's motion for an interim award of attorneys' fees and costs for post-judgment monitoring, settlement agreement with the state, and LRSD 1995-96 fourth quarter status report and budget"],"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/1629"],"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":["125 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to modify desegregation plan with regard to class sizes; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for enlargement of time to present petition for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) supplemental response to Joshua's motion for an interim award of attorneys' fees and costs for post-judgment monitoring; District Court, motion to quash affidavits; District Court, Joshua intervenors' correction to motion of November 22, 1995; District Court, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) supplemental response to Joshua's motion for an interim award of attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to the state defendants; District Court, memorandum in support of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for attorneys' fees as to the state defendant; District Court, affidavit of M. Samuel Jones III; District Court, order; District Court, Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to modify desegregation plan respecting class sizes; District Court, brief in support of Knight, et al.,response to mostion of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to modify desegregation plan respecting class sizes; District Court, Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) amendment and supplement to second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, brief is support of Knight, et al., intervenors response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) amendment and supplement to second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, motion for extension of time to file petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1995-96 fourth quarter status report and program planning and budget document and addendum to 1995-96 third quarter status report and program planning and budget document  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  AUG 1 ti. 1996 FILED U.S. D!STRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 121996 IN '3'HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR'1it',icS W McCORMACK. CLERK Olflce of Desegregation Mormorni\"EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By: ------;::;;:'r,,'~w WESTERN DIVISION DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-Soo PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT. ET AL. ' '' RECEIVED DEFENDANTS !llJG 1 A 1996 INTERVENORS O,f. . INTERVENOR$ , ice of Desegregat,on Monitormn .f. ii JOSHUA INTERVENORS OPPOSITION TO PCSS\u0026~-Su MOTION TO MODIFY DESEGREGATION PLAN WITH RESPECT TO CLASS SIZES Come now the Joshua Intervenors and respectfully oppose the Pulaski County Special School District's motion to modify the desegregation plan regarding compensatory education classes. The reasons given by the school district for its position is that the plan requirement is too modest to yield any tangible results. The District has not demonstrated ~hat it has compiled with the agreement in the first place; and secondly the District is in contempt for de facto modification of the plan. The issue is presented because the teacher organization has filed a grievance regarding the matter and one way for the District to avoid an unfavorable result with respect to the grievance is to have the Court void it. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully oppose this motion and cite as authority the Settlement Agreement herein. Joshua also requests that the District provide a comprehensive report to the Court indicating to which it has complied with the plan provisions. The report should also include a class by class break down, the results achieved on a longitudinal basis, along with the amount of funds expended and/or saved by this effort since the institution of this particular settlement plan provision. Joshua also requests that the District provide a written business case demonstrating the \"sufficient information to indicate that the funds spent on reducing class sizes in compensatory schools by 5% can be better utilized in other areas.\" WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court reject the Pulaski County Special School District's motion to modify the desegregation plan with respect to class size in compensatory education schools after a hearing which is hereby requested. 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 pleading was forwar~~via United states mail to all counsel of record on this ( ~ day of August, 1996. F)Lxt~[if - AUG 1 4 1996 Office ot Desegregalion Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership ORDER FiLr-D US 01s,h;:::T COURT EASTERN OISTf;. ICT ARKANSAS AUG 13 1996 JAMtSyV. M?CORMACK,CLERK By: II  s-::, 'hdw.f o DEP'eLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court are a number of motions for extensions of time upon which the Court now rules. The Little Rock School District's {LRSD) motion [doc.#2711) for an extension of time in which to respond to the Joshua Intervenors' (Joshua) motion for implementation of the recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring {ODM), is moot, the response having already been filed. .The Clerk is to remove this motion from the pending motions report. The motion (doc.#2726) of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) for an extension of time in which to respond to the various school districts' motion to intervene is granted. response is due on or before August 19, 1996. The ADE's The LRSD's motion [doc.#2732) for an extension of time in - which to file a reply to Joshua's response to LRSD's motion to end 2750 federal court jurisdiction is granted. LRSD's reply is due on or before August 30, 1996. The motion of the parties [doc.#2736] for an extension of time in which to respond to the ADE' s motion to dismiss or, in i;he alternative, for abstention, and for an extension of time in which to respond to the various school districts' motion to intervene is granted. The parties' responses to these motions are due on or before August 23, 1996. 1 The Knight Intervenors' (Knight) motion [doc.#2741] for an extension of time in which to respond to PCSSD's motion to modify desegregation plan respecting class sizes, and Knight's motion [doc.#2749) for an extension of time in which to respond to amendment and supplement to second motion to enforce the settlement agreement with the state are both granted. Knight's responses to these motions are due on or before August 19, 1996. Also before the Court is the LRSD's motion (doc.#2712] to shorten Joshua's time to respond to discovery with respect to the hearing on Joshua's petition for attorney's fees. In the alternative LRSD asks that the hearing on Joshua's petition be continued from the scheduled hearing date of July 29, 1996. Because the hearing was in fact continued until August 19, 1996, the LRSD's motion is moot and need not be addressed. Accordingly, 1 The Court notes that the Pul:i,ki County Sp.:c1JI Sd1ool Dl\u003etncl (PCSSD) h~, J!r.:~Jy riled 11, response to both motions. -2- the Clerk is to remove this motion from the pending motions report. R IT IS SO ORDERED this~ day of August 1996. -3- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 1 4 1996 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Desegrega1,on Monitorins _.. PLAINTIFF v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS PCSSD MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO PRESENT PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES \u0026 COSTS On July 31, 1996, the Court's memorandum and order granting the motion of the PCSSD with respect to the \"pooling\" issues was entered. Rule B-3 of the United States District Court Rules requires in many instances that the petition for attorneys' fee be filed within 14 days of entry of the order. Counsel for LRSD and the PCSSD have conferred and have agreed to ask that the Court defer the requirement of a petition and further defer any ruling on the issue of attorneys' fees until 30 days after entry of a final order on the pooling issue. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ~ Q\u003c:::::C ~ M. Samuel Jones III76060) Attorneys for Pulaski County Sp~chool Di-strict 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August /3, 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by facsimile on each of 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 M. rUEh JonesIII ~ / ' 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 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL AUG 1 4 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS '/: 2 tJ I' #'VJ KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Offi' ce Of D INTERVENORS esegregation Monitormg LRSD'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO JOSHUA' s MOTION FOR ArrTNTERI-M~ - AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS FOR POST-JUDGMENT MONITORING LRSD for its Supplemental Response to Joshua's Motion for an Interim Award of Attorneys' Fees and Cost for Post-Judgment - Monitoring states: 1. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference are the following exhibits: A. Affidavit of Dr. George C. Cannon; B. Affidavit of James L. (\"Skip;') Rutherford; and, C. Joshua Intervenors' Responses to LRSD's Interrogatories. 2. In their affidavits, Cannon and Rutherford confirm that Joshua's $2,000,000.00 fee paid by LRSD as a part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement included compensation for future post-judgment monitoring by Joshua during the life of the LRSD Desegregation Plan. See Exhibits A and B. 3. Attached to Joshua's Responses to LRSD's Interrogatories - are fee requests submitted by counsel for Joshua in other cases. See Exhibit c. Comparison of these fee requests with Joshua's fee request in the present case raises serious questions as to the accuracy and reliability of Joshua's \"reconstructed\" time records. 4. For example, on August 11, 1995, counsel for Joshua claims to have worked a total of 21 hours. In the present case, counsel claims to have worked 7. 5 hours in \"preparation for and hearing before Judge Wright re: budgets.\" See Activity Statement of John Walker, p. 87. In Davis v. Franks, U.S.D.C. No. 88-4082, counsel represented that he was in Hope, Arkansas on August 11, 1995, and spent 8.0 hours meeting with clients. Finally, counsel stated that on August 11, 1995, he spent 5.5 hours \"work[ing) on proposed findings of fact\" in Day v. Johnson, U.S.D.C. No. 94-849. See Exhibit C. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion for an Interim Award of Attorneys' Fees for Post-Judgment Monitoring be denied. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 ( 501) 376-2011 BY: 2 istopher Heller ( n c. Fendley, Jr. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the fo~lowing ~eop/q.Y deposi~y of sam/)jn the United States mail on this ~ay of --+f41---~~-cxs=----' 19--7,e--. 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 h~istopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. 3 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Mr. Chris Heller .. ,. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX(501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 376-2147 August 15, 1996 Mr. John C. Fendley Friday Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Chris and Clay: Enclosed please find a copy of the motion which I am filing with respect to the letter that I received from you regarding the hearing on Monday. Also enclosed are subpoenas for Dr. George Cannon and Mr. Skip Rutherford requesting their appearance at the hearing on Monday. JWW:js Sincerely, Dictated but not read John W. Walker cc: Honorable Susan Webber Wright Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel of Record Enclosures IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT_ COURT-~--, ... ,.,._,., . :::::., EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS~ WESTERN DIVISION C=? c__::, 7 .'\u003c LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS MOTION TO QUASH AFFIDAVITS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, do hereby request that the Court quash the affidavits of Skip Rutherford and George Cannon. For its motion, Joshua states as follows: 1. The Little Rock School District's affidavits of Skip Rutherford and George Cannon are untimely. 2. The Joshua Intervenors are prejudiced by the late filing of the affidavits. Undersigned counsel has not received said affidavits as of this date and is not familiar with the contents thereof. 3. However, Joshua does not oppose the appearance of Skip Rutherford and George Cannon at the hearing on Monday in order that undersigned counsel may question them regarding said affidavits. Attached as Exhibits A and Bare subpoenas for witnesses Skip Rutherford and George Cannon which are served upon counsel for the Little Rock School District on this date for their appearance at the hearing on Monday, August, 19, 1996. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that - the Court quash the affidavits of Skip Rutherford and George Cannon or in the alternative require that they appear at the hearing for cross examination. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)~ :?74-3758 J /1 By: {/AL JI tf\u003cUL1c-i___ Certificate of service I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was delivered facsimile to John C. Fendley and Chris Heller, Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark, 2000 First Commercial Bank Building, Little Rock, AR and by United States mail to all other counsel of record on this 15th day of August, 1996. - .... =AO= =88 =(R=ev= =119='1= S=ub=po=en=a =In =a C=lv=l C=a=se= ============- it h lb(.,f /l Issued by the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF-----------------  SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE Little Rock School Dist,V, Pul, County Special School Dist, 1 CASE NUMBER: LR-C-82-866 TO: Mr. Skip Rutherford [ii YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place. date. and time specified below to testify in the above case. PLACE OF TESTIMONY United States District Court United States Federal court Building 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 COURTROCM Judge Wright OA TE ANO TIME August 19, 1996 9:00 a.:n~ D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place. date. and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in - e above case. A.CE OF OEPOSmON D YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place. date. and time specified below (list documents or objects): PL..A.CE D YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. PREMISES Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers. directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated. the matters on which the _person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 30(b) (6). - I John W. Walker, P.A., 1723 Broadway 1 Little Rock, AR 72206 (SM Aute 44, l'edII Aut11 of Clvfl ~ooedute. ~1111 C \u0026 0 OIi ,-_ .. , If action 11 pending In district other than dl1trlct of !nuance. 1t1t dl1tr1ct under c111 number. OATE August 15, 1996 --- .... - /(Kh/btl 6 - AO 88 IRev 1 /9\" ! Subeoena In a ClvQ Case - - Issued by the - - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF - SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE Little Rock School Dist V . Pul, Co, Special School Dist, 1 CASE NUMBER: LR .. ~82-866 TO: Dr. George Cannon ~ YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place. date. and time specified below to testify in the above case. PLACE OF TESTIMONY COURTROOM United States District Court Judge Wright United States Federal Court Building 3rd Floor 600 West Capitol DATE ANO TME Little Rock, AR 72201 August 19, 1996 9:00 a.m. D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date. and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in - above case. E OF DEPOSITION I OM' ANO \"'\"  YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date. and time specified below (list documents or objects): .. PLACE lo,ne=o,.,,  YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. PREMISES ' I OMSANO '\"' Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers, directors. or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf. and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the _person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b) (6). fl;?S~~~ATTOA~Y ,OA ~ 0A OEFE~ANT) OATE . - - August 15, 1996 -- ,1$8\\JINQ ~!R'S NAM, AOOAl!aa ANO F'HONI NUMll!R John W. Walker, P,A., 172} Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72206 1 (SN Rule ,a. 11-t \"ult1 of Clvtl lllrooedute, llatll 9 l 0 1111 \"-If)  : !'l.t 1f action 11 pending In dl1trlct other than dl1trlct of I11uance. ltate dl1trlct under ca  e number. : ' JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITILE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVE~ AUG 1 9 1996 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. Office of Desegregation Monitonn~ August 16, 1996 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States Federal Court Building 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: In preparing for the hearing on Monday, August 19, 1996 regarding our fee petition, we determined that we had made several errors in calculation. This material is to correct those errors. You will find enclosed an amended Attachment One to our Motion of November 22, 1995, summarizing our entire claim. The following correction should be made in our Memorandum filed on November 22, 1995: at page 12 - the first full paragraph should read as follows: The Joshua Intervenors seek, for the substantive work on the case through October 28, 1995, an award for 2,016 hours of attorney time and 3,444.4 hours of paralegal time, as well as reimbursement of the amount actually paid to six persons who worked on the Joshua monitoring reports. See motion, Attachment One. This includes: [attorneys] John w. Walker, (1761.0 hours), Wiley Branton, Jr. (79.8 hrs), Austin Porter (175.2 hrs.); and paralegals Joy c. Springer (3079.1 hrs.) and Opal Sims (365.3 hrs.) Intervenors submission, viewed in the light of the record in this case, establishes that a claim is made for time \"reasonably expended on this litigation.\" at page 19 - in the first paragraph, the lodestar total for the work, other than for pursuing the fee award, should be for $740,375.81 for personnel and $17,636.00 for litigation costs. at page 20 - the request for work on the fee petition should be $35,075.00 for the work of four persons. -.... Affidavit of Joy c. Springer - (November 21, 1995) - at page 16, para. 20, the number of hours claimed for work on the fee petition should be 90 hours rather than 73 as indicated in her fee petition. We are seeing to it that opposing counsel receive this information ort Friday, August 16, 1996. Sincerely, Bob Pressman for John W. Walker BP:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel Of Record Enclosure CORRECTED ATTACHMENT ONE TO JOSHUA FEE PETITON (August 16 1 1995) ,,_.,M.., -l ATTACHMENT1ONE SUMMARY OF AWARD SOUGHT A. Substantive Work On Case Number Individual Year(s) of Hours Rate Atty. John W. Walker 1990 6.85 $250.00 1991 562.4 same as above 1992 308.5 same as above 1993 329.2 same as above 1994 218.2 same as above 1995 335.85 same as above Sub-Total 1,761.00 $440,250.00 Atty. Wiley A. Branton, Jr 1990 1991 9.3 1395.00 1992 64.0 9600.00 1993 6.5 975.00 1994 1995 Sub-Total 79.8 $11,970.00 1 Atty. Mark Burnette [Time Waived] Atty. Austin Porter Jr. 1991-1995 175.2 $130.00 Sub-Total 175.2 $22,ns.oo Joy Charles Springer (Paralegal) 1990 27.5 $50.00 1991 849.0 same as above 1992 681 .9 same as above 1993 548.9 same as above 1994 505.0 same as above 1995 466.8 same as above Sub-Total 3,079.1 $153,955.00 Opal Sims (Paralegal) 1991 365.3 $40.00 Sub-Total 365.3 $14,612.00 2 Other Paralegal Costs: (Reimbursement of amounts paid for work on Joshua Monitoring Reports). Amount Individual Year(s) Paid Kirke Herman 1991 $16,675.00 1992 $8,400.00 1993 $12,732.00 1994 $4,587.00 Evelyn Jackson 1991 $2,700.00 Debbie Parker 1992 $26,225.81 LaRhonda Pondexter 1991 $5,218.00 1992 $6,875.00 Clementine Rouse 1991 $2,200.00 1992 $1,000.00 1993 $2,000.00 Delores Sykes 1992 $1,000.00 1993 $3,600.00 1994 $3,600.00 Sub-Total $96,812.81 Sub-Total Substantive IVork on Case (Personnel) $740,375.81 3 B. Work on this Motion Individual Number of Hours Rate Amount Atty. John W. Walker 37.0 $250.00 $ 9,250.00 Robert Pressman 120.0 $175.00 $21,000.00 Joy C. Springer 90.0 $ 50.00 $ 3,650.00 Austin Porter Jr. 2.5 $130.00 $ 325.00 Sub-Total 249.5 $35,075.00 C. Litigation Expenses Description Amount ~ Reimbursement provided to Joy C. Springer for mileage costs anc $ 4,742.00 other monitoring expenses; see J. Springer Aff., para. 21 Reimbursement to Kirke Herman for monitoring costs; see $ 100.00 J. Springer Aff., para. 21 Cost of copying docket in clerk's office; see J. Springer Aff., $ 60.00 para. 21 Witness fees for LASO budget Hearing and other costs; see $ 294.00 J.Springer Aff., para. 21 Copying and fax charges; see J. Springer Aff., para. 22 $ 9,250.00 4 Postage charges, see J. Springer Aff., para. 22 $ 3,190.00 Sub-Total 17,636.00 GRAND TOTAL $793,086.81 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF L' 1-; .l- \" -- - - I  ..J r I -. -;',( .. - . ' v -- vs. ...---NO. LR-C-82-866 -,.,..~ ,1 i.',_::,_ ,  --~ 1~ -cC,l_':_P RECEIVED'\"\" \"~ - PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS AUG l 9 1996 LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. Office of Desegre9ation Mom1onr19 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR AN INTERIM AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES On or about August 9, 1996, the Joshua Intervenors filed a Supplemental Memorandum Regarding the Issue of an award of Attorney's Fees and Costs. Included in such document were brief excerpts from six (6) cases deemed relevant by Joshua, an affidavit of Joy Springer, a report on discipline; and an affidavit supporting Mr. Walker's request that any fee award in his favor be set at $250.00 per hour. As an initial matter, as set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that the \"fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.\" NLRSD submits that, based upon both the Joshua Intervenor's failure to adequately identify those time entries which apply specifically to NLRSD, and the failure to keep contemporaneous time records, Joshua has failed to satisfy the standard set forth in Hensley and an interim award is inappropriate. The prejudice created by such lack of accurate, contemporaneous time records is evidenced in the Little Rock School District's Supplemental Response on this issue filed August 14, 1996. Such Response notes that on a particular day, August 11,  1995, counsel for Joshua claims, in three separate fee petitions, to have worked a total of 21 hours in two separate cities. Clearly, the significant period of time relevant to the fee petition, five years, renders Joshua's failure to maintain adequate records fatal to its petition as the attendant prejudice to the Districts is overwhelming. See Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 534-35 (9th Cir. 1995), holding that an \"applicant [for fees] should maintain billing time records in a manner that will enable a reviewing court to identify distinct claims. Individual Student Disciplinary Actions. Perhaps the most inappropriate basis for the recovery of attorneys fees from the NLRSD is Joshua's request for compensation for the representation of various African-American students in personal disciplinary disputes. Quite simply, neither the Plan nor relevant case law contemplates Joshua providing counsel, at the District's expense, for each African-American student who faces disciplinary action. The purpose of the Court's activities and the scope of its jurisdiction is to enforce the implementation of NLRSD 's Plan with respect to the class as a whole. Nothing in that Plan suggests black students may not be disciplined nor that each would be represented by counsel at District expense. Rather, the Plan describes a process that will be followed, and, unless it is alleged that this process is not being followed in a particular case, it is not related to the issue of Plan implementation and falls outside the scope of this Court's interest. We would note that the Court has already reached the same conclusion with respect to teacher disputes, and the sa\"m e reasoning applies here. Each disciplinary proceeding in unique and specific to the individual student. If Joshua contends that the NLRSD is failing to comply with the terms of the Plan as they relate to student discipline, the appropriate action is to file a motion stating such in this Court. Adopting Joshua's position would result in legal representation for all african american students at District expense for any event which occurs at or is related to school. Clearly, such eventuality is not contemplated by the provisions of the Plan or the relevant case law. Hourly Rate. The Supreme Court has clearly articulated that the goal of the reasonable fee provision \"to attract competent counsel, ... not produce windfalls to attorneys .. 886, 897, 104 s.ct. 1541 (1984). II Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. In the present matter, it is beyond dispute that an award of Two Hundred Dollars per hour is more than adequate to attract experienced counsel. It is apparent, based upon a review of the Fee Survey cited by Joshua, that an award of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) per hour would not result in a \"relegation of the present matter to \"those lawyers with belowmarket billing.\" Casey v. City of Cabool, Mo., 12 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 1993). In fact, the great majority of those polled in such survey reported top hourly fees of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) - per hour or less. As the Supreme Court held in Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-96, 896 n. 11 (1984), \"the requested rates [ should be] in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.\" By: Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 41M CaAMf24/ Stephen w. Jones,1#78083 Allen Carney 0#94122 - - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 16th day of August, 1996 served one copy of the foregoing via United States mail 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  Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACEELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Avenue, Ste. 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 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. RECEIVf:.rl AUG 1 9 1996 Office of Desegrega:ion Moniicnng -  _...,._,. ___ ........ - - - -~ - --- - .. ._,,.,.. - PCSSD MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS AS TO THE STATE DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. The mandate of the Court of Appeals was returned to the clerk of this Court by letter dated July 18, 1996. The judgment of the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court on two of the three issues presented on appeal. By previous order, the District Court had extended the time for the bringing of this fee petition until 30 days after return of the appellate court mandate. 2. The PCSSD, and others, are clearly the prevailing parties and are entitled to pursue an attorney's fee and an award of costs pursuant to Ark.- Code Ann. S 16-22-308 and 28 u.s.c.  19-20. 3. A memorandum detailing the law controlling this petition and the factors for the Court to consider in fashioning a fee and cost award is submitted with this motion. 4. Also attached to this motion as exhibit A is the affidavit of M. Samuel Jones, III detailing the time devoted to - these claims. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs, all as provided by law. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE on August /l , 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 2 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF 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. Rec AUG 1 9 1996 PLAINTI~F DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OfflceotD INTERVENORS - ...... _ - 8SeQre9aJJon Monitorm~ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT O.F! .THE PCSSD MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AS- TO THE STATE DEFENDANT The PCSSD fully participated in these c "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1631","title":"Court Filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplemental memorandum regarding the issue of an award of attorneys' fees and costs","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Walker, John W."],"dc_date":["1996-08-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers","Court records","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School discipline","Student assistance programs","School improvement programs","Education--Evaluation","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplemental memorandum regarding the issue of an award of attorneys' fees and costs"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1631"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["57 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  Rece,,,En~~HN w. WALKER. P.A.  A'ITORNEY AT LAW AVG 1 2 1996 Office of Desegregation Monijorin9 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKErr------ ---- ----- - RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. August 9, 1996 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Office of Oe~eg, cgation Monijorifl.n,, , , United States District Judge  . , ..._ _, United states Federal Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed please find our supplemental memorandum which supports our contention for compensation for work on behalf of particular class members relative to our motion for fees. Also enclosed are Attachments A, B, c, which address disparate discipline in the Little Rock and North Little Rock school districts. I have also asked Ms. Springer, of my office, to give a supplemental affidavit contrasting the ODM and Joshua monitoring reports with respect to the North Little Rock School District. Attachment Dis a copy of an affidavit that I submitted to the Court in my motion for fees in the Day-Hollowell case which supports my request for $250.00. Finally, we further remind the Court of our enclosure one which was attached to our opposition to LRSD's request for release of federal court jurisdiction which also supports our position for fees in this matter. JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Brown REcec~\"-D - AUG 1 2 1996 f'ol,\\;,~ij;:.s.s _c.!LcdIJN 01s1r.1ci p.. Office Of Deseg IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I i\u003c' Q 9 i99o ragation M~RN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS P.,ul.l \\(  ........._________ WESTERN DIVISION cor-MP-C\\(, CLE.P,   M  , - JP-MES \\N_~:-~ .. ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Bf ~rtrc:,-~- v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS Joshua Intervenors' Supplemental Memorandum Regarding the Issue of an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs Decisions Recognizing as Compensable Work on Behalf of a Class Member(s) As Well As Preparation of a Report on Monitoring (1.) Brewster v. Dukakis, 544 F.Supp. 1069, 1072 (D.Mass. 1982), aff'd as modified on other issues, 786 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1986) In describing the \"vigorous and necessary role in implementation\" played by plaintiffs' counsel, in a case involving the deinstitutionalization of persons with mental disabilities, the district court includes in part \"report[ing] and vigorously press[ing] charges of client abuse or neglect both in the community and in the hospital [and] represent[ing] clients during hearings on the drafting of individual service plans called for in the Decree .... \" The court of appeals quoted with approval the district court's having distinguished the roles of the \"court-appointed monitor\" and plaintiffs' counsel by noting counsel's responsibility for \"advocating on behalf of plaintiff class 1 responsibility for \"advocating on behalf of plaintiff class members.\" See 786 F.2d at 19 n.5. (2.) Eirhart v. Libbey-Owens-Ford co., 996 F.2d 846, 850-51 (7th Cir. 1993) In case involving sex discrimination in employment where the court had earlier approved a consent decree, the court ruled that compensable \"post-decree work\" included work on \"a dispute over whether a class member had shown 'good cause' under the terms of the decree to delay the starting date of her employment with Libbey.\") (3.) McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1461 (8th Cir. 1988) In a case involving conditions and practices on death row in a Missouri penetentiary, the court's description of appropriate monitoring activities by counsel included \"interviewing prisoners [and] investigating complaints .... \" (4.) Keith v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850, 856-57 (9th Cir. 1987) In a case involving compliance with the Constitution and federal and state law in the construction of a freeway, the court of appeals quoted with approval a list of postjudgment activities identified by the district court as compensable, including the following: \"[i]Tenant relocation issue: assisting Advocate's office in resolving disputes between Advocate's Office and Caltrans regarding orderly removal of remaining corridor residents. [ii] Housing priorities for displacees: mediating disputes between the Advocate's Office and Caltrans to ensure the preservation of priority for displacees who are forced out prior 2 to availability of housing .... [iii] status Conferences: preparation of quarterly reports for court's Quarterly Conference on staus of project.\" In an opinion addressing fees for a subsequent period, the district court described the quarterly reports as follows: \"providing quarterly comprehensive reports to the court which summarize the progress made in implementing their decree and draw to the court's attention potential areas of difficulty; ... \" See Keith, 644 F.Supp. 1312, 1314 (C.D.Cal. 1986). (5.) Duran v. Carruthers, 885 F.2d 1492, 1496 (10th cir. 1989) In approving fees for postjudgment services, the court quoted with approval the district court's description of compensable activities by counsel in Brewster v. Dukakis. supra, - including activities on behalf of class members. (6.) Alexander v. Hill, 625 F.Supp. 567, 568, 569 (W.D.N.C. 185) In case involving compliance with federal time limits for processing Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Medicaid applications, the court identified as compensable time spent by counsel in \"review[ing] thousands of documents and hundreds of files in ten counties across the state as well as Medicaid files 3 at the Disability Determination Section in Raleigh.\" ohn w. Walker# 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Bob Pressman MA# 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing supplemental memorandum was s~~~ via United States mail to all counsel of record on this ~day of Aug\"M//,~,.., v6\"ohnw. Walker \\... 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER STATE OF ARKANSAS) SS) COUNTY OF ___ ) Comes now the affiant, Joy C. Springer, who after first being duly sworn, states as follows: 1. This affidavit supplements my affidavit dated November 21, 1995, in which I described work performed in this case totaling over 3100 hours. It is to give a contrast between the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Intervenors' monitoring reports with respect to the North Little Rock School District. 2. The Joshua reports for the years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, which included the monitoring of the North Little Rock School District, differed from the reports of the Office of Des~gregation Monitoring in that the gathering of information for the Joshua reports included on-site visits to every school in the North Little Rock School District. The Joshua reports were 1 based, in part, upon information secured during these school - visits and interviews with the principals and other staff members. The Joshua reports also set forth anecdotal information from students, parents, and staff (a feature present in ODM reports to a lesser extent). Joshua's reports integrated statistical data from schools profiles. They further addressed more areas of operation of the NLRSD than the ODM has addressed in its reports concerning this district. Areas in the Joshua reports included curriculum, discipline, parental involvement, staffing, student enrollment by school and in particular programs, student participation in activities, and general areas of concern. The overall findings of the Joshua reports indicated that there was a substantial amount of noncompliance by each of the districts including North Little Rock regarding their - commitments to address achievement disparities, discipline disparities, integrated parental involvement, student assignments, integrated staffing, overrepresentation in special education, and underrepresentation in gifted and advanced placement classes. 3. I am familiar with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and its charge to monitor the settlement agreement for the Pulaski County school districts. I also have some knowledge of the ODM's areas of concentration for their monitoring activities in previous years after having met with members of the ODM, staff on several occasions. Moreover, I have read the reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring that have been 2 distributed for last five years. - 4. Based upon my recollection, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring has produced written reports relating to five specific areas of .the North Little Rock School District over the last five years. These areas are racial balance, alternative schools, student participation in two of the many extracurricular activities, achievement disparity and buildings. 5. The ODM's first written published report on the North Little Rock School District was dated December 18, 1992. It was entitled 111991-92 Monitoring Report on the Alternative Schools: LRSD, NLRSD and PCCSD.\" The second written published report was dated February 26, 1993. This report was entitled \"NLRHS-West Campus 1992-93 Spirit Team Recruitment and Selection Process.\" It was completed, in part, as a result of a motion for - preliminary injunction by the Joshua Intervenors regarding the selection of cheerleaders and spirit team members at North Little Rock West campus. There have been at least two written published reports on Racial Balance dated January 12, 1994 and January 31, 1995. The next written published report was entitled \"Status Report on Achievement Disparity: LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD.\" The last written published report regarding North Little Rock was recently released on July 31, 1996 and was entitled \"Report on Elementary School Facilities in the North Little Rock School District.\" 6. This is not to say that the Office of Desegregation Monitoring has not been monitoring this District in other areas 3 since the settlement agreement simply because there is no written - report. Joshua has not completed a written monitoring report since its report of June 27, 1993, however, they have continued to monitor compliance with the settlement agreement in all three districts including North Little Rock . 7. I believe that there has been value to our monitoring every school in the three school districts. For at least two years straight, we visited every school in the North Little Rock School. I further believe that our frequent visits to these schools conveyed a sense that we would be vigilant about determining compliance with the agreements. Our visits also identified activities needed to improve compliance, not only in the North Little Rock School District, but in Little Rock and Pulaski County as well. We received feedback from principals and - staff regarding our findings in all three districts. I have read the foregoing affidavit and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __9 _d ay of August, 1996. Notary Public 1 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 9-/7-~~3 4 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES October 13, 1995 Ms. Joy Springer Mr. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Ms. Springer: 2700 POPLAR Enclosed is a report of our disciplinary referral summary by action taken. The report is a cumulative record as of June 9, 1995 for the 1994-95 school year. - Suspensions are listed in the following areas: 09 Student Assignment Class (SAC) 10 Home Suspension 11 Boys/Girls Club Suspension ~z1o ~ff.1Iiff c~ Director of Student Affairs P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 B . ., .  Ref : , DI!JOl~ Fii .E YEAft : NLRBl\u003e9S CUML'l /\\TIVE 01~ NORTH 1.ITTLE ROCK HIGH EICHOOl. - i l/i2 R- f\u003cEFERR/\\LB - ---- - -- - - - TOTl'IL- - - - ----   - -  --.. EcLt\\CK -- -- ... - - -tc  -- --NON--llLhCI\u003c -- -  - - \" CODI:: 081.:RIPTION B...._o, lHIL ar UDE:NTQ 'Hll'Al-:c---LE- - Fl'~Al .. 6 .. l 'JlAl----HAl--.li- - - H:;.H..i . \u0026;..,:J'QT-.i.L.- - -lo--~iC .. --- - - - Ot Cun~rnc wl th Studn't R 201 181 20\" 143 130 i ~ tc ~ a ~ i 7 ~ B i~3 13~ i9  i06 94 l 2 \" 47 41 6 ~ 02 Cnnf'rance w I -th Pareni'  R - - -- -fi5------l2---f - -- -- --i:O-- -- - -- 'i\u003e --- t.- -  -- a - -----;J-----Q--------------- ------- B st to s  e 7 1\" 3 3 o K 03 Confrnc with Btudnt nd P r nt R 9 6 3 M 7 ~ 3 K 2 ~ 0  a a s 3  7 4 3  t s o  0-4  Fl   - .. 0 ---------- O  -- ~  --  -  -- - -- - - ---- - 0 - -- ---- 0-*--- -- 0 - -- --- -- 0 --~-- ------ - - - ---- - ------- 8 0 0 0 N O O O  0 0 0 015 R O O O w O O O  0 0 0 \" B O O O w O o o  0 0 0  --oe-O-tW'nt ton Hall ------ - - --- -  -  - - - - - R - ---l9? t 76--2f--l2\u0026----l ? ---- --...;,:;i . ___ _,r.-4 ___ _.._ ___ __________ _ 8 l~l 122 19  04 7 2 12   ~7 LO 7 ~ 07 8tudnt WI ll H~ Up Tim R O O o w O o O  0 0 o ~ B O O O w O o o  O O O  ---- 8tudnt Placwd c,n -P.-obat Ion --- -- - -- R ----45--- -- i!l-4----tcf- ----~---;;,,!,- - ---=.,..-. -- 4.:.! - - ---4o- ---4__..._ _____________ _ B 3B 28 10  ~7 20 7 * ii 9 3  09 R 203 2i8 6~ w 219 164 5 5  64 ~4 lO  B 172 123  9  129 07 42  43 ~6 7  ~ - -H.-- 1tuw .. wnw I cm---- - - - - - ---  --------i!I,;;. 29 2 N 22---- I ! i--- - - - ------s----- --\"\"----+--1---------------- , 13 2e 26 2 .. 20 t '.? 1 .. a 7 1 .. R 45 43 ~  43 4 1 2 - 2 2 0\" 8 25 23 2 M 23 2t 2 N 2 2 0  li flc:,y/Glrl Club Susp:nlan ---- - -- . ....... -----;----ft--0-- - ----- - ------ - -0-  - ---- 0 - - - -'--\u003ci,_ _ _ .... ,_ ________________ _ Bue au ... nlan lt--'t\"'r-ea~urdy ttct,aol--------- us Rco111 .. nded Expulwlan --;.-- - Ottnor -- ------ l7 11,.11llan a o o o .. o o o  o R 20 i9 i w i2 il 1  B 0 8 B 18 17 t  12 S\\ l\" 6 6 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. R 29-4 20!5 89  S.69 lt.i-!---1!Fl '---f,li!t!!l!5;.---~9'i'~-.;.---;,hi!--~------------- B 209 i36 73  1 2 0 ~i. -49  1~9 R 4 4 0 w  4 0 N 0 a 4 4 o \" 4 4 o  o o:S (\u003e 0 0 ., ---- - --- ---R---26--- 2l---6 ----  iii! a:'i~ --   -- ----- -2 - -----------i---------------- 0 24 19 ~  22 1~ 4  2 i l w A 4 4 0 w  4 0 N O O O tt 8 4 4 0 N 4 4 0 N O O O N - -   - - --- -- - ------------'l\"'O-- Rfi'.FERR,l,t;a-------'l'-,--- -95l-- - Q--\u0026f.15-----.....,.- - i....,_. _ .. - -~\\'!.,..__-.;,.. ,.. .::. .__ _. .,_..----------------- TOTAL STUDENTS---- 83~ 6~2 183 tt Si,6 ' 432 i ~ 'I \" ;;,9 ~~-o .. ,9 ... ---  - . . ------ -------------- ----------- - ---- - - -------- - - ----- - ---- -- -- --- -- ---------------------------- tt----- -- -- - -- - ----- ------------ - - - - - - ----------- - ------ - -------------- - --  ,, \"' ----------------------- ---- --------------- ------------------------------------------------ . ------ -- - ------ -- - ---------- - ---- - --- ----------- ---------------------------- - - - - ----------- ------- - -- ---- ---- ---- - - --------------- --- - -- -- -- ---------------------- - --- - - - -------------- ----  - ----........ -- --- ...,1----- ---- - ------------- --- ------------------------- - -------- - - --------- ------------ --------------  Ref, , DIU01 .5. F II. E r'EAF~ , NL.l~BlY~ CLIHUI..ATIVE 013 NORl.H l . ITlLE ROCK Hl~H 6CHOOL  \u003c\u003e9/10 F\u003c   REFl'RR/\\Lfl COl\u003ett hl!:8Cft I F-r I UN 8-... Cl UAt . f'I I UDl;.HTfJ 0l with Gtudnt 02 0:1 Con1'rnc wl th Studer,t and Pa, en1: 0-4 oa Detwntlr,n Hall 07 Student Will Hak Up 11~ oe  8tudnt Placed on  0Prohe  lan 09 Studnt \"'--nt ClaaaC\u0026IIIC\u003e 1--to - - - eu.,....,., \". ll B\u003ev  /Clr l Club Suepanlon R 97 63 34  66  6 2 0,. 31 9 86 ~5 31 tt ~9 40 J ,, N ',,,l.7 17 i. -4 .. l2 \" R - S\"' --- 10 --   .. .. -  ~2-----9---- -i'l---- 2 --- --i ~ ---if------- - ----- ----- 13 14 so 'I ,. 12 9 :J,. 2 1 i \" R  9 3B 11 ,. ~!5 ~6 9  \\  I ~ 2  B 44 34 10  31 23 a 13 11 2  R i'i. 14   -'?   ~.5 - - - --+-   \u003c!r- .., -----6- - --- S----l--------- - - -- ----------- - - -- 8 ~1 14 7 N ~~ 9 6 - 6 ~ i N R 64  7 17  47 39 12  17 12 l5  a 5a  s 1 7   i ~,;, 12  17 ~ l5  -Fe  .. 1.096-- .. ---13.5 3!ii'I - *   - ? ;\u003e-~ ----9\u0026---- ~------~--~ ~,._-______________ _ U ~92 31~ 180  339 203 136  J~3 109 ~~\" R 6 3 3  4 1 3  2 2 O \" B 6 3 3   ~ 3  2 2 0  A -- f'\u003eB  ,,, -  115  - . .. . ii() - - - - - -H--  --9--:;us-----9 .. ----4..-.. _ a ~- 39 1~  30 21 ,  2  1a R 669   7\"' 19~ tt tsO   I 3  11 lf;6 w 1-!.!5 ! l:;\u003e6 e 3~~ 232 li2  ~~7 \\ 1~? ea w ?7 7 3  - .... - - A -- -i4H - - -  87 --   -- f. - - -----  -----\u0026fl---+----.4-a------.'\"-,._ _ -;--.-- ------- ------ a 7:S 62 S.3  47 3 1 i O  2 8 ! 2!5 R 79 ~~ 24  67 ~lJ t9 ~ 12 ' 7 8 64. 4~ 22 N ~3 :56 17  11-~ 6 ::s \"  - --- - ----- A - -0 ---- -- \u003c\u003e --- - ----- ----- - ~\u003e- - --- - O-----O- --- -Q- ---\u003c\u003e_.~ - - - ----------- B O O O  0 U O  0 l:I 8uw Buepnalan R 13 11 2  10 9 1  3 B 12 iO 2 * 9 13 1 ~ 3 0 2 2 0 .. i .. i .. 1--,....---,alt  ~rd..., -tk:hoa l ----------     - - - -- -~- -- !5tcd - --- i5  '1-- --6,..__..._07 26!0 f.--2-- -~'6------'i~--..+.--------------- B 297 i9f l06  226 137 09\" 71 !;4 17  Ui R 2 2 0  2 ~ O  O O O M Q 2 2 0 M 2 ~ () - 0 0 0 M --;.-ath.r -- ----  - - - --- ---- --- -   - - - - - ---fl -  20'- --ti39 - --65   -  ib7- ----i0=! ----6-- 7 ;,.,_ _ ... ,...-_.. ______________ _ B 1153 100 153 tt 11.3 70 \u003c11 :s  ... 0 :JO 10 \" 17 EPullon R :J 2 1  2 .l I.  i .1 0 \"' B 3 2 1 N 2 1 l M l l O M t---  - - -  ---- -  - - ----T0TM;- ftt!:Fe:~--t:t---~'1'6---2066  --9f 1  -tt - 220-4 --1\\-- 'IA- --- '?5'6---lli! --- fSfl~.+.l-=s----- ------------ T01.AL STIIDENTel-- 17:,::s t.i-4? :\"17l, * 12:,10 7e1 ::.  'l:':i \" 4'1!5 3l,... 1., 1  - ----  -   - - - ----  ---- ----.. - - --... - - -- - - .. ... . .. ... - .... ----- --- - -- -- - - - - ------ - --- ------- --------------- 1------ - - - - - - ---- - ----------- - ------- ---- ----- - -- ---------  -- - - ---- - --- ---- - ------------------------- - - -- ----------- --- . - ..... -- - - - --------  . _ ,, -- -- --  - - ---- - -- ---------- .... ---- ------ - . .. - ---- - .. -- -   . - -- - - - ---- ---- -- ---- --- - ------ ---------- --------------- ------  - -- -- - - - - ---------- -- --- - ----------- - --- ----- - ----- --- - - --- - - - ---- - -------- ------ .. ---------------------- It----- --   --. -    - -- --- ---- ---  - ------ ---- ------  -\"-- -  -----  ----\"- - - - - - - - ---------- .. - . ---- --------  Rt : j OJHOj .J. FJI i;_ ,E. Af~ , \u003c811'15 CllHUL,,TIVE 020 ,,._ l\"l,RNATIVE CENTER - i::l.1:HE,~TA \u003c l' R-  REF HRF\u003cALB   - -- l oTAL--     - N      --  Etl.r.CI\u003c --  -  - --  - -NON EtL-.CI\u003c -- --\" COl\u003eE IIESC\"I,.TIUN e~AC;\"I UAI. STUDENTe TOTril. HfllL e - FE_H ... l.E*\"f O'f\"';---+fN-:E--f-r.H,t,LE\u003c\u003effH-.a.L Hi1lLE - -F:H,i,l:E=-- - - - ------------- 01 C1.,11 frnc with Ytudnt r~ o o 0 M O O O M O 0 6 .. a o o \" 02 C1.,n'frnc  WI th Prn1\" -  - - o  -- - -o - 0 M O ( ) 0 M O O ? M --o-,. - -\u0026- ---- 0---- - -0 ------~----e-1,..~-------------- B O 0 \u003c\u003e N O O OM O O O 4 03 Ct\u003enfrnc with l3tudent Htid Prnt R \u003c\u003e o () M O i) 0 M O O ()  t a o o 0 N O I) \\) H O {\u003e 0 .. o .. F-r lvl lv Denied  - R O  0   O  ,.  O --- --- -.:) ----  \u0026 --   0 ---------\u003e----- - ------------- a o o \u003c\u003e M O D O  0 0 0  OS Bhavlar Contract R 0 o 0 M O O \u003c\u003e M O O O \" 13 0 0 0 M O O O  0 0 0  - \"()6 - l)tntlon Hall  - -  R -    O -  O -- \u003c\u003e . ..   0-----~-----0----  0-----.... ---~----------------- ~) 0 0 0 N O () () M O () 0 M 07 8tudnt Will Hk Up 11~ R O 0 0  0 \u003c\u003e O  0 0 0  a o o (). 0 () 0 N O O Off 09 9tudnt Plcd on  ,...,.obatlon R   \u003c\u003e -  o - 0 ... - 0 --  - --0------0----.-   0- -- --0----0-------------------- B O 0 ()  0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 M 09 81udn't Alvn,...ni Cl\u003cBAC) R O 0 0 * 0 U O ,. 0 0 0  B o O \u003c\u003e  0 o O ,. 0 0 0  ~O-- 8uwpnlon--- -   --  --  ----- --- R - - le--  -\u003c   -   --- ... - - ~ - - - --.\u003e- --------- . 0 ---~----\u003ci------------------ B 1 0 1  1 0 l M O O 0 ll 8'\u003eys/Clrl Club l:luspnslon R O 0 0 M O O O N O O O tt 8 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 \" 0 0 0 N -t~ --1'lt School Sup  IC-6, R -   O  -o 0 * 0 ---- - --- -- - 0-  0 ------ - -0 ------- -....--0-----0--.----------------- B O \u003c\u003e 0 M O O O M O O O \" 13 811  auspenelon R o O \u003c\u003e w o n o  o o o B O 0 \u003c\u003e  o n o  o o o .. 1--1~--1_11.,tvrday Br.hoot ---   - --- - - -- - --- - - - - O -- -- -- O -\u003c -  - --  -\u0026 - - ------~- - - - - ~...------o - ---.-. ----------------------- a o o (1 M O O O ,. 0 0 0  lS Rac....,_ndd EPullon R O O 0 M O O O M O O O ff B O O () M 0 0 () M 0 0 0 tt -;-  Oth...-   - ---- -  ----- -- R - -   0 -- O - - -  0 - ...  \u003c\u003e-   - -- - ,\u003e---- -- 0 - - - --0 - ----~---~---------------- B o O 0 w O D O  0 0 0 ff 17 11!:pulslone R O 0 0 0 0 0 N O U O  0 0 0 \" 0 .. 0 0 6 .. 0 0 0 .. ------- TO\"I\",._._. ~f'-ll!:RR1'l:-- --- - - -t------- O - - 1 -tt --- ---------0 l 11 --- \u003c\u003e- ----\u003e---....._._ _______________ _ TOTAL BTUDENTB---- 1 O 1 M l O 1  0 0 0 .. I----- - - . - - -- . - - ------------- - . ---------- - ----- -- ----- - --- - ----- -------- --- ---------------------------- ,___ - - -- --- -  - -- ---- -- -------- - - --- ---------- - - . ----  - - . - -  -  .... -- - --- . -------- - --------- --- - - --------------- --- . - -- - ---------- ------ . -- ------------- ------- - -- -- -- . ----- --- - ---- - -- ---- -------------- -- - - - . -- --------- ------ ------ -- -- - '  - -- . - -- -  -----------------  ----------- ------- --- -.  ---- .. - ----- .... .. - --- -- -- --- - - - ----- --------- - - - __, _ .  - - - --- ----- - -- ------- ----- --- -- - - - --- --- -- -- - - - - Rw1 : OIHOS JSL DI ,.c Ip l In., y t\u003cwf.,.el fl umot y FJlE YEAR : NLRS095 Act lon rlcen CUHULATIVE 021 ALTCRNATIVE CEN.fEF\u003c BECONl\u003eAF\u003cY R- REFfcRRALS  --TOl AL.--- -----   -------- EoLACI\u003c - - - - - -- ----- --NON-ltLACI\u003c  - - ----,. COi'\u003e DESCRl~TION 8MAc,uAL t!ITUDt!.HT1S Tl]TAl_ - H ... Lt! l'E.HM:E..-'1-0TAL----HM..::E r1: 11. ..L Eto'FeTT'\"'\"'\"1L.c:---il~\"\"ML.::iEE..---FF.'tiEl::tt1.\" \".'=.L ::iEF---....- -------------- 0t 02 03 oa Cun'frnc wl th Stu.dnt Con'feruc Mith Utuden t nd P r nt ~rlvllev Denied R 5 a  3 2  3 3 2 l. l \" l 0 l .. .. l 0 i - -- R --- --~- --- -  1-- - - - - - ~ - ----1-----e..-..----\u0026-----~-----e ........ ---------------- 8 t s o t 1 0 .. 0 0 0 R t3 t2 1  9 0 ..  3 t .. e 1t 10 s ,. a 0  3 2 i .,  --- R  -- - 1 ---  t - -- ---O- - - - ----\u003e-- --,-.,,._--+---- --+-----e,-,,._--------------- B l l O ,. 0 R O o O ,. 0 S O O O N 0 0 0 () 0  0 .. 0 .. l 1. 0 . 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 .. --o - 1\u003etwntlon Hatt - -- ---- -------- ~ 07 cw it 115 l7 Studnt Will Hk Up Tlfflw t!J'tudwn1' r-tc:d an ,-raba  ton - u  pwnwt01-r------ Boy  /Glrle Club Bu Pnlon -l~\u0026chaal-a~fjlCf-,~llo+t--- - Bue Bu  Pnlon -1t~day ttchool---------- --  11,alelon B l l O ,. R o o o  B O O o ,. i 0 0 l () () 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 ..   - ----- R  t ---- ----0 -----+----+---e-.----\u0026-----~---.Q..---------------- B t l O ,. 0 .. 0 0 0 R 63  6 t7 tt 16 .. 6 !5 l .. B 46 32 t4,. 13  6 s i .. ----- - R 415 a~--f.------'---- -\u003e--~\u003c+--\u003e---''-------''----------------------- B :It 24 7  7 .. 3 3 0 .. R 6 5 S tt l. .. l l 0 .. a 6 ~ s ,. .. s. .. t l 0 .. - ------ -A----\u0026---- ~ - -----\u003c~-----Q--- ---0----~:\u003e------0----.Q..----------------- s 0 0 O ,. R 3 3 o tt B 3 3 o  0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 .. .. 0 t \" i 0 0 .. l 0 .. l 0 .. --------iRFt---t a---- -ta- ~-----H\u003e----+\u003ci\u003e----\u003co\u003e-.--- -31-----;a----\u003c-\u003e------------------ s 10 to o  a a 0  2 2 0 .. R   o  2 2 0  2 2 0 .. B   O  2 ~ 0 .. 2 2 0 .. - - - ---A-------- - - t ------c.  - - - -,--- --~ - --~ ... B l l Ott i l 0 .. 0 0 0 .. R e  t   3 1. .. i i 0 .. B 8  l  4 3 l  l l. 0 .. - - ---- --,-OT-.t- REFERftH::------wo-----~- -3-- - a4---!-.ta~\u003c!...---.~!W9 \u003e-4o\u003e---2-~- ---?-4.----.!li-o\"-------------- TOT ... L STUDENTS-- - - t2S 99 26  to  81 ::' :~ .. ::? i 19 3 .. --------- - - - ------- -- -- - ---- - --- - -- - - --- .. - ----- - - - --- --- ---- -- - -------- --- --- --- - ---- ,.... ________ . . - - -- - - -------- . -- --- ---- - -- - -------- ---- ---- . ------------ --- ----- - - --- --- -------- - - --- - . -- - - -- - - ----- ----- -- .. ------- - - - - ----  -------------------------------------- ----- - -------------- - ------ - - - R , , 01aot ~ FJI.E tEAn , ~Bb9S DI \"'c Ip l I nrv r-.cef.A l aununrv Et ,.. Act on--n CUHIJI \"TJVE 024 HIDGEf\u003cUAD HIDDLE GCHC.JOL R REFfi RRAL!3 -  - -  - -  rOTAL------ ----- - - r.L.ACI\u003c --- --- - -N -- --NONBLACI\u003c -  conE DF.BCAJ~TJON S-ACIU,..l, 9TUDP.:NT13 TOTAi, H/IILE FF.HAI Ettl\"OT~-tt11ot::E FCtl,.,I .. E..-'fG'f-M;---t-tM::E --~-t?H#'.t:l~-------------- Ol C,\u003enfrenc \"'I 'th Student R 1J\\ 48 36 M ~,9 :41 :.?l3 tt :.?S I 7 0 \" 8 64 30 34  4S 19 26 N 1.? fl 8  02 - ft'  -.- !, - -  -- 22 - - - 72 --- - !~?-------f\"\"l - - --,-a-.--- i.0------+1----e---------------- a ~IJ 19 iY tt ~~ 1~ 12 tt ~~ 7 7 ~ o::s R 17 9 a Ll \"' 7\" 6 ~ 1.  G 17 9 a tt ll 4 7  6 ~ l \" 04 I'\u003c l O :I   -t - t\"~ - - ---t----- -O------O------e----------------- S l o 1  l o 1  o o o  OS R 1 0 l  l O i  0 0 0  B 1 O IN l O 1N O O Ow :  !f~ 1.1; ---~:-: -- t~------~1- - - -;~-: --~:---....;,:;,w_3'l----tl-t63-.,.. ,_ _____________ 07 Eltudent WI ll Hake Up Tl11te R 2 2 O  2 ~ O  0 O O  B 2 ~ (}  2 2 0  0 0 0  -oa - etudent ~lcd un l\"\"rablan R  - -   0- -  0 ---0 ....... --$--- -  (  - ------- 4;9._----88---------------------- B O O O w O o O N O O O  09 R 436 2::13 183 tt :ns'I' 1.31 l~B \" 177 S22 !~S \" B 21B 126 B~  130 73 ~7 M 0::1 ~3 32  ------  --- A - -- Ul1   - 1.06- --?~---- :l-33 -----7.,;\u003e---\u003c\"rt--.... 1381------ac, _-+_,_ _____________ _ B 10? 60 4? N 79 4L 30 w 30 19 Ii ll R 3~ 26 \"/  22 IH 4 N 11 a 3  9 30 23 \"1 N 20 j6 4 N iO 7 ~\" ~-.-t 8choot  8u--it(-t  - - - - --     ---   - - - R - - -   O O -- -  0 . ... ____ ______ ___ ~\u003e - -----0- -- ----Q-\"---'--v----v-,_ _____________ _ B O O O  0 0 0  0 0 0 \" t3 8u S\u0026\u0026Pnlan R 11 7 4  lO 7 3  l O l\" ~.--.-~urday echa~n-1.1--------- . _____- -=--t~~---S:--6:-:__a:_ ___ 3 ~---\",3_'-\u003c,.__ _ .,.a1----i~oe----P.i1.-.\". -------------- 8 106 '50 eit..  68 30 3B \" ~18 ;.\u003eO i 8 us Rcaa11tndd Expulsion R o O o  0 o O \" 0 0 0  S O O O  0 0 0 w O O O  --- - - ~ - ---tU- - - Si   ----El~    66 ---iilf.l  -- S-8-- H5----t-3-------\u003c--------------- S ~... 30 2~ .. 42 ::a\u003c, :?2  1.2 10 2 .. 17 Expulsions R i i O i 1 \u003c\u003e 0 0 ON B l 1 0  i 1 O  0 0 0  - --- - -- -- -------- - TOT.-.t- ftef't!:ftftH.;\u0026------1.-1. r?----685-- --49~- ---,''!f-9-----41 a --- 36-t:------398 267 TOT\"'L STUDENTS----- 7615 42\\5 ::S40 \" 15J 1 ' 270 241. \" 2~\u003c'1 1t,:5 i~------------------ '19 .. f--- - --- -  -------- --- - - ------- - - -- -  -------------- ------ -- -------- -- ---- - -------------------------------------- - -  ---- - --- ---- ------- ------- .. ------------- ----   .. ------------- a-----  --- - --- -------- - - ---  ------ --   - - - ---- ---- -  - -   - --- -- - --- -- - --------  -  -- -------------- -t------ -- ------------------------------ ------ - .. - -- -------------------------- . . --  .. --------- --- - -------- - -------- -    - . . - - - ----- --- ------------ ------- -------- ---- --- - --------- - - - - - - --- -- - ----- - Rf , D180S .58L Fll.E YEAR I NU~8D9:5 CUHULATIVE 02!3 I. AKEWODD HIDDLE\" SCHOi.iL -,1'09/9:S R- REFE,RRALB -  ---- --- TOTAL--- ---- -  - ----- -BLACl\u003c ----- - - --- -----NON- \u0026LACK- --- __ ,. CODE DESCRIPTION  \u0026ACTUAi:- STUD\"NTIS TMTl\\l~---HM:t!'\" ---- ~!:Hlllt:1! .. TOTnt;;---=:e--f\"eHnt:eto-'f'O'l''l'~,._,tL=--tl1ilAAtL:tE~---11f'-'f!E~l111,,,,,t:L:tE::-\"...------ ---------- 01 02 03 0:5 C~nfrnc Nlth Btudnt --oa- Detent Ian tta t t 07 --oe 09 ll Poys/C.lrls Club 8usplitnlon R 53 33 20  ::S9 2 :5 l .6  l\"' 10 .. .. a  6 29 17.. 3\"' 2t 13\" 12 ---- -- ft ---:s 2 ---t  . 2 e ~ .. :t B 3 2 l  l O 1  2 2 0 .. Parent R 2  B 6  1.0 5 ~ -  .J 1 a 1  a 6  ,o ~ 5\"  3 l \" .. - - ---  - --- ft -  - \"1.--- ---0 - - - t -- - ----1,------ -\u003c, -\u0026-._--- ----- ---,,._.---------------- 8 l O 1 M l O l  0 0 0 .. R 6 2   :5 1 4  i 1 0 .. B 6 2 4  :5 l 4  l l 0 .. -   '  -- -  - -- ft- - -T:?-----\"41!, .. -\"21!,(t -~.,\"1\u003e---~22'17'!~.,_-~2~(71'6-\"ilNt----5!2\".J-~0,-----1;~t---,M!.....,,._.-------------- 8 29:S l68 12~  11-11 ;\u003e1~ 93 ,. l 1.2 70 -42 M R 2 1 1  2 1 l  0 0 0 .. a 2 1 1 ,. 2 1 1 ,. o R -  - - 1.:t--- --  9  - .... -  -- 't.- ~ ----.+-.....-- -=.\u003c\u003e-- ----------0-- ------------- 8 13 9   ll ? 4 2 ~ 0 .. 2 0 .. R 187 138 49  144 97  7  43 .. , 2 .. e 110 e5 33,. 07 56 31.. 31 29 2 .. .. --- --- -- -ft--26----- -i: -- --------- l5 _____ __,-,-------------------------- s 19 l  5  12 a 4  7 6 S: .. R 29 15 l  M ~2 0 14 N 7 7 0 .. B 19 ll B  13 5 ~  6 \"' 0 .. l---t:::t--tt- -t1chaat-a-c1\u003c-a-,---- ------ --- - - - ------ R- ---~ --------o ---- e -- - ----0-------,~ \u0026-- ----e----\u0026------------------- e O O O  0 0 0  0 0 0 .. R 27 17 lO  23 14 9 w 4 :1 l e 27 17 10,. 23 14 9  - \"' --------ta, da .,- 8chau 1- --------- -- - ------\"--t1 'l\"?-----85 49 - --_.!_, -,..-----a+----e\u0026------.1,-.--------------- 3 l .. B 9:5 :59 36  67 ~l 30  28 ::!2 6 .. UJ R 2 l lM 2 I l 0 0 0 .. S 2 l 1 w 2 l 1 ,. O 0 0  -- -- --   -  ft-  - -6~--- - - - -~4----lB ... -   49- ---- EIS.----1:,,._.-- .l a------1Hil-----t---o ..... -------------- S \"'\"' 32 12  3:5 2  11  9 e l .. 17 R O O O  0 0 0  0 0 0 .. e o o o .. o o o ,. o 0 0 .. - - ----- - TOT~f\"t!:,-fttf'\"t.,._\"-ILL11111---- ---~2d'l\"---eso--.....a? - --'9\u0026o-- ___....s.,.~--aff--tt---l:!lot-------liets-----..:.,,,1,-..... ------------- TOTAL STUDENTS--- 702 438 264 t0 4fl'4 270 206 \" 218 l,',O :;a .. t------------------ -- ------------- t------------------------ - - --- --------------- ----- - - --------------------------------------------- ,_ __________ __ . --- ------ ----- - - ------------------- ---- ------ ---------------- -- -------------------------- --------- ------- --------------------------- --------- - - --- ----------------- ------------- - ------------- - --------- ---------- - - - ----- -------- ---------------. -- -------  ------ ----- ------ ---- ---- ------ - -- -- --  \u003e----------- --- -- - -- --- --- - ----- - -- - -- - ------------ ------ --- -- ----- - ----- - --- - - - ---- - - - -------------------- --------- - ----------- ----- - - - - ---------- - - - --- - -------------- --- ------- -------- - - --- - ------- - -- -- -- ------ ------ - ----- - ---------- ----- --- ------ ------------ -------------  ... ... --- --  - - --- - --. -- - ------- - -- - - ---  ------ ------- --- ----------------- .. .   - - --- --  ---------- ----- - - -- ---------- -- - -- ----- -- ----------- Ref : ' DlBOl- Fll E \u003cEAR : NU'\u003cSD9:S CUHULi\\TIVE 026 HOBE CITY HlVDLE SCHOOL CODE DESCR?PTtnN Ol 02 - cc,n'f'rnc wl th Prnt - -- c,,nfranc with atudent f\"rlvllv Dnld 9.t,avlor Contract - -oa---- Dtantlan Hll -------- 07 Student Will Hak Up lime Dt10c:lplln y R-nl !.um,narv ,,c i I on T. k ., .. f\"\u003c- r\u003cEFE:RRA "}],"pages":{"current_page":24,"next_page":25,"prev_page":23,"total_pages":46,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":276,"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}}]}}