{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1641","title":"Court Filings concerning motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats, court proceedings on settlement agreement, and incentive schools","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":["1996-08-02/1996-08-09"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Education and state","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School employees","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats, court proceedings on settlement agreement, and incentive schools"],"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/1641"],"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":["24 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to clarify the court's orders of June 15, 1993, and July 14, 1993; District Court, response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to motion to intervene as defendants; District Court, separate response of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to the answer of intervenor school districts to the second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to respondent Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for abstention; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) brief in support of response to respondent Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for abstention; District Court, amendment and supplement to the second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, three motions for extension of time; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Joshua's motion for implementation of recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Joshua's motion for relief concerning incentive schools; District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Joshua's motion for relief concerning incentive schools and to Joshua's motion for implementation of recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplement to motion to modify desegregation plan dated July 30, 1996  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 AUG ~ 1996 Office of Desegregation Moni1orm9 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS MOTION TO RELEASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL KINDERGARTEN SEATS AND FOUR-YEAR-OLD PROGRAM SEATS The Little Rock School District (LRSD), for its Motion To Release Incentive School Kindergarten Seats and Four-Year-Old Program Seats, states: 1. The LRSD engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts during the 1995-96 school year as it prepared for registration for the 1996-97 school year. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a partial listing of those recruitment efforts conducted by the district. Additionally, the information contained in the district's quarterly program planning and budget document status reports and project management tools serve to supplement this listing . .. 2. Although the recruitment efforts yielded positive results, seats still remain vacant in the LRSD's four-year-old program as well as the kindergarten level in the incentive schools. 3. Taking into consideration the importance of reserving seats for the recruitment of white students, the LRSD made special efforts during the recruitment season to register as many new white students as possible into these programs. Since seats still remain vacant, LRSD submits that the vacant seats should now be released to black students who can benefit from the educational opportunities which will be provided. By doing so, the district is not retreating from its obligation to continue to vigorously recruit white students into the designated schools. Rather, the LRSD is merely recognizing the importance of disparity elimination through early childhood educational opportunities. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a copy of the LRSD fouryear- old assignments and kindergarten assignments for the 1996-97 school year as of July 10, 1996. 5. The LRSD will continue its vigorous recruitment efforts and will determine what adjustments are necessary and appropriate to ensure that the impact of this action on future year enrollments can be minimized to the greatest extent possible. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District moves the court for an order permitting it to release the vacant seats at the kindergarten level in incentive schools as well as the vacant seats at the four-year-old program sits as reflected by the attached exhibit; that it be awarded all legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. btbyll.RSD-lac.Fau, 2 Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ( 501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Plaintiff Christopher He Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion To Release Incentive School Kindergarten Seats And Four-Year-Old Program Seats has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 1st day of August, 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 172 3 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 bllQ,ILRSD-Inc.F..., 3 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 bll,y\\LRSO.lnc.Four 4 November 1, 1995 To: From: Re: JULY Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment Becky Rather \u0026 Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Recruitment Report, 1st Quarter, 95-96 Developed ad for Kid's Directory featuring Incentive Schools, CARE, 4-year-old program and registration dates. Met monthly with PTA Council. Mailed letter to all white students on 4-year-old waiting lists offering available seats. Mailed 84 letters to ministers, including registration flyer. Sent memo to principals about open house dates. Sent memo to principals listing upcoming recruitment dates and opportunities. Participated in PTA Summer Leadership conference discussing public relations and newsletters. AUGUST Worked with Pat Price to develop, typeset and print new generic 4-year-old brochure. Spent two days placing registration posters throughout city at grocery stores, housing projects, medical offices. Department of Human Services, etc. Put individual school recruitment plan outlines on disks and offered to all schools who requested them. (Some wanted to continue using hard copy outlines and a typewriter.) Participated in Governor's Press Conference proclaiming Arkansas Public School's Week. Met with Quapaw Realty. Participated in PTA Council pre-schoo,l workshop. Met with McKay Realty. Gathered and delivered Parent Involvement information to five incentive schools. Participated in booth on LRSD at African American Heritage Celebration at Philander Smith College. Met with new magnet coordinator and principal at Henderson on recruitment ideas. Met with Rightsell on setting up Parent Involvement. Held Open Houses in all schools. Met with Franklin on recruitment. SEPTEMBER Held brainstorming/planning sessions ~ith new Director of Student Assignment. Secured home owners association lists from City hall. Sent memo to Principals on recruitment training session. Met with Geyer Springs recruitment ream. Gathered lists of names of recruitment team members from each school. Worked with Connie Whitfield, Advocates for Children, in identifying target neighborhood with low parental involvement and Kids at risk. Mitchell Incentive was selected. Worked with Rector, Phillips, Morris Realtors. Worked with ReMax Realty. Worked with Winrock Development Company, (Real Estate Developers) Worked with Janet Jones Realty Participated in two meetings with Pulaski County Parents (one South and one North of the river.) Revised Recruitment Timeline Calendar. Julie Wiedower represented office in Magnet meeting. Recruitment training meeting with principals (especially new principals) and recruitment team leaders. Met with Washington recruitment meeting. Met with Dodd recruitment team. Met with Parkview recruitment team. Revised recruitment timeline calendar. Conducted tours for 21 families from July through September. - - Jan. 5, 1996 To: From: Re: Oct. 2 Oct. 3 Oct. 3 Oct. 5 Oct. 5 Oct. 6 Oct. 10 Oct. 11 Oct. 11 Oct . 12 Oct. 16 Oct. 16 Oct. 16 Oct. 17 Oct. 17 Oct. 17 Oct. 18 Oct. 18 Oct. 19 Oct. 19 Oct. 20 Oct. 23 Oct. 24 Oct. 25 Nov. 6 Nov. 6 Nov. 7 Nov. 7 Nov. 9 Nov. 9 Nov. 10 Nov. 10 Nov. 14 Nov. 14 Nov. 15 Nov. 21 Nov. 27 Nov. 27 Nov. 30 Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment Becky Rather, Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Recruitment activities, second quarter 95-96 Assist Henderson recruitment team Work with Incentive schools on reports due Work with Rector Phillips Morse Realty Participate in Arkansas Business Expo Work with Central recruitment team Assist Baseline recruitment team Attend PTA Council at Bale Attend program at Rockeferler Attend meeting on pre-registration brochure All individual school recruitment plans due Contact Connie Whitfield for parent involvement at Mitchell Meet with Booker recruitment team Meet with Rockefeller recruitment team Meet with Franklin recruitment team Assist Otter Creek recruitment team Assist Badgett recruitment team Meet with Dodd recruitment team Memo to principals requesting private school directories . Attend team meeting at McClellan Deliver information to McKay Realty Mail letters/ flyers to Neighborhood Associations. Assist Cloverdale Junior High team Assist Gibbs team Attend meeting with Mabelvale Jr. team Attend Henderson team meeting Assist Adkins, McNeill, Smith and Assoc. King recruitment team meeting Presentation to the \"Good Ole Girls Ne.t work\" Assist Rector Phillips Morse Realtors Meet with Washington Team Assist Adkins, McNeill, Smith and Assoc. Assist Rector Phillips Morse Realtors Attend PTA Council at Forest Park Meet with J.A . Fair recruitment team Bi-monthly recruitment survey due from all schools Evening meeting with 6th grade parents at Second Presbyterian Church. Assist Henderson recruitment team Assist Mann recruitment team Meet with Melissa Guildin, ODM Dec. 1 Dec. 1 Dec. 4 Dec. 5 Dec. 6 Dec. 7 Dec. 8 Dec. 12 Dec. 12 Dec. 13 Dec. 19 Presentation to Secretaries meeting on Magnet schools Assist Charlotte John realty Assist with two special tours at Mann Assist with two special tours at Forest Heights Assist with two special tours at Dunbar Assist with two special tours at Henderson Assist with two special tours at Pulaski Heights Attend PTA Council Washington Report to Biracial committee Assist Garland team Prepared Open House flyer for Garland Provided tours to 46 families during this quarter. June 3, 1996 To: From: Re: Nancy Acre, Director of student Assignment Becky Rather, Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Recruitment efforts for third quarter 95-96 Jan. 2 Held Registration training meetings with all school secretaries Jan. 8 Provided private school mailing labels to Magnet Review Committee, schools upon request. Jan. 9 Attend PTA Council at Mann Jan. 9 Participated in 6th grade recruitment for Junior High at Terry Jan. 9 Participated in 6th grade recruitment for Junior High at King. Jan. 12-13 Participated in Park Plaza Mall Show Jan. 15 Bi-Monthly recruitment survey due in from all schools. Jan. 16 encourage Jan. 16 the city. Mailed letters to all P-4s on waiting list to Kindergarten registration. Mail letters to churches and daycares throughout Jan. 16 Sent private school lists to all area schools. Jan. 16 Picked up PCSSD labels for incentive schools. Jan. 18 Held special tours for parents of 6th graders to Junior Highs. Jan. 19 Mailed 2,000 pre-registration brochures to private school students. Jan. 22 Open House, Incentive and Interdistrict Schools Jan. 22 Met with Early Childhood Advisory Committee. Provided pre-registration information and posters. Jan. 23 Presentation to Charlotte John Realtors Jan. 23 Mailed registration brochures to 25,000 LRSD households. Jan. 23 Presentation to HIPPY parents at McClellan Jan. 23 Open House, Elementary Magnets Jan. 24 Open House, Secondary Magnets Jan. 24 Assist Wilson School Recruitment teams. Jan. 24 Provide Assistance to Caldwell Banker Realtors Jan. 29-Feb. 2 CHECK US OUT WEEK! Jan. 29 Open House, Elementary Area Schools JAN. 29 Display posters throughout the city. Jan. 29 Assist Fair Park Recruitment Team Jan. 30 Open House Secondary Area Schools Jan. 30 Presentation to HIPPY Horne Visitors Jan. 31 Participated in Dunbar Recruitment Program Jan. 31 Display posters throughout the city in housing projects, grocery stores, day care centers, etc .. Feb. 1 Feb. 5 Iniervice Secretaries on pre-registration Pre-registration open through Feb. 16. Feb. 5 - Feb. 6 Feb. 12 Feb. 13 Feb. 14 Feb. 19 Feb. 19 Feb. 20 Feb. 27 Feb. 29 Mar. 1 Mar. 7 Mar. 11 Mar. 12 Mar. 12 Mar. 12 Mar. 14 Mar. 15 Mar. 26 Mar. 27 Provided quarter. Assist Caldwell Banker Realty Give Biracial report Meet with Wilson Recruitment Team Attend Open House at Metropolitan Assist Rainey Realty Participate in Early Childhood Meeting Attend Parent Involvement meeting Participate in PTA Founders Day program Speak at Bayou Mete in PCSSD Work with Mccaskell Realty Attend opening of Chicot School Parent Involvement meeting Participate in Early Childhood Fun Fest at King Attend PTA Council at Rockefeller Attend meeting of AllianFe for our Public Schools Attend program at Booker Assist national Early Childhood tour Rockefeller Bimonthly recruitment report due from all schools. Assist Wilson recruitment teams. Meet with Alliance for Our Public Schools 46 tours to individual families during this June 5, 1996 To: From: Re: Apr. 2 Apr. 3 Apr. 5 Apr. 9 Apr. 10 Apr. 1() Apr. 15 Apr. 15 Apr. 23 Apr. 24 Apr. 30 May 1 May 7 May 7\u00268 May 8 May 13 May 14 May 16 May 19 May 20 May 22 May 29 June 4 Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment Becky Rather, Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Fourth Quarter, 95-96, as of June 4, 1996 Recruitment report presented to Biracial committee Meet with Selma Hobby on obligations Notify 4-year-olds of assignments Attend PTA Council at Woodruff Assist Atkins, McNeil Realty . Attend meeting for Alliance for Our Public Schools Attend Early Childhood meeting Attend Parent Involvenent Meeting Participate in PBD audit Assist Rector Phillips Morse Realty Assist Dodd with recruitment Attend meeting for Alliance for Our Public Schools Assist Caldwell Banker Realty Show and Tell in all LR schools Provide 25 Realtor packets for Atkins, McNeil Attend Parent Involvement Meeting Attend PTA Council at Carver Attend reception at Mann HIPPY graduation Attend Early Childhood meeting Attend meeting for Alliance for Our Public Schools Assist Janet Jones Realty Make report to Biracial Committee Recruiters provided tours to 37 families during the first two months of this quarter. With each family the recruiters provide tours to an average of 3 to 4 schools, depending on the number cf children, grade levels, requests and time allowed. Most of our concentration is with residents moving into the city. Most local residents prefer to tour schools on their own time. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUR YEAR OLD ENROLLMENT 1996-97 Enrolled Waiting List / TOTAL 360 242 6021 118 59. 80% 870 58 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ASSIGNMENTS AT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1996 -97 Enrolled Waiting Lis 18 18 ..  :5i4s 36 18 36 720 SCHOOL BL NBL TLT Vacancies %BLACK BL NBL CAPACITY FRANKLIN 70 5 75 25 93.33% 21 0 100 GARLAND 22 4 26 14 84.62% 11 0 40 MITCHELL 27 1 28 12 96.43% 12 0 40 RIGHTS ELL 24 2 26 14 92.31% 15 0 40 ROCKEFELLER 29 28 57 3 50.88% 44 0 60 TOTAL 172 40 212 68 81 .13% 103 0 280 - - - - -- - - HERSCHEL H . FRIDAY C1122 1114J WILLIAM H . SUTTON, P. A . JAMES W. MOORE IYRON M . EISEMAN , JR., P. A .  . BELL, P. A . C . ECHOLS , P. A . S A . BUTTRY, P.A . ERICKS . URSERY , P. A . H . T . LARZELERE, P. A . OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR ,, P. A. JAMES C. CLARK , JR ., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P . A . PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill. P. A . .,,.,,. LARRY W. BURKS , P.A. - A . WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR ., P.A . JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P. A . J . PHILLIP MALCOM, P. A . JAMES M . SIMPSON, P. A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT , P.A . JAMES M . SAXTON, P.A . J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111, P. A . DONALD H. BACON, P. A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P. A . WALTER A . PAULSON 11, P. A . BARRY E. COPLIN, P. A. RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR, P. A . JOSEPH 8 . HURST, JR ,, P. A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P. A . CHRISTOPHER HELLER , P .A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH , P. A. ROBERTS . SHAFER, P.A . WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill , P .A . THOMAS N. ROSE, P . A . MICHAELS. MOORE, P. A . DIANE S . MACKEY , P. A . WALTER M . EBEL 111, P. A . KEVIN A . CRASS , P. A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR ., P. A . FRIDAY, ELDR'EDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3493 TELEPHONE 601 - 3782011 FAX NO. 601-3762147 August 2, 1996 RECEIVED AUG_, 1996 Office of Dase . gresation Monitorin9 Hon. James W. McCormack Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 W. Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock~ AR 72201-3325 Re: Little Rock School District, et al vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack ! /; SCOTT' J , LANCASTER , P. A . M . QA/'ILE COPILEY , P . A . ROIERT I. BEACH , JR . , P.A. J . LEE BROWN, P .A . JAMES C . IAKER, JR . , P. A . HARRY A . LIOHT , P. A . SCOTT H . TUCKER , P . A . JOH.N CLAYTON RANDOLPH , P. A . OUY ALTON WADE , P . A . PRICE C , GARDNER , P . A . J . MICHAEL r!CKENS , P. A . TONIA P. JONES, P. A. DAVID D . WILSON . P. A . JEFFREY H . MOORE , P.A . ANDREW T . TURNER DAVID M . GRAF CARLA G . SPAINHOUR JOHN C . FENDLEY, JR. ALLISON OR AVES JOHANN C . ROOSEVELT R . CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C . HICKMAN 9ETTY J . DEMORY IARBARA J . RAND JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W . PLUNKETT WILL BONO DANIELL. HERRINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWELL o, COUNIH WILLIAM J. SMITH 8 . S . CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P. A . WILLIAM L. PATTON , JR ., P. A . un11 OlfllCT NO , (5011 370-3323 Enclosed herewith please find an original and three copies of the Little Rock School District's Motion for Extension of Time with regard to the above-captioned matter. Please file same and return a file marked copy to us. By copy of this letter we are serving all counsel of record. JCFjr/cf Enclosures cc: Mr. John Walker (w/encl.) Mr. Sam Jones (w/encl.) Mr. Steve Jones (w/encl.) Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. Mr. Richard Roachell) (w/encl.) Ms. Ann Brown (w/encl.) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger (w/encl.) Hon. Susan Webber Wright (w/encl.) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVIS-ION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 1996 RECEIVED t I ! AUG :5 1996 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL Off ice ot Desegregation Monitoring . ...:... -. DEFENDANTS ~ , , ~ .,. ..... MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ~  .\u003c1 ~ . - -.....~-,., INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion for Extension of Time states: 1. On August 1, 1996, LRSD was served with Joshua's Response to LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction (\"Joshua's Response\"). Because of the issues raised in Joshua's Response, it is necessary for LRSD to prepare a Reply thereto. 2. Due to other obligations of counsel for LRSD, including LRSD's Response to the Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief Concerning the Incentive Schools due August 9, 1996, LRSD needs additional time to prepare its Reply. Accordingly, LRSD respectfully requests that it be granted leave to file its Reply to Joshua's Response on or before August 30, 1996. 3. Based on statements made by the Court in recent hearings related to the Court's docket, it appears this matter will not be scheduled for a hearing in the near future. Thus, the additional time requested by LRSD should not result in any prejudice to Joshua or undue delay of these proceedings . WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that it be granted leave to file its Reply to Joshua's Response to LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction on or before August 30, 1996. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller John c. Fendley Jr. Friday Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial B.ldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Attorneys For LRSD B Bar No. 81083 2 I I , i i .' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE  I certify that a copy of the foregoing motion has been served on the following peo~l~ by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this-~- day of August, 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 W. 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 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown 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 Cistopher Heller 1 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRIG--T---l:JO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ij,O .. LR-C-82-866 AUG 2 1996 ~ : f'0,,,.,., Office of Desegregation Mornionuv PCS SD MOTION TO CLARI,B.Y-.!r,HE--,C..Q~'l'..-~)L 9~~RS OF JUNE 15, 1993 AND JULY 14, 1993 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On June 15, 1993 the Court approved the District's proposed restructuring of its bonded indebtedness and on July 14, 1993, the Court approved the District's plan for its early retirement incentive program. By approving the motions, the Court likewise approved the District's establishment of its desegregation contingency fund designed to help the PCSSD survive the loss of state settlement monies. The stream of payments from the State expired during the 1995-96 school year. In each order, the District Court included language, as requested by the PCSSD, exempting the savings from certain teacher salary requirements under Act 34. Act 34 was declared unconstitutional in the Lake View case and it was replaced with Act 917 of 1995 which contains new and different requirements concerning teacher salaries, including an amendment to the minimum salary law. By this motion, the PCSSD seeks clarification as to whether and to what extent the 1993 orders 1 - should exempt the savings generated by the Court approved plans from the operation of the new Act 917. The savings It is reasonably clear that the savings generated from these two court approved programs are earmarked substantially, it not exclusively, for the District's desegregation activities. It is reasonably clear that the Court did not intend for these savings to be used for increases in teacher salaries and it is reasonably clear that the District told the Court in 1993 that they would not be used to fund increases in teacher salaries. The savings are nonrecurring revenues and the District Court has admonished all three school districts against using nonrecurring revenues to fund recurring expenses. The New Law Ark. Code Ann.  6-17-1001 is the minimum base salary law as enacted by the Arkansas Legislature. Section 8 of Act 917 of 1995 amended the statute to require a minimum salary of $20,000 for employees holding a bachelor's degree with no experience and $23,000 for employees holding a master's degree and no experience. The Act further specified minimum salaries for these categories for each year ranging up to employees with 14 years or more experience. Further, the Act specifies minimum increments of $400 annually for teachers with between one and thirteen years of experience. If the PCSSD were to literally comply with these new statutory requirements, it would require an expenditure during 2 - 1996-97 of approximately $1,375,000 in additional funds for an average across the board raise for certified teachers only of 2.84%. The minimum salary law was part of Act 917, the principal feature of which was to provide the new state funding program to replace the system declared as unconstitutional in the Lake View case. Dr. Benny L. Gooden in his paper \"Arkansas School Funding Plan, An Analysis and Opinion\", dated June, 1996, has observed as regards these provisions that: In most cases, Act 917 expenditure requirements appear to be the result of a mathematically derived assumption regarding the level of expenditure which may be appropriate to support certain purportedly desired activities.  Unfortunately, there is probably little sound or reasonable basis for the expenditure levels which are contained in the act. Analysis at page 25. When the distribution of revenue earmarked for salaries was not part of the final provisions in the act, an expenditure requirement of the type found in Act 917 was retained. It is clearly inappropriate and will prove problematic if not impossible to evaluate for many school districts. In its present form, the provision is virtually meaningless and certainly bears no relationship to its purported purpose. It is clear that the salary provisions contained in this act are based upon objectives other than the equitable distribution of school funds and appear to transcend reason in an attempt to restrict the ability of local school districts in managing revenues and expenditures. Analysis at page 26. 3 The History On April 1, 1993, the PCSSD filed its motion seeking the court's approval of its early retirement program and a major restructuring of its bonded indebtedness. That motion stated at page 8 that: PCSSD needs to shield the savings in column 4 from the 56% clause in Act 34. It needs to use these savings instead as an additional source of funds to help compensate for the loss of settlement funds. At page 9 of the motion, the PCSSD promised the Court that: The money from the early retirement program and the savings from restructuring of the debt would be placed in a desegregation contingency fund to help PCSSD survive the loss of the settlement monies. on June 28, 1993, the PCSSD submitted a business case to the Court in support of the early retirement program headed: - \"Program Analysis for the Early Retirement Incentive Program\". The opening paragraph of the analysis stated in part that: The Early Retirement Incentive Program is designed to reduce personnel costs to reduce recurring expenditures. In its \"Forcefield Analysis\" section of the Business Case, the PCSSD first noted who the forces would be that would support the plan. In discussing the forces which might oppose the plan, the PCSSD observed to the Court that: Some employees may oppose the plan to the extent that it precludes application of the savings to salary increases. The District Court approved the PCSSD plan to refinance its current bonded indebtedness on June 15, 1993. In that order, the Court found that: \" the savings the PCSSD realizes from 4 - refinancing are exempt from the new revenue requirements of 1983 (Ex. Sess.) Ark. Acts 34; Ark. Code Ann. S 6-20-301, et seq. The District Court approved the early retirement incentive program on July 14, 1993 and likewise exempted the savings to be realized from it from the same statutory provisions. The clear import of this exemption is to restrict the PCSSD's use of those savings and to protect them from the operation of Act 34 which required that 56% of \"new revenues\" be paid out as teacher salaries. Of course, the Arkansas Legislature has replaced Act 34 with Act 917 of 1995. While Act 917 no longer contains the 56% \"new revenue\" provision, it has replaced that with different directives regarding the proportion of State aid that must be paid toward teacher salaries and has further amended the minimum - salary law to impose the new unfunded mandates as described above. Requested Relief To the extent that Act 917 should now be substituted for Act 34 as specified in the June 15, 1995 and July 14, 1995 orders, the PCSSD seeks the Court's clarification as to the effects of Act 917 upon the \"savings\" which the PCSSD has realized and has segregated. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this court amending and/or clarifying the June 15, 1993 and July 14, 1993 orders given the passage of Act 917 of 1995. 5 Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 --..---7 ,,,---; ( ~ By ~'; 7 . . _,~-'(___ ~ M. Samuel Jones II (76060) Attorney , for Pulaski County s~~~School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August __2-_-- , 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons: Mr. John w. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 w. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen w. Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 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 323Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Sam el )Jones _, I I : __ / 6 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; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS AUG 2 1996 CENTERPOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CLARENDON Off SCHOOL DISTRICT; COTTON PLANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; lCS of Dasegregaticn Monitoring CUTTER MORNING STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; - ~- -- DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOLLARWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; --~.-- ~ ,,.  ~... .,....,. ..,_, ~ 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; OZARK SCHOOL 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 RESPONSE OF PCSSD TO MOTION TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS 1 INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its response to motion to intervene states: 1. While the PCSSD could assert significant objections to and grounds to defeat the motion to intervene, it has elected to waive them. Accordingly, the PCSSD interposes no objection to the motion to intervene. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court which simultaneously grants the motion to intervene, designates the intervening districts as full-time defendants in this action, and which subjects the intervening defendants as appropriate to the outstanding and future orders of this Court. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ___ ?\"-_,,.----+--------- M. (76060) At ski County Sp col District 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On Au "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1649","title":"Court Filings: District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) separate response to the answer of intervenor school districts to the second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state","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":["1996-08-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) separate response to the answer of intervenor school districts to the second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state"],"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/1649"],"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":["92 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  ''  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 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 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRINKLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT; AUG 2 1996 CENTERPOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CLARENDON SCHOOL DISTRICT; COTTON PLANT SCHOOL DISTRICT;  .; :, C-p,/'\\-f ~ : CUTTER MORNING STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; Office of Oesa~regat:on M01111or,n9 DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOLLARWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; FOREMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT; FOUNTAIN LAKE - - - -- ~- ---- - ... ,,--~~,._,_J \" 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; OZARK SCHOOL 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 INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S SEPARATE RESPONSE TO THE ANSWER OF INTERVENOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS I. TO THE SECOND MOTION OF THE PCSSD TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE INTRODUCTION As will be more fully explained below, the PCSSD will demonstrate how many features of the new funding system are neither fair, rational, nor of general application when applied to it and therefore violative of the Settlement Agreement. In their response to the PCSSD motion, the Intervenors ask that the U.S. District Court specifically find: \"[T)hat the features of the new funding formula of which the PCSSD is critical are fair and rational, of general applicability, and equitably afford equal oportunities to the students of the respective districts to which the state aid is or will be distributed; ... (Answer, at page 6). The PCSSD interprets the Intervenors request to include a court finding that the new funding scheme comports with the Settlement Agreement as well as with the equity requirements of the Lake View decision. For reasons which the PCSSD will review in some detail, the new funding scheme violates both of these provisions. In his definitive work, \"Arkansas School Funding Plan, An Analysis and Opinion\" (hereafter \"Analysis\"), Dr. Benny L. Gooden1 has effectively highlighted and explained the shortcomings of the new system of funding public education in 1Dr. Gooden is Superintendent of schools of the Fort Smith School District. His analysis was published in June, 1996 or some several weeks before the filing of the motion to intervene, and is attached as Exhibit A. The Fort Smith School District numbers among the 52 school districts seeking intervention. 2 Arkansas. Dr. Gooden's analysis centers around the State constitutional concepts of adequacy, equity and efficiency, concepts, as the Court will see, that are closely related to and intertwined with the settlement agreement tests of fair, rational, and of general application2  At page 29 of his Analysis, Dr. Gooden explains: In order to determine the actual increase in state aid for public schools, it is necessary to combine all the categories of funding distributed during 1995-96 and to compare this number with the appropriated and distributed amounts for 1996-97. The 1995-96 categories will include not only those funds distributed directly to local school districts but those transferred directly to other agencies on behalf of school districts for functions which will become a local responsibility during 1996-97 .... It is therefore conceivable that the actual difference in distributed state aid will be consumed within added categories as opposed to providing an increase in the state portion of the Base Local Revenue per student which is of benefit to all districts. Thus, in the PCSSD, the increases in formula funding projected by the State, when considered in conjunction with the unfunded mandates the State has imposed upon the PCSSD, cause the PCSSD to come out worse under the new funding scheme than the old when the entire picture is examined. In his summary, Dr. Gooden concludes as regards the new funding scheme that: It is conceivable that when this methodology is followed and new categories are analyzed for items such as debt service buy-out, facilities, student growth, etc., little or no real increase in revenue from state sources will be realized. 2The PCSSD still relies upon the provisions of the Settlement Agreement which obligate the State to continue the funding of certain programs. Certain of Dr. Gooden's factual conclusions are supportive of this proposition as well. 3 In view of the total analysis of school finance and in consideration of the issues of equity, adequacy, and efficiency, it appears that none of these essential components will be achieved through Act 917:  Adequacy appears unlikely in consideration of the declining commitment of state funds to support education with the subsequent loss of comparative school funds relative to neighboring states;  Equity appears unlikely in view of the failure of Act 917 to consider student needs and school district demographics;  Efficiency may be possible through a streamlined process which mathematically distributes funds by reducing categories and standardizing a means of calculating, but any system which requires \"Additional Base Revenue\" supplements to more than 200 districts to reach an arbitrary level can hardly be called \"efficient\". Gooden, at pages 35 and 36. These and other of Dr. Gooden's conclusions will be more fully explored below. Dr. Gooden has advised each school district to make its own analysis to determine just how it is affected under the new regime. The PCSSD has taken the following Gooden advice to heart: Comparisons of actual changes in state aid between 1995-96 and 1996-97 will be somewhat complicated and will require careful analysis on the part of each individual school district. It is clear that when a listing of state aid for each district is published for 1996-97 and a comparison is made to total state aid distributed to local districts during 1995-96, a large increase will be evident. However in order to determine the real difference, it is necessary to compute the payments which become the responsibility of local districts during 1996-97 in areas which were paid directly during 1995-96. Failure to fully describe all funds distributed for use by local schools in combination with school related payments made directly by the state will distort the 4 true picture. It is important for each local district to analyze required payments as outlined in Act 917 and to make a complete summary of categorical revenues received during 1995-96 in order to determine changes in revenue resulting from the implementation of the act. Gooden, at page 35. Act 917 contains provisions which dramatically change the foundation formula concepts which govern state aid and the treatment of revenue and expenditure responsibilities for each school district and for the state as a whole. Each of these conceptual changes has an overall and specific effect on Arkansas school districts, their programs, and their students. (Emphasis supplied.) Gooden, at page 9. II. TEACHER RETIREMENT At the time of the settlement, the State paid 100% of PCSSD's teacher retirement costs. That money was not, and has - never been, part of any kind of formula, never flowed through any formula, and therefore could never have been subject to any changes or revisions in any formula. On the other hand, if in fact the State calculated a sum of money to include in the new formula by utilizing students as compared to actual individual district costs3 , the PCSSD will demonstrate that this change is neither fair, rational nor equitable. Teacher retirement costs are calculated as a percentage function of district salaries. In districts such as the PCSSD which has high employee costs, basing teacher retirement funds on a per student basis cheats the PCSSD. Under this method, the 3Dr. Gooden confirms that the state in fact utilized this approach. See Exhibit A, page 15 (box). 5 PCSSD will receive approximately only 85% of its actual teacher retirement costs for 1995-96 and, in contrast, the Bryant School District, one of the intervenors, will receive approximately 122% reimbursement or a bonus of 22% more than its actual teacher retirement costs. It is important to note that the teacher retirement program has not been eliminated. The only thing that has been eliminated is the State's direct payment of the school districts' costs. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has already made the finding that the Pulaski County districts are \"employee heavy\" and \"employee expensive\". The comparisons the Intervenors seek to make are thus both irrelevant and, at least in the case of the PCSSD, wrong. The use of certified staff comparisons necessarily fails to take into account that some of the expensive desegregation programs utilized by the PCSSD employ non-certified staff such as the home school counselors. Dr. Gooden has addressed this phenomenon of the change in teacher retirement as well as others. As he states: Some of the major changes in the manner of funding Arkansas schools will require considerable adjustment and will similarly exert a major impact on certain school districts. However, the effects will not be uniform throughout the state as the staffing patterns, demographic makeup of student population, and other factors are considered. [Emphasis added.] Gooden, at page 15. The PCSSD submits that if the effects are not \"uniform\" they cannot be regarded as \"general\" either. 6 In a provision which also substantially affects the PCSSD, Dr. Gooden has identified yet another problem: A significant and unanticipated problem associated with teacher retirement lies in retirement contribution for food service employees, adult education staff, and others who function in programs with a limited revenue source. No appropriation increase was provided for adult education in order to fund the required retirement match which was previously paid by the state nor was a line item appropriation provided for separate contributions. School food service employees participating in the retirement system will result in a 12 percent increased labor expense which should appropriately be borne by consumers of school lunches. In view of the fact that a significant number of school lunches are served free or reduced with no means of increasing income, (federal reimbursement is set at a fixed rate per lunch) it appears unlikely that the increased cost could reasonably be recovered through increased charges for paid lunches. Gooden, at page 15. Further, the conclusion he reaches as regards the Fort Smith School District applies to the PCSSD as well: The projected cost for making payments for the retirement matching on Fort Smith Public School employees during 1996-97 is projected to be $4,736,000. It is reasonable to assume that the pro-rated share of the total amount currently being appropriated statewide for retirement matching divided by ADM will result in proportionally less for Fort Smith than for many other districts. This is due in large measure to the higher salary levels enjoyed by our staff in comparison to their counterparts around Arkansas. Gooden, at page 15. III. SPECIAL EDUCATION The elimination of the weighting system for special education students unfairly penalizes the PCSSD for several reasons. It has proportionately more special education students than the state average and, therefore, appropriately received 7 - proportionately more state aid for their education under the old formula. In addition, the special education program of the PCSSD is superior, and more expensive, than the special education programs in most other districts. The PCSSD provides a more intensive level of physical therapy, a more intensive level of occupational therapy, a more intensive level of speech therapy than the average district and, pays these specialists more than does the average district. Thus, the elimination of the weights does not affect the Pesso \"to the same degree\" as other districts. Dr. Gooden apparently concurs with the position of the PCSSD on this issue. As he explains: Funding for special education has been distributed based upon the sum of pupil weights generated by the various categories of student placement. Students requiring services of high intensity have provided greater weights and subsequently more funding than those whose disabilities require a less intense service level. Beginning in 1996-97, funding to support special education is included in the base equalization amounts distributed on the basis of ADM without regard to the special education population or the level of services required in any individual school district. The great diversity between the composition of a disabled population among various school districts makes this category a great contributor to inequities resulting from provisions of Act 917. Districts with high concentrations of seriously disabled students will be at a distinct disadvantage when compared to districts whose student population does not include such severe disabilities. Gooden, at pages 18 and 19. IV. NEED BASED AID VERSUS HEAD COUNTS Basing State aid almost exclusively on a head count of students ignores reality. Such a system benefits districts that 8 pay low salaries because they will receive more money for teacher retirement than they actually pay. Such a system benefits districts which manage to avoid providing health insurance to large numbers of their employees as they will be paid more than their health insurance costs. Such a program benefits districts which are not desegregating or which otherwise do not transport large numbers of children because they will be paid more than their actual transportation costs. The new system also benefits districts which make little local effort to pass maintenance and operations millages because under the new system the State will come in and \"make up the difference\" to squeeze them within the equity guidelines. The new funding system ignores the high costs of special - education, ignores the high cost of desegregation, ignores the wide disparity among districts in salary requirements and, because of these reasons and others, cannot be regarded as fair and rational even if it is general. As Dr. Gooden explains: The first item requiring a paradigm shift for Arkansas educators lies in the dramatic departure of the school aid formula encompassed by Act 917 from an earlier format. Specifically, the prior formula distributed school aid to school districts in a large number of categories including general Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA) based upon the weighted number of students; special education aid determined by the cumulative pupil weights reflecting the intensity of service requirement; transportation aid based upon a formula reflecting routes, students, and density; vocational aid reflecting the sum of pupil weights determined by the assumed relative cost of providing vocational programs; gifted and talented aid determined by the number of students served up to an established limit; and specific categorical aid for alternative programs, 9 summer school, limited English proficient students, and compensatory education. The school aid formula reflected by Act 917 in effect combines all the current aid provisions detailed above into one item of aid-per-student which is calculated based upon the simplest factor: Average Daily Membership (ADM). The concept of varying needs based upon the composition of the student population, the program of instruction provided, the geographic terrain, or other factors is not considered under the new formula. School districts with high wealth and/or high-cost students with regard to special education, limited English proficiency, costly vocational offerings, or extensive transportation systems may be expected to be adversely affected using this methodology. Gooden, at pages 9 and 10. Specifically, attempts to meet the Court-adopted standard of the Federal Range Ratio have led to an exacerbation of prior formula provisions contained in the \"second tier\" equalization funding. By including an additional funding category of \"Additional Base Funding\" supported by a line-item appropriation, the departure from an orderly formula distribution based upon wealth, student needs, and district characteristics has been lost. An additional problem associated with the implementation of this formula characteristic lies in the provision of a disincentive for local districts to increase millage rates when revenue increased through local taxation would be deducted from Additional Base Funding provided to more than 200 Arkansas districts. This unanticipated consequence is a serious defect which can only depress support for Arkansas schools by making it unlikely that many communities will tax themselves in order to supplant state revenue. one subtle yet significant effect of using simple ADM as opposed to Weighted Average Daily Membership (WADM) in order to adequately reflect the student need/service composition of each school district is that this procedure creates an illusion of greater wealth in those districts with extensive special education services and vocational programs. The effect of this phenomenon is not dramatically evident in school districts with only limited special education and vocational services. However, for demographically 10 complex districts with extensive offerings and student needs, there is a significant shift in apparent local wealth. Gooden, at page 10. V. LOSS FUNDING AND DECLINING ENROLLMENT The state's decision to eliminate loss funding from the new funding system came about after the State was ordered by the District Court to recalculate the method by which it paid loss funding to LRSD and PCSSD and to reimburse them for the shortages. As Dr. Gooden has observed: The most adverse effect of this methodology will be experienced by districts losing student population. Whereas the earlier method averaged daily membership for a three-year period to allow a gradual adjustment in funding if enrollment declined, Act 917 provides for no gradual reduction in aid. The effective result will be a loss of an amount equal to the Base Local Revenue Per student immediately when student enrollment declines. School districts in portions of the state losing enrollment may not survive this dramatic loss. Gooden, at page 10. Dr. Gooden concludes at page 37 that the elimination of averaging annual ADM in district's losing enrollment prevents gradual funding reduction and that a solution may be to provide ADM averaging for districts losing enrollment, a matter that should be given priority consideration. Gooden, at page 38. In sharp contrast to the elimination of loss funding is the fact that a form of student growth funding is retained by Act 917. As Dr. Gooden explains: The current formula provides for an adjustment during the current school year when enrollment has increased. Act 917 continues this concept by providing for an adjustment in aid from a categorical set-aside when the student popultion increases above that of the prior 11 year. The amount of of funding equals approximately $3,000 per student. This factor will be beneficial to rapidly growing school districts. Gooden, at page 21. Upon information and belief, the only school districts in Arkansas that are experiencing rapidly growing enrollment are either overwhelmingly white or are all white. On the other hand, and upon further information and belief, a statistically significant number of the districts that are experiencing enrollment decline are majority black or have substantial black populations including the PCSSD. Thus, in combination, the elimination of loss funding coupled with the continuation of growth funding has a racially discriminatory effect and cannot be said to be either fair or rational or of \"general\" application when the disparate impacts are demonstrated. For instance, as previously pointed out, the Bryant School District will receive a bonus of funds in excess of its actual teacher retirement costs. The Intervenors' contend that the PCSSD enrollment decline should result in less state aid because: \"This condition is no different in Pulaski County than throughout Arkansas.\" This ignores the fact that the PCSSD loses students to the Bryant School District. By paying the Bryant School District a bonus while at the same time penalizing the PCSSD, the new funding scheme simply better positions the Bryant School District to continue to attract and host families which move from the PCSSD or which elect to locate initially in the Bryant School District even when they work in Pulaski County. 12 VI. THE NEW FORMULA OVERALL In his introduction, Dr. Gooden posits the following: Should an orderly formula distribution not address the varying needs of Arkansas' school districts; should the means of distributing revenues not be simple and clearly understood by educators and the public; and should the level of combined local and state funds be less than is required to meet the educational needs of Arkansas students, the formula must be found inadequate and less than acceptable. Gooden, at page 7. Dr. Gooden has also found that: Although Act 917 includes references to \"Student Classroom Teacher Funding, Student Unit Funding, and student Needs Funding,\" the subtle wording effectively precludes the allocation of any state aid for these categories in the foreseeable future. The threshold of equity funding (Student Equalization Funding) which must be achieved is so high as to make it doubtful that any of these categories will be funded in our lifetimes. They were obviously added to the formula to confuse and/or calm those who were attempting to understand its provisions. [Emphasis added.] Gooden, at page 11. Another feature of the new funding scheme which negatively impacts the PCSSD is explained by Dr. Gooden as follows: While Act 917 provides assistance in the payment of bonded indebtedness to districts by utilizing a wealth index and provides for a line item appropriation for this purpose, the act also allows millage rates dedicated to the retirement of debt to be calculated in such a way as to reduce the minimum required level of local support below the stated 25 mill minimum. This formula provision excludes from consideration that portion of the school millage required to make annual payments on bonded debt after applying state debt service supplement payments. This characteristic creates an illusion of less wealth for those districts who have chosen to incur significant bonded debt and have dedicated major portions of local millage for these purposes. 13 This status is in sharp contrast to those districts whose voters chose to dedicate a portion of total millage for capital outlay purposes. Act 917 attempts to categorize capital outlay millage along with maintenance and operation millage and attempts to treat revenues produced as equals. This is a clear misrepresentation of facility funding plans adopted by local voters consistent with applicable statutes authorizing capital outlay taxes. Capital outlay millages approved prior to 1995 are restricted by statute for certain purposes and are not the equivalent of maintenance and operation revenues. Gooden, at page 12. Increases in the charged local millage under the old system were to the benefit, not the detriment, of the PCSSD. VII. COMPENSATORY EDUCATION/SUMMER SCHOOL The PCSSD is also adversely impacted in these areas as explairied by Dr. Gooden: Funding for compensatory education/summer school programs for 1996/97 and thereafter is included in the state equalization funding, distributed on the basis of ADM to all school districts. This is a departure from the previous method of distributing funds which considered the at-risk student needs reflected by the Title I formula as well as student achievement in basic skills. Gooden, at page 16. The Settlement Agreement provides that the ADE shall monitor the districts' implementation of compensatory education programs. The Settlement Agreement further provides at page 13 that: If necessary as a last resort, ADE may petition the Court for modification or changes in such programs being implemented by the Districts (but not for a reduction in the agreed level of State funding). The State has not sought the permission of the District Court to reduce the level of compensatory education funding previously paid to the PCSSD, which reduction is prohibited by 14 the Agreement in any event. Rather, as part of the changes it has enacted, it has simply included these funds as part of the ADM driven formula and will disburse certain funds to the PCSSD without regard to its needs. This will result in a reduction in the amount of money the PCSSD receives for compensatory education for which the State has neither sought nor obtained Court approval. VIII. VOCATIONAL AID Vocational education is a component of the PCSSD Desegregation Plan. The impact of the new system is explained by Dr. Gooden as follows: Funding to support vocational programs in 1996-97 must be derived from state and local funds realized by school districts as Base Equalization Revenues. Unlike student-enrollment-based funding in the past, districts will receive the same amount of funding regardless of the number of vocational courses offered or the number of students enrolled in them. The previous system of providing state foundation funds relative to the weighted-pupil factors determined by the various vocational courses was repealed by Act 917. Gooden, at page 17. IX. MINIMUM SALARY LAW The new minimum salary requirements substantially interfere with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate and the state provides no funds to fulfill this unfunded mandate. Dr. Gooden has observed that: In most cases, Act 917 expenditure requirements appear to be the result of a mathematically derived assumption regarding the level of expenditure which may be appropriate to support certain purportedly desired activities. Gooden, at page 25. 15 It is clear that the salary provisions contained in this act are based upon objectives other than the equitable distribution of school funds and appear to transcend reason in an attempt to restrict the ability of local school districts in managing revenues and expenditures. Gooden, at page 26. x. CONCLUSION Dr. Gooden has concluded that: The true measure of effectiveness in this funding formula revision will lie in analyzing the degree to which the tests of adequacy, equity, and efficiency are met. If all of these characteristics are not satisfied, the formula revisions contained in Act 917 are little more than an exercise in futility. Gooden, at page 7. The dramatic conceptual changes in the method of financing public education in Arkansas were enacted in haste and apparently without careful consideration of the three imperatives of educational finance: Adequacy, Equity, and Efficiency Act 917 of 1995 represents an exercise in cost-shifting and moves from a funding scheme based on needs to one which attempts to consider certain aspects of wealth without a balancing need--driven resource component. Gooden, at page 37. The cost shifting components of the new system violate the Settlement Agreement because these are programs for which the State provided funding in the past and for which the Intervenors acknowledge the State will provide no funding in the future. The State is obligated under the Settlement Agreement to provide funding to the PCSSD for these programs. The underlying basis of State aid, which simply distributes pro-rata based on numbers of 16 students, is not fair and rational, especially when applied to the PCSSD, because it ignores the substantially higher costs of the PCSSD in areas such as teacher retirement costs, special education, vocational education, and desegregation related expenditures. The defects identified in the new system as identified by Dr. Gooden are the reasons why the formula as a whole cannot satisfy the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court should declare that the new State funding formula violates those provisions of the Settlement Agreement which require the State to continue funding the PCSSD for the programs described herein, that the changes wrought by the new system are neither fair, rational, nor of general application, that, at a minimum, the PCSSD programs should be funded at the percentage levels of the highest funded programs in other school districts in the state under the new system, for its costs and attorneys' fees and all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By __ .....,..'---',,---F\"\"'-'\"\"--------- M. I (76060) At laski County S ecial Sc oo District 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 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 18 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 AR NSAS School Fun~ing _Plan __ ;;:~ .. ~ ... \":1..: 2.1 . :. ... l  l I I  EXHIBIT 4 Arkansas School Funding Plan An Analysis and Opinion by Benny L Gooden, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools June 1996 1 tForl ~mith Public Schools \"Iii\\-_~,~, ~~~~~~F~ort~S~mith~,A~rka~nsas~ _  V V .J Foreword Dramatic chl111ges in Arkansas school finance resulting from the passage of Act 917 of 1995 have gencr:ued considerable discussion regarding the overall concept of the acL its impact upon school districts of all sizes, and its potential to solve or cx.accrbatc the financial challenges facing Arkansas educators. In an anempt to analyu: the plethora of components contained in the act and in the incerest of identifying potential problems and possible solutions, I have prepared this opinion paper regarding Act 917 and its impact upon Arkansas sdlools. While the :ictual effecu arc different for each of Arkansas' schools distticts, I have utilized data for the Fon Smith Public Schools to illusauc the immedia1e impact of Act 917 provisions. ll is imponant to note uw the impact upon an urban school district With a significant industrial w: base will be dramatically differcru than the impact upon rural school disuicL~ with an a~cullur~l or eitc::iusively residential taX base. I..ikcwise. the student demographics and district financial mucturc will affect tllc ultim:ite outcome. ~b school district must thoroughly analyze its own !iituation utilizing and interpreting the financial data provided by the Ark.in.sas Department of Education as well as other local daia. This position paper is intended only for infonnation purposes and will hopefully provoke discussion lo encourage improvements to the financing of schools in Arkansas for the benefit of :ill students. Benny L. Gooden I. II. Conceptual Chaages ,-------------------9 Need-Based vs. Equal Aid Equity Comp~ ADMvs. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1650","title":"Court Filings: District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors opposing the Little Rock School District's (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. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-08-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School districts"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors opposing the Little Rock School District's (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/1650"],"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":["71 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    {.- I .., 0 1 'C06  \\J - ' - .- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO~t:~S 1,: '..:~CC F.HP..C!\\. CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS p 11. WESTERN DIVISION ~, ------;:c;,\"E'':?:''orcTi:_'~;: :.:::..:7\u003c: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-~-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. . I~ i YO f ;-,,., Olt1ce of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS  .... . ~ ---~---- ....~ ~\"'l' .. - i -~.. . -. ~-~ .... ..,,~ ....... ~  Memorandum of the Joshua Intervenors Oppos.thg the LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction A. Introduction The LRSD seeks an order \"which withdraws federal court jurisdiction of this case and dismisses this case with prejudice.\" Motion, 5\\17\\96, at 2. This motion rests on a series of baseless assertions and otherwise unsound premises. It should, therefore, be denied. More specifically, LRSD first contends that the district agreed to implement the provisions of the settlements for only six years, absent a demonstration by the Joshua Intervenors of a failure of the system to comply with a term (or terms) of the settlement agreements. Motion, at 1; Memorandum, 5\\17\\96, at 1, 9, 16-17. Then, reasoning that \"[t]he Tri-District Plan was essentially the (settlement] Plans modified to address the constitutional infirmities identified by (Judge Woods], and that 1 constitutional infirmities identified by (Judge Woods], and that - \"LRSD implemented the Tri-District Plan during the 1990-91 school year,\" LRSD further contends that this six year period ended at the end of the 1995-96 school year. Motion, at 1; Mem., at 10-12. Lastly, LRSD argues that it has \"substantially (complied]\" with the settlement provisions. This assertion is based on what is termed an \"exhaustive audit of LRSD's desegregation obligations\" and a discussion of particular areas such as student enrollment and racial disparities in achievement. Motion, at 1; Mem., at 12- 13, 17-32. This memorandum addresses these and other premises of the LRSD submission. B. The Assertions About A Six-Year Plan The district asserts at page 9 of its memorandum that \"(u]nder the terms of the Settlement Agreement, LRSD agreed to implement the plans for six years. 111 The problem with this assertion is shown by the fact that there is no citation to any provision of the Settlement Agreement. Nor is there a citation in the memorandum, at any point, to a provision of any of the settlement documents limiting implementation to six years (absent noncompliance) . 2 1 LRSD refers to the \"Settlement Agreement\" of March 1989, as revised on September 28, 1989. See Mem., at 9. 2 The Settlement Agreement includes payment schedules and related criteria, applicable to LRSD, and covering various periods of time with various termination dates. These are (i) 1989-90 through 1998-99 (to LRSD) (at 15); (ii) 1990-91 through 1995-96 (to LRSD) (at 16); (iii) December 31, 2000 (period through which LRSD may show that composite test scores of bl_ack 2 I J LRSD asserts that at the hearing on May 13, 1996, this court - \"acknowledged that the Plans were to be implemented for a period of six years.\" Mem., at 14. This assertion, as shown by the transcript, is erroneous. Indeed, the court, after alluding to provisions referencing six years, welcomed motions to perfect the decree. 3 -  To be sure, the \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\" contains the following provision: \"There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years ... (at 3).\" However, this language appears in a paragraph titled \"III. Incentive Schools\" -- one of 19 separately numbered paragraphs, in an \"Overview,\" each paragraph having a separate title. Id., at 2-6. In brief, the six-year provision refers to the incentive schools; it is not set forth as a general limitation on the duration of the entire plan. Moreover, intervenors' argument is consistent with the treatment of the six-year period by the Court of Appeals in its 1990 opinion considering the overall settlement. With respect to the LRSD plan, the court alludes to what it terms \"the initial six-year period\" only with reference pupils are 90 percent or more of scores of white pupils) (at 17). 3 See Tr., 5\\13\\96, at 6-7 (\" .... The reason for this hearing is that we are now in the sixth year, depending on how you count it, of the settlement of this case. And there are several places in the Consent Decree that mentions six years, although there is nothing in the decree that says that after six years the Court shall review the settlement and its effectiveness. But I have chosen to do this. [) I've invited the parties to ask the Court to modify the decree in areas in which . the parties believe it's not working or cannot work .... \") 3 I  to the incentive schools. 4 Lastly, the court states with regard - to the case generally: \"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\" (emphasis added). Little Rock School District. supra, 921 F.2d at at 1383. LRSD's reliance on United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir. 1987) is unavailing. See Mem., at 14-15. There, as the opinion shows, the parties dealt explicitly with the duration of the overall decree, first by specifying a three-year period, absent objection, and then, in resolving objections, by specifying a set date, or, alternatively, the date of the completion of a construction project. Id., at 1173-74. Overton is thus distinguishable by reason of the differences in the terms of the settlement. The Court of Appeals' characterization in Overton of the alternative formulation as one which \"left the decree open until certain other conditions were met, which were\" (834 F.2d at 1174) is relevant here. This, we submit, parallels the situation in this case. The agreements deal with certain subject matter areas, such as student enrollment and disparitities in achievement; they set forth goals of the remedial process, such as targets for the racial make-up of various categories of schools and \"the 4 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski county Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1386 (8th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). 4 elimination of educational achievement disparities between black - and white students\"5 -- the \"certain conditions\" in Overton terms; and they describe manifold actions to be taken to achieve the goals. The focus here with regard to termination of jurisdiction is not on a particular date; it is on the adequate implementation of the agreed upon actions to attain the goals, including any revisions adopted by the court, 6 and the attainment of the goals (the \"certain conditions\") to the maximum extent practicable. 7 c. LRSD Has the Burden of Establishing Compliance with the Settlement Terms Turning to standards external to the settlements, LRSD contends that in the context of determining the duration of court 5 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, at 4. 6 See Little Rock School District. supra, 921 F.2d at 1394 n. 8 and Order, July, 10, 1992 (adopting ODM recommendations). 7 The follow portion of the \"Introduction\" set forth in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan (at 1) is relevant: \"The goals of school desegregation planning must be clearly focused and well understood. It is insufficient to establish as a single goal the physical movement of bodies and the rearrangement of boundary lines. An educational environment which encourages and provides academic and human growth for all students based upon their individual needs and talents must also be a goal of any adequate desegregation paln. (] The parties hereto seek to ensure that the schools and learning experiences throughout the school system are organized so that school practices, policies and procedures prevent unfair treatment or denial of opportunity for any child because of his or her racial, economic status or cultural identification. (] Immediately following this introduction, the parties have included an overview which sets forth the basic tenets and bases of compromise they consider essential to an interdistrict desegregation plan .... \"[The aforementioned \"Overview\" addressing 19 topics follows the Introduction.] 5 I  jurisdiction, the Joshua Intervenors have the burden of - establishing noncompliance with the settlement agreements. Mem., at 16-17. The district's reliance on Hazen v. Reagan, 16 F.3d 921, 925 (8th cir.1994) is unavailing. That case, and the earlier Eighth Circuit case on which it relies, address a special situation;~, a party seeks an adjudication that its adversary's performance is so deficient that it constitutes civil contempt. A far more appropriate approach to fill the void left by a gap in the agreements, and one consistent with the overall approach of the LRSD submission, 8 is to rely upon the standards normally applicable when this particular issue regarding burden arises in school desegregation litigation. This approach also finds support in the fact that the Court of Appeals described this court's responsibilities and authority in monitoring the agreements in traditional, and even expansive, terms.~, 921 F.2d at 1386, 1394 paras. 4, 8 (\"and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require\"), 9. The general rule is that a school district has the burden of establishing the predicate for the termination of court jurisdiction in one or more areas of the case. Freeman v. Pitts, 118 L.Ed.2d 108, 137 (1992);9 see also United States v. Fordice, 8 See Mem., at 17-32 (citing many federal court decisions addressing the duration of decrees in desegregation cases). 9 \"The school district bears the burden of showing that any current imbalance is not traceable, in a proximate way, to the prior violation.\" 6 I ,i ... 120 L.Ed.2d 575, 599 (1992) (higher education) . 10 More generally, - assignment of this burden to LRSD is consistent with the standards for allocation of the burden of proof set forth by the Supreme Court in Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 208-10 (1973). In Keyes, a school desegregation case in which segregation had not been required or permitted by state law, the Court identified instances in which Denver school authorities had the burden of proof. For example, proof of intentionally segregative actions in a substantial part of the system was held to establish a prima facie case that actions having a segregative effect in other parts of the system were also motivated by race. See 413 U.S. at 208-09. 11 The Court explained the basis for this rule as follows: \"This burden-shifting principle is not new or novel. There are no hard-and-fast standards governing the allocation of the burden of proof in every situation. The issue, rather, 'is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.' 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence S 2486, at 275 (3d Ed 1940).\" See 413 U.S. at 209. The court then cited a variety of situations in which considerations of \"policy and 10  \"Brown and its progeny, however, established that the burden of proof falls on the State, and not the aggrieved plaintiffs, to establish that it has dismantled its prior de jure segregated system. Brown II, 349 U.S. at 300 .... \" 11 \"In that circumstance, it is both fair and reasonable to require that the school authorities bear the burden of showing that their actions as to other segregated schools within the system were not also motivated by segregative intent.\" See 413 U.S. at 209. 7 I ' J fairness\" had been held to support a requirement that school - authorities explain actions or conditions. See 413 U.S. at 209- 10. Two considerations of \"policy and fairness\" warrant allocating to LRSD the burden of showing the requisite compliance with the terms of the settlement before the termination of the court's jurisdiction in one or more areas. First, the school district obviously has superior access to data and greater resources in terms of personnel. Second, both this court and ODM, the monitoring body which the Court of Appeals directed the court to establish, have repeatedly documented poor compliance by LRSD with the terms of the court-approved settlement. The court summarized its view in its Memorandum and Order of March 11, 1996. 12 See also Joshua's Enclosure One to this memorandum (containing the court's statement of March 1993, as well as other statements by the court regarding LRSD's poor compliance). ODM's documentation of ongoing poor compliance regarding the incentive schools -- where the Court of Appeals stressed the need for scrupulous compliance (921 F.2d at 1386) -- was recently summarized in the \"Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief 12 \"The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreement (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 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.\" At 8-9. 8 /  Concerning the Incentive Schools\" (May 31, 1996), at paras. 2- 4  13 In conclusion, LRSD should be required to demonstrate, in a meaningful manner, compliance with the court-approved settlement terms. D. LRSD Has Not Established that It Implemented the Settlement in 1990-91 LRSD's contention, tied to its \"six years argument,\" that it should be credited with implementing the settlement in 1990-91, should be rejected. 14 In the first place, the Court of Appeals did not direct approval of the settlement \"[i]n general\" and \"also make certain other directions for the future of the case\" (921 F.2d at 1376) until December 12, 1990, several months into the 1990-91 school year. Joshua Intervenors should be held to be - entitled to a period of implementation during which all of the officials and agents of the LRSD were aware that the settlements had been approved by the courts. More significantly, LRSD relies basically on simply asserting that it implemented the Tri-District Plan in 1990-91. Mem., at 11-12. LRSD does note that the earlier plan included \"six Incentive -Schools\" (Mem. at 11), and suggests, implicitly, that its \"implementation\" of the Plan included this feature. 13 The motion also relied on the Joshua Intervenors' own monitoring reports which were provided, upon their completion, to LRSD officials. 14 Given our contention that the \"six years argument\" is baseless, this section of our memorandum sets forth an alternative position. 9 I  . ... However, Judge Henry Woods noted in an order of December 11, 1989 that LRSD's noncompliance regarding \"virtually every educational component\" which would justify the existence of all-black schools touched the \"approved portions of (its] own plan for the proposed 'incentive Schools.' ... \" (at 16, footnote omitted); and, as we have shown, ODM and the Joshua intervenors thereafter documented ongoing deficient compliance regarding the incentive schools. Surely such a skimpy showing would not support loping a year from the six year period -- even if this period had the significance asserted by LRSD. E. LRSD Has Not Established the Requisite Implementation of the Court-Approved Settlement LRSD contends that its internal audit and the analysis which it sets forth in its memorandum regarding particular areas of its operation demonstrate that it has substantially and in good faith complied with its desegregation obligations. These assertions are groundless. Preliminarily, Joshua Intervenors reiterate their reliance upon the statements by the court rearding the case generally, and ODM and Joshua findings regarding the incentive schools, one pivotal element of the approved settlement. Moreover, Joshua intervenor's \"Motion ... for the Implementation of recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring\" (July 2, 1996) (at para. 7) identified scores of ODM recommendations predicated upon findings of LRSD's inadequate compliance in many areas. 10 / .I . ... (1.) The LRSD Audit The LRSD audit15 is unpersuasive for many reasons. First. The audit relies heavily on \"Primary Leaders\" identifying the status of the implementation of obligations within their respective domains. At 6. It is only common sense that too many negative answers would jeopardize a leader's tenure in his\\her position. Second. The audit relies on making a dot with a pencil on an \"obligations scan sheet\" (at 6) -- a technique not suitable for addressing more complex obligations, or obligations affecting multiple schools. Third. The description of the asserted steps to move beyond the \"scan sheets\" (at 11) is far too sketchy to permit an assessment of its reliability. Were the \"committees\" composed of \"primary leaders\" called upon to scratch each others' backs -- so to speak? There are no more detailed descriptions of how this process worked regarding some significant obligations, showing how much time was taken, by whom, what evidence was reviewed, etc. Fourth. The audit does not deal in depth with significant areas of the case by advancing evaluations conducted in a professionally sound manner, or affidavits. These areas could have been identified by reference to Court of Appeals' 15 See \"Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations,\" May a, 1996, Exhibit 4 to the memorandum. 11 I J  opinions, 16 ODM reports pointing out compliance problems in - particular areas, or the court's statement about poor compliance in March 1993. How can the audit be viewed as significant, if it does not reflect the LRSD's coming to grips with the many findings of noncompliance by the court's monitoring body, and attempting to document a basis for favoring LRSD's conclusions. Fifth. The audit does not discuss comprehensively the \"Not Begun\" category (at 14), to explain, for example, how its existence is consistent with the request that the court's jurisdiction be terminated in its entirety. Motion, at 2. In the end it must be said that the audit provides little to help decide in a reliable manner whether LRSD representatives \"scrupulously and dilgently carry out the settlement plans and the settlement agreement (as relevant to LRSD) .... 11 Little Rock School District. supra, 921 F.2d at 1394. (2.) The Particular Areas of the System's Operation The district elects to discusss for many pages \"how LRSD compares to school districts [which) have already achieved unitary status or to the nation as a whole.\" Mem., at 17. There are at least two problems with this approach. LRSD is silent about the extent to which any of these systems were by court order or voluntary agreement subject to the full panoply of provisions to which the LRSD is subject. Secondly, LRSD cites a sentence from Freeman v. Pitts. supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 124, 16 See Little Rock School District, 921 F.2d at 1386 (programs in the incentive schools); Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991} (seven areas). 12 I j . .... regarding \"a critical beginning point .... \" Mem., at 17. However, - LRSD should also have cited the preceding sentence, which reads as follows: \"Proper resolution of any desegregation case turns on a careful assessment of ITS facts. Green. supra, 391 U.S. at 439 .... \" Freeman, supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 124 (emphasis added). The point is that in assessing whether a system has \"eliminated [the vestiges of past discrimination) to the extent practicable\", 17 the focus is on what is practicable in view of the facts in that school district. Under the standards which Little Rock cites, the system is not entitled to be excused on the issue of student enrollment because fewer of its schools are outside the applicable guidelines for measuring compliance than was the case in Savannah, Georgia if it is feasible in Little Rock to achieve compliance as to all (or additional) schools, or meaningful implementation of plan provisions designed to achieve compliance has not been attempted. (a.) Student Assignments LRSD devotes seven pages to this topic without identifying the schools in the district which are outside the applicable guidelines, or discussing other opportunities to enhance desegregation. Mem., at 17-24. It does not identify any plan provisions applicable to such schools or discusss the degree of their implementation. In short, LRSD does not show that it has achieved as much as can practicably be achieved. 17 Freeman v. Pitts, supra, 118 L.E.2d at 139, quoting Board of Education of Oklahoma City v.Dowell, 498 u.s. 237, 249-50 (1991). I j I 13 LRSD notes that it \"has successfully recruited white - students and desegregated Rockefeller Incentive School.\" Mem., at 24. It ignores, however, the fact that the exhibit cited with reference to Rockefeller (Exhibit 5), shows that the other four incentive schools had the following proportions of black students in 1995-96: Franklin (93%), Garland (92%), Mitchell (97%), Rightsell (96%). Our motion of May 31, 1996 concerning the incentive schools supported, by reference to deficiencies in implementation documented by ODM, the view that this segregation was \"an entirely predictable result given the overall deficient implementation of the plan and the nature of the deficiencies \" See Joshua motion, at paras. (3.), (4.) (a.) through (f.), (o.). The district does not discuss whether efforts have been made to promote desegregative transfers from the area elementary schools with the highest proportions of black students to the area schools with the highest proportions of white pupils. Given the current state of implementation of provisions regarding the incentive schools, an area where the Court of Appeals noted expressly the need for strict compliance with the agreements, LRSD is not entitled to entry of the order sought regarding student enrollment, whatever the number of indices it cites. (b.) Faculty and Staff As with other areas, the district's presentation does not confront ODM's findings regarding racial make-up and other staffing issues in LRSD. This is not consistent with the model 14 I .I for monitoring identified by the Court of Appeals in 1990. In its report of September 15, 1995 addressing the issue of the composition of teaching staffs at the elementarylevel in the three systems , ODM's recommendations included the following provision (at 11): 4. The districts should examine the distribution of black and white teachers in each grade level category in order to improve student access to classroom teachers of both races. As we have noted in this report, staff racial balance is not simply a matter of the total number of black certified employees in a building. The idea of racial balance must also encompass the distribution of those individuals within that building. The staffing of classrooms at each grade level category should reflect a conscious effort to furnish students with the greatest possible probability of experiencing teachers of both races throughout their school years. This recommendation rested, in turn, on ODM findings that there were (at 10): few black teachers at the early childhood level in all three districts. The distribution of black teachers across grade levels at some individual schools caused concern. Some schools lacked a significant number of black teachers to provide most students opportunities to have them as classroom teachers. While other schools had a larger number of black teachers, most were usually concentrated at the intermediate level. This pattern of racial representation can preclude large numbers of students from access to a black classroom teacher for a number of years. Regarding LRSD, ODM noted that the teaching corps included the following proportions of black faculty by level in 1994-95: early childhood (27%), primary (33%), and intermediate (44%). At 31. ODM also raised issues regarding particular Little Rock 15 I  schools. 18 The ODM report of May 10, 1996 detailed serious problems of staff turnover, both faculty and principals, at the incentive schools, a focal point of both the remedies and the courts. See ODM report, at 6-10. For example, of the 87 classroom teachers at the schools in 1995-96, 27 (31%) were new to these schools, although only five new classes had been added. At 6. ODM also questioned the assigning of five first-time principals to the incentive schools since 1990-91. At 9-10. ODM noted that the level of instability identified can not be squared with the governing standards. At 6. 19 Again, LRSD is silent on these issues raised by ODM. Also, 18 For example: Badgett (sharp disparity in the make-up of the staff at the different levels); Baseline (sharp disparity in the make-up of the staff at the primary and intermediate levels); Carver (same); Chicot (no black teacher at early childhood level for three years); Forest Park (same); Franklin (early childhood and primary levels are heavily white, and intermediate level identifiably black; \"staff remains predominantly white\"); Jefferson (no black teacher at early childhood level for three years); McDermott (\"staff remained predominantly white\"); Meadowcliff (no black teacher at the early childhood level for three years; black teachers concentrated at the intermediate level; \"staff remains predominantly white\"); Pulaski Heights (no black teacher at early childhood level for three years; sharp disparity in composition of teachers at the three levels); Rightsell (\"the staff has remained predominantly black\"); Rockefeller (decreasing number of black teachers over three year period; only 3 of 27 teachers were black persons in 1994-95); Terry (\"staff remained predominantly white\"); and Watson (no black teacher at early childhood level for three years; \"staff has remained predominantly white\"). 19 See also Morgan v. Kerrigan, 509 F.2d 580, 598 (1st Cir. 1974), cert den., 421 U.S. 963 (1975) (noting \"a rate of faculty turnover at predominantly black schools far higher than than that at white schools\" contributing to a denial of equal educational opportunity). 16 I  while LRSD touts its inclusion of black persons in the governance of the system, It does not address the fact that seven of the eight elementary schools west of University Avenue have white principals. 20 We respectfully submit that it is these matters, and not the situation in Dallas, etc., which LRSD must address in this context. (c.) Racial Differences in Student Achievement The LRSD made an unambiguous commitment -- in 1989 and at later times, not 1954 (compare Mem., at 27) -- to eliminate the \"achievement disparity between black and white students on normreferenced and criterion-referenced tests. 1121 The superficial presentation made by LRSD on this \"crucial\" aspect of the settlement22 does not approach the showing required to warrant the termination of the court's jurisdiction. See Mem., at 27- - 29. 23 20 These schools are Fulbright, Jefferson, McDermott, otter Creek, Romine, Terry, and Williams. Brady does have an African American principal. Addressing such patterns is an important part of the task of eliminating forever the notion of a \"disfavored race.\" Freeman. supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 131. 21 See LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, at 1., para. B.; Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, at 4 (Part XII). 22 See Appeal of Little Rock School District, supra, 949 F.2d at 256 (Court of Appeals identifies \"the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races\" as one of the \"crucial\" elements of the settlement as to which \"no retreat should be approved\").; Order, May 1, 1992, at 6 (\"However, certain modifications the Court finds substantive and unsupported in light of two of the primary goals of the case, i.e., racial integration and student achievement.\") 23 Assuming arguendo that there is room for lower courts to take a different view on the impact of desegregation than Brown, 17 I J Consider a hypothetical school district seeking the - termination of court jurisdiction over the issue of student enrollment despite the fact that it has not achieved the goals of its plan, and in the face of monitoring reports showing that it has neither complied with provisions of its plan, nor exhausted the posibility of modifications to better attain its objectives. It is obvious that this district's actions would not warrant a holding either that it had achieved maximum practicable desegregation, 24 or substantially complied with governing standards. LRSD's position on this issue is no better. The following are among the many factors\\reasons further showing that LRSD's effort to end jurisdiction on this point must fail. First. The district's presentation is entirely devoid of a proposition which we doubt, particularly in this case, this record does not support the broad contentions advanced by LRSD. First. Doctors Walberg and Armor acknowledged that 52 social scientists had joined a statement filed with the Supreme Court, taking a more positive position, than the one taken by them, on the impact of degregation on achievement. See Tr. , , May 13, May 15, 1996. Second. Dr. Walberg agreed that he has~times expressed his view of the impact of desegregation on achievement as follows: sometimes it helps, and sometimes it hurts, and sometimes it doesn't do anything. Tr. , May 13, 1996. He has not studied whether these differences are due to differences in the quality of the implementation in the different instances. Id. Third. Dr. Orfield testified that Dr. Walberg has done no original research on the impact of desegregation, and that Dr. Armor has done little such research. Tr. , May 30, 1996. Dr. Orfield also testified about scholars who take a positive position regarding the impact of desegregation, including with regard to its role in providing a path into the mainstream of society. Id. 24 See Swann v. Charlotte Meklenburg Board of Educ., 402 u.s. 1, 26 (1971); Davis v. Board of School commissioners of Mobile County. 402 U.S. 33, 37 (1971). 18 I J  facts, except for Exhibit 12, which is not cited in the - memorandum, and undermines one of the system's principal arguments. See discussion, infra. There is, for example, no data on racial disparities in achievement in 1990-91 and 1995-96, allowing some conclusion as to the relative size of the gap \"then and now.\" There is no indication of any effort to determine whether some schools show greater progress in addressing the gap; or whether any such schools have been studied in depth to identify positive elements of their programs which could be replicated in other schools. There is no discussion of any effort to determine the impact of participation in early childhood programs. There is no evidence of any study to identify the specific areas of knowledge and skills which lead to the gap and the causes of these differences. There is no evidence of any effort to organize regular classroom instruction; extended day, week and year programs; or tutoring efforts to address the specifics of the achievement gap. There is no indication of any effort to comply with the promise regarding criterion referenced assessment. 25 25 Such an effort could include: identification of a body of knowlege and skills which this district desires that all students master, an effort to insure that all students are exposed to instruction allowing them the opportunity to master this material, and assessment, of various forms, determining students' mastery of this material. This differs from norm-referenced testing where a student's score is compared to the scores of the sample of students from throughout the country who were tested during the process of standardizing a test used throughout the nation. See also the testimony of Dr. Gary Orfield, Tr. , May 30, 1996 (need for broader forms of assessment; need for-longitudinal data following students over a period of years)~ 19 I  Second. In its Order of May 1, 1992 addressing the parties' - proposed amendments to the initial versions of the settlement, this court repeatedly considered the potential impact of actions with regard to improvement in the relative performances of black youth and reduction in the achievement gap. Order, at 10, 15, 16, 21-22, 23, 24, 30. The district ignores entirely this obvious starting point. Third. In Freeman. supra, cited by LRSD, the Supreme Court noted the f "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1647","title":"Court Filings: Court of Appeals, brief for appellant Little Rock School District (LRSD)","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1996-07-19"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","Cleaning"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: Court of Appeals, brief for appellant Little Rock School District (LRSD)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1647"],"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":["10 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2047EALR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES Appeal From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLANT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. APPELLANT APPELLEE Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I summary And Request For oral Argument This appeal arises from the Pulaski County, Arkansas school desegregation case. The two issues presented by this appeal concern the district court's March 11, 1996 Memorandum and Order. The first issue concerns enforcement of the 1989 Settlement Agreement among the parties. The Settlement Agreement requires dismissal of this case with prejudice except that the district court may retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the desegregation plans presently being implemented by the Pulaski County school districts. The district court declined to issue an order dismissing this case. The second issue concerns a contract between the Little Rock School District and Servicemaster Management Services. The Little Rock School District challenges the district court's finding that a clause in that contract violates public policy. The Little Rock School District requests oral argument. i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table of contents Summary and Request For Oral Argument. Table of Contents .. Table of Authorities Preliminary Statement Statement of the Case Summary of Argument Argument Conclusion Addendum Order, March 11, 1996 Release of All Claims Against The LRSD. Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua and the Districts .... Order, December 11, 1995 Relevant Excerpts From Pulaski County Desegregation . i ii iii . 1  2  6 . 7 13 . 1 12 24 25 Case Settlement Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table of Authorities cases Continental Bank \u0026 Trust Co. v. American Bonding 630 F.2d 606, 608 (8th Cir. 1980) ..... Klein v. Arkoma Production Co. 73 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 1996) Liddell v. State of Missouri 731 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir. 1984) LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) . Thornton v. Carter, 109 F.2d 316 (8th Cir. 1940) Page   9 9, 10  .     9 . 1, 2, 7 1, 6, 7, 9, 10 10 Union National Bank v. Federal National Mortgage Association 860F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988) ........... 1, 12, 14 28 u.s.c. S 1291 28 u.s.c. S 1331 28 u.s.c. S 1343(3) 28 u.s.c. S 1343(4) 28 u.s.c.  2201 28 u.s.c. S 2202 statutes iii . 1 . . 1 . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Preliminary Statement The decisions below were rendered by Judge Susan Webber Wright, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas. The jurisdiction of the district court was invoked under 28 u.s.c.  1331, 1343(3) and (4), 2201 and 2202. This Court's jurisdiction is invoked under 28 u.s.c. S 1291. The orders from which these appeals have been taken are final. The district court's order of March 11, 1996, by which the district court (1) refused to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice according to the tei;:-ms of the Settlement Agreement among the parties and (2) invalidated a provision of the contract between the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Servicemaster Management Services ( Servicemaster) , was appealed by LRSD by Notice of Appeal filed on April 9, 1996. 1. 2. Issues Presented on Appeal Did the district court err by refusing to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice as required by the Settlement Agreement approved by this Court? LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) Did the district court err in finding that the \"pending litigation clause\" of LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster violates public policy? Union National Bank v. Federal National Mortgage Association. 860 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988) 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I statement of the Case This appeal concerns two separate issues: The district court's refusal to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice in accordance with the Settlement Agreement approved by this Court; and the district court's finding that the \"pending litigation clause\" of LRSD's contract with Servicemaster violates public policy. These issues will be addressed separately in both the Statement of the Case and the Argument. I. Dismissal With Prejudice This Court approved the Settlement Agreement among the parties to this case on December 12, 1990. LRSD v, PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). The purpose of the Settlement Agreement was to end the litigation among the parties. That intent, inherent in any settlement, is clearly expressed in the provisions of the Settlement Agreement which require release of all claims against the school districts and the provision regarding litigation among or between the Joshua Intervenors, the Knight Intervenors and any of the school districts. Attachment B to the Settlement Agreement is a \"Release of All Claims Against The LRSD\" which contains the following requirement: 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 v. 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, Cooper v. Aaron, Norwood v. Tucker, and Clark v. Board of Education of the Little Rock School District) (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the LRSD and 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the former and current members of its board of education 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. Pulaski County Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2 (Add. p. 13). The Settlement Agreement also requires that this case be dismissed with prejudice with respect to the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. Settlement Agreement, Attachment c, p. 2 (Add. p. 17) and Attachment D, p. 2 (Add. p. 21). Finally, the Settlement Agreement contains the following \"Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua And The Districts\": Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further litigation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans. The requirement of the releases that this case \"is to be dismissed with prejudice\" has never been implemented. LRSD filed a motion on November 30, 1995 asking the district court to enter the required order. Even though the ; district court found that \"the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter, 11 that court refused to enter an order 3 I I dismissing this case. 1 Memorandum and Order, March 11, 1996 (Add. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8-9). II. The Servicemaster contract On September 20, 1995, LRSD entered into a five year management agreement with Servicemaster Management Services. LRSD App. p., 69. While the agreement was being negotiated, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") filed a motion to enjoin LRSD from entering into an agreement with Servicemaster. Docket No. 2506. The District Court had taken no action on Joshua's motion by the time an agreement was reached between LRSD and Servicemaster, and accordingly, the following clause was included in the September 2 O, 1995 agreement: 14.12 Pending litigation. Each of the parties agrees that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement, a motion to enjoin School from entering into this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled \"Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County School District No. 1, et al.\", No. LR-C- 82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge school from any and all actions, causes of action, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereinafter have arising out of or in any way relating directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this Agreement. School is under no obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, the school's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the court or otherwise) of that litigation. LRSD App., p. 84. (\"Pending Litigation Clause\"). 1The district court apparently misread LRSD's motion as seeking an order \"dismissing this case without prejudice.\" The Settlement Agreement requires, and LRSD sought, an order dismissing the case with prejudice. 4 I I I I I I I I I On December 4, 1995, Joshua purported to accept a proposed settlement offer2 made by LRSD related to Servicemaster. LRSD App. , p. 2 06. The settlement agreement recognized that substantial questions existed as to the legality of LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster. LRSD App., p. 200. On September 29, 1995, Arkansas Attorney General Winston Bryant issued a formal opinion finding that LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster violated state law and was void. App., p. 195. At the October 28, 1995, hearing, the District Court commented that she believed LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster violated state law. Hearing Transcript, October 28, 1995, p. 140. Accordingly, the settlement terminated LRSD' s agreement with Servicemaster. LRSD App., p. 203. On December 11, 1995, the District Court rejected the settlement agreement finding that the Pending Litigation Clause of LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster violated public policy. Add. p. 30. In a Memorandum and Order filed March 11, 1996, the district I I court denied Joshua's motion for reconsideration of her December I 11, 1995 Order. Add. p. 5. From this order, LRSD appeals. I I I I I I I 2LRSD denies that a settlement offer was made to Joshua. Even so, LRSD is pursuing this appeal to maintain its right, as established by the Pending Litigation Clause, to enter into a settlement agreement which would effectively terminate its agreement with Servicemaster. The District Court declined to rule on the issue of whether a settlement was actually reached. LRSD Add. p. 29. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Summary of Argument I. Dismissal With Prejudice The 1989 Settlement Agreement among the parties to this case waw designed to end this litigation. The Settlement Agreement requires that this case be dismissed with prejudice and also provides that the district court may retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the terms of the desegregation plans adopted by the three Pulaski County school districts. This Court approved the Settlement Agreement in its entirety as written by the parties and, in a case directly on point, directed the district court to implement the entire agreement. LRSD v. PCSSD. 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) .The district court has declined to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice as required by the Settlement Agreement. II. servicemaster Contract LRSD contracted with Servicemaster to provide certain management services. Pending at the time of the contract was the Joshua Intervenor's motion to enjoin LRSD from entering the contract. LRSD and Servicemaster therefore agreed upon contract language which recognized the pending litigation and protected LRSD against liability to Servicemaster if the pending litigation resulted, whether through settlement or otherwise, in the termination or modification of the contract. The Pending Litigation Clause was agreed upon following arms length negotiations between LRSD and Servicemaster. The district court improperly voided the Pending Litigation Clause, concluding 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \"that it would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to a contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party.\" The district court's conclusion is incorrect and should be reversed. Arkansas law, as interpreted by this Court, recognizes the validity of a contract provision permitting unilateral termination of the contract without cause. I. Argument The District court Erred In Refusing To Enter The order Of Dismissal Required By The settlement Agreement. This Court approved the parties' Settlement Agreement on December 12, 1990 and directed the district court \"to approve the parties' Settlement Agreement as written by them.\" LRSD y. PCSSD. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). On January 18, 1991, the district court ordered that \"[t]he parties' settlement agreement is hereby approved as written by them.\" Docket #1418. According to the terms of the Settlement Agreement set forth in the Statement of the Case and reproduced in its Appendix, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD were entitled to an order of dismissal with prejudice upon the district court's approval of the Settlement Agreement. 3 The question of whether a particular component of the Settlement Agreement should be implemented has arisen once before 3The order of dismissal with prejudice required by the Settlement Agreement will not affect the district court's authority under the Settlement Agreement \"to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans\" (Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2) (Add. p. 13) or to preside over \"proceedings to enforce the terms\" of the Settlement Agreement or the desegregation plans. (Settlement Agreement, p. 19 (Add. p. 24). 7 I I in this case. In LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992), this Court confronted the issue of whether the district court was I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I required to extend certain millages in accordance with Item M of the Settlement Agreement. The district court had \"thought it 'unwise to infer from the court of appeals' approval of the settlement agreement that [the district court was] required to extend the omitted millages.'\" Ig. at 164 (emphasis in original). This court said: What the district court failed to recognize is that we directed it to \"approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" \" [A] s written by them, \" the settlement agreement included Item M, which corrected the problem of the omitted millages. The extension of the omitted millages is therefore settled as law of the case. .Ig. at 165 (citations omitted, emphasis in original). One of the reasons the district court had given for declining to implement Item M was that, even though this Court had approved the Settlement Agreement in its entirety, it had not specifically mentioned Item Min its opinion. Id. at 164. This Court made it clear that the parties are entitled to implementation of all of the terms of the settlement Agreement: The Special Master approved the agreement, including Item M, as did the district court. Most importantly, when the matter came before this Court on appeal from the district court, we held that the settlement agreement as drafted by the parties met constitutional standards and directed the district court to approve the settlement agreement as submitted by the parties. We do not, therefore, agree with the district court that it is necessary to infer an approval of Item M from our earlier opinion. Our language was clear in its 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I approval of the entire agreement, including Item M. lg. at 165 (emphasis in original) This Court's decision requiring the district court to recognize and uphold each component of the Settlement Agreement was based upon the law of the case doctrine. ,lg. at 165. That doctrine \"prevents repeated litigation of . the same issue and promotes uniformity of decision.\" Liddell v. state of Missouri, 731 F. 2d 1294, 1304-05 (8th Cir. 1984). This Court has held that it \"will reconsider a previously decided issue only on a showing of clear error and manifest injustice,\" .i,g., or if the facts of the case have changed substantially since the first appeal.~ Continental Bank \u0026 Trust co. y. American Bonding. 630 F.2d 606, 608 (8th cir. 1980). When a case has been decided by this Court and remanded to the district court, every question which was before this Court and disposed of by its decree is finally settled and determined. Klein v. Arkoma Production Co., 73 F.3d 779, 784 (8th Cir. 1996). In rejecting LRSD's effort to secure an order of dismissal with prejudice, the district court did not find either that this Court's previous opinion approving the Settlement Agreement resulted in clear error or manifest injustice or that the facts of the case have changed. The only question, therefore, should be whether this Court has previously ordered that this case be dismissed with prejudice. LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160, 165 (8th Cir. 1992). The language of the court-approved Settlement Agreement makes it clear that this case \"is to be dismissed with prejudice\" and that the \"dismissal is final for all purposes except that the 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation\" of the desegregation plans agreed upon by the parties. Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2 (Add. p. 13). The parties further agreed that there would be \"no further litigation\" among them other than proceedings to enforce the Settlement Agreement or the desegregation plans. Settlement Agreement, p. 19 (Add. p. 24). This Court approved the agreement. It is the law of the case. In accordance with the law of the case doctrine previously applied to this Settlement Agreement by this Court, the district court should be directed to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the settlement Agreement. LRSD v. Pesso. 971 F,2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) . The district court offered no persuasive justification for declining to enter the required order. The court said that \"no useful purpose would be served by entering an order of dismissal at this time.\" Memorandum and Order, March 11, 1996, (Add. p. 8). Once the entire Agreement has been approved and established as law of the case, it is not necessary for a party seeking to secure the benefits of the Agreement to convince the district court that each particular component of the Agreement serves some useful purpose. Id. The district court is bound by this Court's decision and must carry it into execution according to the mandate. Klein v. Arkoma Production Co., 73 F.3d 779,784 (8th Cir. 1996). \"It may not 'alter it, examine it except for purposes of execution, or give it any further or other relief or review it for apparent error with 10 I I respect to any question decided on appeal.'\" lg. (quoting Thornton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I v. carter, 109 F.2d 316, 319-20 (8th cir. 1940). If, as the district court found, \"the claims involved in this on-going litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter,\" there should be no impediment to formalizing that dismissal as required by the Settlement Agreement. The district court also criticized LRSD's implementation of its desegregation plans and found \"that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to insure compliance with the plans and the agreement.\" This argument completely ignores the language of the Settlement Agreement which authorizes the district court to \"retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation\" of the desegregation plans. Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2 (Add. p. 13). The Settlement Agreement precludes further litigation among the parties except for proceedings to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the terms of the desegregation plans. Settlement Agreement, p. 19. (Add. p. 24). The Settlement Agreement provides for both dismissal of this case with prejudice and for continued district court enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and the desegregation plans. It is not necessary for the district court to defer an order of dismissal in order to ensure compliance with the plans or the agreement. 4In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the State of Arkansas has been dismissed as a party to this case. Order, January 18, 1991 (Docket #1418). The district court nevertheless continues to monitor the State's implementation of its obligations under the Settlement Agreement and to enforce the Settlement Agreement against the State. The district court's January 13, 1995 decision, which was affirmed in part and reversed 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II. The District Court Erred In Litigation Clause\" of LRSD's Violates Public Policy. Bolding That contract With The \"Pending Servicemaster A. Pending Litigation Clause Does Hot Violate Public Policy. The district court, citing no authority, concluded that \"it would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to a contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party.\" Add., p. 5. The district court's conclusion is incorrect and should be reversed. In Union National Bank v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 860 F.2d 847, 853 (8th cir. 1988), this Court, applying Arkansas law, held that a contract provision providing for the unilateral termination of the contract without cause did not violate public policy. 5 The Pending Litigation Clause cannot be considered more offensive to public policy than a provision permitting unilateral termination without cause. The clause merely anticipated the possibility that substantial questions would be raised as to the validity of the agreement. In that event, LRSD wanted to be able to take whatever action was necessary without incurring liability to Servicemaster, and it negotiated at arms in part by this panel on May 15, 1996 (83 F.3d 1013), provides a recent example. 5The district court attempted to distinguish Union National Bank stating that the present case \"involves a purported settlement between a contracting party and a third party allowing the contracting party to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the non-settling party.\" LRSD Add., p. 5. The district court does not explain how these facts distinguish Union National Bank from the present case. None of the facts noted by the district court require an outcome in the present case different from Union National Bank. 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I length for that right as embodied in the Pending Litigation Clause. B. The Pending Litigation Clause Expressly Contemplates Resolution By settlement. As an alterative basis for rejecting the settlement agreement, the District Court found that: (T]he parties to this case intended that the contract would be performed in good faith unless this Court issued an Order allowing the LRSD to escape liability pursuant to 1 14.12 of the contract. The Court has not and will not at this time issue such an Order allowing the LRSD to escape liability under the contract. LRSD Add., p. 6. The district court's statement of the parties' intentions contradicts the express language of the Pending Litigation Clause. After stating that LRSD will incur no liability if the District Court terminates or modifies the agreement, the Pending Litigation Clause provides, \"Further, the school's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the court or otherwise) of that litigation.\" LRSD App., p. 84 (emphasis supplied). Thus, the Pending Litigation Clause expressly permits LRSD to reach a settlement without incurring any liability to Servicemaster. conclusion The 1989 Settlement Agreement was intended to end this litigation. The parties agreed that the case would be dismissed with prejudice. This Court and the district court have approved the settlement. It has become established as the law of the case. This court has previously held that the parties are entitled to all of I the benefits of the Settlement Agreement. The district court should I I I 13 I I I therefore be directed to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice. LRSD and Servicemaster negotiated at arms length in agreeing to the Pending Litigation Clause. LRSD expressly reserved the I right to resolve the pending litigation with Joshua by way of I settlement. That the settlement calls for termination of LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster does not make the Pending Litigation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Clause violative of public policy. See Union National Bank, 860 F.2d at 853. The District Court's finding to the contrary should be reversed and the case remanded for hearings to determine whether a settlement has been reached. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. 14 Attorneys for Little Rock School District I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief for Appellant, Little Rock School District has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 8th day of July, 1996: Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. 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 Bldg. Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 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 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept. of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John c. Everett 3822 N. Parkview Drive P.O. Box 1646 Fayetteville, AR 72702 Mr. Josephs. Mowery 111 Center Little Rock, AR 72201 ~\" 15 I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I ADDENDUM  I I I I I I I I I I I I II ,.1,r.,_~ US OIS7i-iCT COURT !;ASTERN DISTRICT ARt\u003cANSAS MAR 1 1 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMcS WESTERN DIVISION By:_~.i...,..~l,J!,,,J,...l,L..ll~~ 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 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court are a number of motions (listed in the order filed) which the Court now addresses: (1) motion of the Pulaski county Special School District (\"PCSSD\") to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [doc.#2481); (2) motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for partial unitary status (doc.#2483); (3) motion of the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of Joshua [doc.#2506); (4) motion of PCSSD to I clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan (doc.#2520); (5) motion of I I I I I I Joshua for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation (doc.#2544); (6) motion of PCSSD for an Order regarding portable buildings (doc.#2546]; (7) motion of LRSD for an Order dismissing this case without prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD, and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") (doc.#2573]; (8) motion of Joshua for reconsideration of 1 2 6 40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, and for completion of the hearing [doc.#2594]; and (9) motion of PCSSD regarding the replacement of portable buildings with permanent construction, dated October 25, 1995 (doc.#2612). I. The Court first addresses PCSSD's motion to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan (doc.#2481) and LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483). The PCSSD states that it has substantially complied with plan provisions regarding library media services, staff development and counseling services, while the LRSD states that it has substantially complied with LRSD plan provisions regarding Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youngsters (\"HIPPY\") , Rockefeller Early Childhood Program, Parkview Science Magnet Program, and Job Training Partnership Act/Summer Learning Program (\"JTPA\"). Both the PCSSD and the LRSD argue that the Court should withdraw supervision from these areas of the respective plans. The PCSSD's and LRSD's motions were both filed on August 23, 1995. on February 9, 1996, the parties entered into a Stipulation whereby it was agreed that the PCSSD, LRSD, and NLRSD should be released from court supervision and monitoring in certain discrete areas of the desegregation plans. The parties further stated that they are in the process of assessing what additional areas of the ctesegregation plans are ripe for release from Court supervision and monitoring and to identify what areas of the desegregation plans -2- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I remain deficient in terms of compliance. The additional hearings that were scheduled to address the motions to withdraw were cancelled at the parties' request as a result of the Stipulation. In light of the Stipulation and subsequent cancellation of the hearings, the Court finds that both the PCSSD's motion to withdraw (doc.#2481) and the LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483) have both been superseded by the Stipulation. Accordingly, these motions are denied as moot. II. On August 31, 1995, Joshua filed a motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506). In its motion Joshua argues that ( 1) the LRSD had not discussed the proposed management services contract with the Joshua Intervenors, (2) the proposed management contract has a potential adverse racial effect and impact, (3) the proposed management contract has not been let for bids and is not a part of the program, research and evaluation instrument for the next five years, (4) the proposed management contract has potential adverse monetary effects upon financial resources of the district and has the potential for adversely affecting the ability of the school district to meet its desegregation obligations, and (5) the proposed management contract was not negotiated at arms' length and was designed to provide special favor to some unknown person in the school district. -3- 3 I I I I The Court held a hearing on Joshua's motion on Saturday, October 28, 1995, and again on Friday, December 8, 1995. At the hearing on December 8th, counsel for Joshua tendered into evidence a document entitled \"Settlement,\" which Joshua maintains constitutes a settlement offer by LRSD that was accepted by Joshua with respect to the ServiceMaster contract. Joshua claims that this constitutes an offer by LRSD to settle the matter with Joshua by having the Court enter an Order enjoining the LRSD from entering I I into the ServiceMaster agreement and terminating the district's I liability pursuant to Paragraph 14.12 of the contract. The LRSD, however, contends that this document was not intended as an offer I I I I I I I I I I I I to settle, in that it is stamped \"Draft\" and is not signed by any party or the attorney for any party. On December 11, 1995, this Court issued an Order in which it ruled as follows: This Court declines to rule on whether this 'settlement' constitutes a binding agreement on the district or on whether the board of directors delegated Mr. Malone the authority to enter into it with Joshua. The court finds that even if Mr. Malone had the authority and even if it was an offer to settle which Joshua accepted, public policy prohibits this type of settlement. This 'settlement' purports to create a situation in which this Court, by agreement of Joshua and  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1639","title":"Court of Appeals, appellant Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) appendix","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":["1996-07-19"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court of Appeals, appellant Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) appendix"],"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/1639"],"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":["154 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2047EALR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT R ,JIii_ 1 ~ 1996 Office of Desegregation Monitoring APPELLANT I v. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES APPELLEE Appeal From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge APPELLANT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S APPENDIX Christopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District 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 v. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES Appeal From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge APPELLANT APPELLEE APPELLANT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S APPENDIX Christopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I XNDEX TO APPENDXX Relevant Docket Entries . . . . . . . . i Motion To Enjoin The LRSD From Entering Into A Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests For Information And Without Prior Involvement of The Joshua Intervenors ......... . Brief In Support of Motion To enjoin The LRSD From Entering Into A Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests For Information And Without Prior Involvement of The Joshua Intervenors. Motion For Order of Dismissal ..... Brief In Support of Motion For Order of Dismissal order, December 11, 1995 The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition To The LRSD's Motion For An Order of Dismissal Memorandum and Order, March 11, 1996 ex 359 - LRSD Management Services Agreement With Servicemaster . . . . . . . . . . . . ex 364 - Opinion No. 95-294 .. CX 373 - Purported Settlement Between LRSD And Servicemaster . . . . . . . . . . ex 374 - Joshua Acceptance of Settlement . . . . 1 . . . . . 4 34 38 44 50 58 69 192 . . . 197 . 206 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8/31/95 2503 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's Program Planning and Budgeting Process (vjt) [Entry date 09/01/95) [4:82cv866] 8/31/95 2504 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1995-96 Budget/August Project Management Tool (vjt) (Entry date 09/01/95) [4:82cv866] 8/31/95 2505 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1996-97 Budget/August Project Management Tool (vjt) (Entry date 09 /01/95) ( 4: 82cv866) 8/31/95 2506: MOTION by Joshua to enjoin the LRSD from entering into. a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors (vjt) [Entry date 09/01/95) (4:82cv866] 9/1/95 2507 CLERK'S MINUTES: DAY THREE of hearings resumes w/Court taking up LRSD; after witness testimony and exhibits received, court instructs Joshua and Knight to file request for hearing to rebuts w/i 10 days and outline areas in which they want evidence presented; hearing will then be set; court adjourns (Waunzell Petre, court reporter) ( sc) [ 4 : 8 2 cv8 6 6 ) 9/1/95 2508 NOTICE of filing of exhibits (335-342) in open court (vjt) [Entry date 09/05/95) [4:82cv866] 9/5/95 2509 LETTER to court from PCSSD re their submission on the pooling issues (vjt) [Entry date 09/06/95) (4:82cv866) 9/5/95 2510 NOTICE of filing of PCSSD Submission Regarding \"Pooling\" Issues (vjt) [Entry date 09/06/95) (4:82cv866] 9/5/95 2511 NOTICE of filing of LRSD Pre-Trial Information Concerning Pooling of M-to-M Funds (vjt) (Entry date 09/06/95) [4:82cv866] 9/7/95 2512 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION by LRSD to release incentive school kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats (vjt) (4:82cv866) 9/7/95 2513 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting LRSD's motions to release incentive school kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats (2469-1) [2512-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 9/7/95 (vjt) (4:82cv866] 9/7/95 2514- RESPONSE by LRSD to Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9/7/95 9/8/95 9/8/95 9/8/95 9/8/95 9/14/95 9/14/95 9/15/95 9/15/95 9/15/95 9/18/95 following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [2506-1) (vjt) [Entry date 09/08/95) [ 4: 82cv866 J 2515 RESPONSE by PCSSD to LRSD pretrial information concerning pooling of m-to-m funds [2511-1) (vjt) [Entry date 09/08/95] [4:82cv866) 2516 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of Budget Hearing before the Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright on 8/1/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 2517 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of Budget Hearing before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 8/2/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866) 2518 CLERK'S MINUTES: HEARING before Judge Susan W. Wright re: M-M pooling as ordered by 8th Circuit on remand; PCSSD puts on evidence, calls Dr. Don Stewart to testify; exhibits received; hearings to continue at a later date (Debbie Petre, court reporter) (sc) [4:82cv866] 2519 NOTICE of filing of exhibits (343-358) by PCSSD and LRsD in open court (vjt) [Entry date 09/11/95) [4:82cv866] 2520 MOTION by PCSSD to clarify the PCSSD Desegregation Plan (vjt) [Entry date 09/15/95) (4:82cv866) 2521 SPECIAL STATUS REPORT of the PCSSD concerning its affirmative action transfer procedure (vjt) [Entry date 09/15/95) [4:82cv866] 2522 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of hrg before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 8/28/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866) 2523 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting PCSSD's motion to improve racial balance at Pine Forest Elementary School [2494-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 9/15/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866) 2524 STATUS REPORT by ODM on Staffing: Elementary Classroom Teachers in the LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD (vjt) [ 4: 82cv866) 2525 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting motion for partial release from court supervision (2486-1); the North Little Rock School District is hereby released from Court supervision on student assignments (cc: all counsel) (EOD 09/18/95) (jad) (4:82cv866) ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9/19/95 2526 NOTICE of filing by Joshua of response to the districts' motions for release of court supervision re the respective settlement plans (vjt) [Entry date 09/20/95) [4:82cv866] 9/20/95 2527 NOTICE by ODM of filing Replacement of Portable Classroom Buildings in the PCSSD {vjt) [Entry date 09 /21/95) [ 4: 82cv866) 9/22/95 2s2s{aRIEF by Joshua in support of motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors (2506-1) (vjt) [4:82cv866] 9/26/95 2529 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright re M-to-M Pooling, the hrg from 9/8/95 is scheduled to continue on Saturday, 10/28/95 from 9:00 am until noon and thereafter to continue on December 14th, 15th, 1995 at 9:00 am if necessary; a hrg is scheduled to begin Monday, 2/12/96 at 9:00 am re court withdrawal from certain aspects of the plan (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 09/27/95) [4:8;acv866) 9/26/95 2530 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright finding Joshua's motions for temporary restraining order, for preliminary injunction and to cite the LRSD for contempt of court moot [2477-1] [2477-2) [2477-3] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 09/27/95) [4:82cv866] 9/27/95 2531 NOTICE of filing of the Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary and the Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Demographic Survey (vjt) [Entry date 09/28/95) [4:82cv866] 9/28/95 2532 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1996-97 Budget/September Project Management Tool (vjt) [4:82cv866) 9/29/95 2533 NOTICE of filing of ADE's Project Management Tool (vjt) [4:82cv866] 9/29/95 2534 MOTION by Joshua for extension of time to file petition for fees and costs (vjt) [4:82cv866] 10/6/95 2535 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of hrg before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 6/23/95 (vjt) [Entry date 10/10/95] [4:82cv866] iii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10/6/95 10/6/95 10/6/95 10/6/95 2536 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of hrg before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 7/7/95 (vjt) [Entry date 10/10/95] [4:82cv866] 2537 LETTER to court from PCSSD re replacement of portables at Sylvan Hills High School and Elementary School and Robinson Elementary School (vjt) [Entry date 10/10/95] [4:82cv866] 2538 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting PCSSD's motion for permission to replace portables at certain schools [2429-1]; the PCSSD is reminded that under the Plan, all school construction is subject to prior approval by this Court (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 10/10/95] [4:82cv866] 2539 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting Joshua's motion for extension of time until 11/15/95 to file petition for fees and costs [2534-1] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 10/10/95] [4:82cv866] 10/24/95 2540 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of proceedings on 8/30/95 before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright (vjt) [4:82cv866] 10/24/95 2541 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of proceedings on 8/31/95 before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright (vjt) [4:82cv866] 10/24/95 2542 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of proceedings on 9/1/95 before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright (vjt) [4:82cv866] 10/24/95 2543 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of proceedings on 9/8/95 before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright (vjt) [4:82cv866] 10/25/95 2544 MOTION by Joshua for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the Little Rock School defts under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation (vjt) [Entry date 10/26/95] [4:82cv866] 10/25/95 2545 MEMORANDUM by Joshua in support of motion regarding faculty and staff assignment practices [2544-1] (vjt) [Entry date 10/26/95] [4:82cv866] 10/26/95 2546 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION by deft Pulaski Cty School for order regarding portable buildings (kayp) [Entry date 10/27/95] [Edit date 10/27/95] [4:82cv866] 10/27/95 2547 MOTION by ServiceMaster for leave to intervene (vjt) [Entry date 10/30/95] [Edit date 10/30/95] [4:82cv866) iv I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10/27/95 10/27/95 10/28/95 10/28/95 10/31/95 10/31/95 10/31/95 11/2/95 11/2/95 11/2/95 11/3/95 2548 BRIEF by ServiceMaster in support of motion for leave to intervene [2547-1) (vjt) [Entry date 10/30/95) [ 4: 82cv866] .2549.f RESPONSE by intv ServiceMaster to Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [2506-1) (vjt) [Entry date 10/30/95) [4:82cv866] 2550 'CLERK'S MINUTES: HEARING before Judge Susan W. Wright on mot by LRSD to prevent LRSD from entering into contract with Service Master; mot to intervene by Service Master granted; attys Joseph Mowery and John Everett present for Service Master; Joshua begins proof with certain testimony; exhibits received; Court will not rule at this time; hearing to be continued (Waunzelle Petre, court reporter) (sc) [Entry date 10/30/95) [Edit date 10/30/95) [4:82cv866] 2551 NOTICE of filing of exhibits (359-371) in open court (vjt) [Entry date 10/30/95) [4:82cv866) 2552 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright that the hrg re Joshua's motion to prevent LRSD from entering into a contract with ServiceMaster is now scheduled to continue on Friday, 12/8/95 at 9:00 am (cc: all counsel) EOD 10/31/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866) 2553 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1996-97 Budget/October Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 11/01/95) [ 4: 82cv866) 2554 NOTICE of filing of ADE's Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 11/01/95) [4:82cv866] 2555 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of budget hrg continued from 6/23/95 before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 7/6/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 2556 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of hrg on motion for TRO and preliminary injunction before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 8/25/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866) 2557 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting ServiceMaster's motion for leave to intervene in accordance w/ the Court's ruling from the bench during a hrg on 10/28/95 [2547-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 10/2/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 2558 MOTION by LRSD for extension of time to respond to Joshua's motion to set forth in detail the V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11/6/95 11/13/95 continuing obligation of LRSD under its desegregation plan with regard to faculty and staff (vjt) (Entry date 11/06/95] (4:82cv866] 2559 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting LRSD's motion for extension of time until 11/13/95 to respond to Joshua's motion regarding faculty and staff (2558-1] (2544-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 11/6/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 2560 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the Little Rock School defts under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation (2544-1] (bt) [Entry date 11/14/95] [4:82cv866] 11/14/95 2561 RESPONSE by NLRSD to Joshua's motion re faculty and staff assignment (2544-1] (vjt) [Entry date 11/ 15/95] [ 4: 82cv866] 11/15/95 2562 MOTION by Joshua for extension of time to file motion for an award of attys' fees and costs (vjt) [Entry date 11/16/95] [4:82cv866] 11/21/95 2563 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting Joshua's motion for extension of time until 11/22/95 to file motion for an award of attys' and costs [2562-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 11/21/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 11/21/95 2564 LRSD's 1995-96 FIRST QUARTER STATUS REPORT (vjt) [Entry date 11/22/95] [4:82cv866] 11/22/95 2565 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM by Joshua for an interim award of attys' fees and for costs for post-judgment monitoring (vjt) [Entry date 11/27/95] [4:82cv866] 11/24/95 2566 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright finding the following motions moot: for modification of desegregation plan by LRSD [2432-1] and for approval of new school sites by PCSSD (2443-1] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 11/27/95] [4:82cv866] 11/29/95 2567 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright that parties may file any objections to ODM's Proposed 1995-96 Budget w/i 15 days from the date of entry of this Order (cc: all counsel) EOD 11/29/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] vi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11/29/95 11/29/95 11/29/95 11/30/95 11/30/95 11/30/95 2568.~BRIEF by intervenor ServiceMaster in support of motion response (2549-1] (vjt) [Entry date 11/30/95] (4:82cv866] 2569 MOTION by intervenor ServiceMaster for leave to file amended answer (vjt) [Entry date 11/30/95] (4:82cv866] 2570 BRIEF by intervenor ServiceMaster in support of motion for leave to file amended answer (2569-1] (vjt) [Entry date 11/30/95] (4:82cv866) 2571 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1996-97 Budget/November Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 12/01/95] (4:82cv866] 2572 NOTICE of filing of ADE's Project Management Tool (vjt) (Entry date 12/01/95] (4:82cv866] 2573 MOTION by LRSD for an order dismissing this case w/ prej w/ respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLSD as of 1/18/91 except to the extent the court retains jurisdiction to address issues re implementation of the plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or the desegregation plans (vjt) (Entry date 12/01/95] [4:82cv866] 11/30/95 2574 BRIEF by LRSD in support of motion for an order dismissing this case w/ prej w/ respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLSD (2573-1] (vjt) [Entry date 12/01/95] (4:82cv866] 12/1/95 12/4/95 12/5/95 12/6/95 12/6/95 2575 NOTICE of filing by ODM of Monitoring Report: The LRSD 1994-95 Incentive School Extended Year Program (vjt) [Entry date 12/04/95] [4:82cv866) 2576 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of Budget Hearing before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 4/10/95 (vjt) (4:82cv866] 2577 MOTION by LRSD and PCSSD to extend time to respond to Joshua's fee petition (vjt) [Entry date 12/06/95] ( 4: 82cv866] 2578 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting joint motion of LRSD and PCSSD to extend time until 12/18/95 to respond to Joshua's fee petition (2577-1] (2565-1] (2565-2] (cc: all counsel) EOD 12/6/95 (vjt) ( 4: 82cv866] 2579 MOTION by Joshua for continuance of hrg scheduled for 12/8/95 (vjt) [Entry date 12/07/95] [4:82cv866] vii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12/6/95 12/8/95 12/8/95 12/8/95 12/8/95 2580 FOURTH QUARTER STATUS REPORT by NLRSD re North Little Rock Plan Implementation in 1994-95 (vjt) [Entry date 12/07/95) [4:82cv866) 2581 CLERK'S MINUTES: HEARING before Judge Susan W. Wright continues re: Joshua's mot for preliminary injunction with respect to ServiceMaster contract; Court receives exhibits and rules from bench; order will issue (Debbie Petre, court reporter) (sc) [Entry date 12/11/95) [4:82cv866] 2582 NOTICE of filing exhibits (372-378) in open court (vjt) [Entry date 12/11/95] [4:82cv866] 2583 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting motion for leave to file amended answer by intv ServiceMaster (2569-1] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 12/11/95] [4:82cv866] 2584~AMENDED RESPONSE by intv ServiceMaster to Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [2506-1) (vjt) [Entry date 12/11/95] [4:82cv866] 12/11/95 2585 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright that Joshua's motion for continuance of hrg set for 12/8/95 was denied in open Court during hrgs conducted on 12/8/95 [2579-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 12/11/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 12/11/95 2586 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright finding that the purported settlement cannot be enforced against ServiceMaster [2506-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 12/11/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 12/12/95 2587 MOTION by Joshua for extension of time to file their response to the LRSD's motion for an order of dismissal (vjt) (Entry date 12/13/95] [4:82cv866] 12/12/95 2588 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting Joshua's motion for extension of time until 1/5/96 to file their response to LRSD's motion for an order of dismissal (2587-1] [2573-1] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 12/13/95) [4:82cv866] 12/14/95 2589 CLERK'S MINUTES: HEARING before Judge Susan W. Wright continued from 9/8/95 on M-M Pooling issues on remand from 8th Circuit; after Dr. Stewart testimony, County rests; LRSD calls Earl Jones to testify; certain exhibits received; Court directs LRSD and PCSSD to file briefs on pooling issue by viii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1/22/96; parties to contact Court if they want a hearing to take Ruth Steele testimony; Court adjourns (Waunzelle Petre, court reporter) (sc) [Entry date 12/15/95) [4:82cv866) 12/14/95 2590 NOTICE of filing of amendment to ODM's September 15, 1995 status report on staffing to add desegregation plan provisions (vjt} [Entry date 12/15/95) [4:82cv866) 12/14/95 2591 NOTICE of filing of exhibits (379-385) in open court (vjt) [Entry date 12/15/95) (4:82cv866] 12/15/95 2592 MOTION by LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD to extend time to respond to Joshua's fee petition (vjt) [Entry date 12/19/95] (4:82cv866] 12/20/95 .2593 -:\"0PPOSITION by Joshua to LRSD's motion for an order 12/22/95 - of dismissal (2573-1] (vjt) [Entry date 12/21/95] [4:82cv866] 2594-'MOTION by Joshua Intervenors for reconsideration of the court's order of 12/11/95 and for  completion of hearing (bt) [Entry date 12/26/95] [4:82cv866] 12/22/95 2595 BRIEF by Joshua Intervenors in support of motion for reconsideration of the court's order of 12/11/95 (2594-1] and for completion hearing (2594-2] (bt) [Entry date 12/26/95] [4:82cv866] 12/27/95 2596 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting motion of LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD to extend time until 1/31/96 to respond to Joshua's fee petition (2592-1) (2565-1] (2565-2] (cc: all counsel) EOD 12/27/95 (vjt) [ 4: 82cv866 J 12/29/95 2597 NOTICE by plaintiff Little Rock School of filing 1996-97 Budget/December Project Management Tool (bt) ( 4: 82cv866 J 12/29/95 2598 NOTICE by defendant Arkansas Educ Board of filing Project Management Tool (bt) [4:82cv866) ix I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD ~ 12cv866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL LEAD APPEAL U.S. District Court USDC for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE#: 82-CV-866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Filed: 11/30/82 Assigned to: Judge Susan W. Wright Demand: $0,000 Nature of Suit: 440 Lead Docket: None Jurisdiction: Federal Question Dkt # in USCA 8USCA: is :00-96-02047 Dkt # in USCA8 : is :00-95-01481 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act 12/29/95 2597 12/29/95 2598 1/4/96 2599 1,d/96 2600 .- 1/8/96 2601?' 1/12/96 2602 1/17/96 2603 NOTICE by plaintiff Little Rock School of filing 1996-97 Budget/December Project Management Tool (bt) [4: 82cv866] NOTICE by defendant Arkansas Educ Board of filing Project Management Tool (bt) [4:82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright approving ODM's Proposed 1995-96 Budget in its entirety [2567-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 1/4/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] RESPONSE by intervenor ServiceMaster to motion for reconsideration of the court's order of 12/11/95 [2594-1) and for completion of hearing [2594-2) (bt) [Entry date 01/09/96) [4: 82cv866] BRIEF by intervenor ServiceMaster in support of response to motion for reconsideration and completion of hearing [2600-1) (bt) [Entry date 01/09/96) [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright that the hrg will resume re motion to withdraw court supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [2481-1) and LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [2483-1) at 9:00 on 2/12/96 (cc: all counsel) EOD 1/12/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] MOTION by Joshua for leave to file reply (vjt) [Entry date 01/18/96) [4: 82cv866] I 1/18/96 2604 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting Joshua's motion leave to file reply; a reply to the ServiceMaster submission dated 1/8/96 is extended to 1/26/96 [2603-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 1/18/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] for I 1/24/96 I 2605 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of Budget Hearing before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 3/24/95 (vjt) [Entry date 01/25/96) [4:82cv866] I Docket as of May 2, 1996 10:28 am Pagel I X - ----- - - - - - - - ~ I I~P ~oceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD .2cv866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL 1/26/96 I 11/26/96 11/26/96 11/26/96 I l/26/96 I 1/26/96 I l/29/96 I l/30/96 I 1/30/96 I 1/31/96 I l/31/96 I 2/1/96 I 2/1/96 I 2/1/96 I 2/5/96 2/5/96 2606( 2607 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 REPLY brief by Joshua Intervenors to response to motion for reconsideration of the court's order of 12/11/95 [2594-1] (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96] [4:82cv866] NOTICE by defendant Pulaski Cty School of filing proposed conclusions of law (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96] [4: 82cv866) NOTICE by defendant Pulaski Cty School of filing proposed findings of fact (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96) [4:82cv866] SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF filed by defendant Pulaski County School regarding \"Pooling\" issues (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96] [4: 82cv866] NOTICE by plaintiff Little Rock School of filing findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding pooling agreement (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96) [4: 82cv866] NOTICE by plaintiff Little Rock School of filing depositions of Dr. Ruth Steele \u0026 Bobby Lester (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96) [4: 82cv866) Amendment to Supplemental MOTION by PCSSD regarding the replacement of portable buildings w/pe:cma.nent construction dated 10/25/95 (vjt) [Entry date 01/30/96) [4: 82cv866) MOTION by LRSD to extend time for the LRSD, PCSSD \u0026 NLRSD to respond to the Joshua fee petition (vjt) [Entry date 01/31/96) [4: 82cv866) NOTICE of filing by ODM of 1995-96 School Racial Balance Monitoring Report: LRSD \u0026 PCSSD (vjt) [Entry date 01/31/96) [4: 82cv866) NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1997-98 Budget/January Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 02/01/96) [4:82cv866) NOTICE of filing of ADE's Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 02/01/96) [4: 82cv866) MOTION by PCSSD to amend desegregation plan (vjt) [Entry date 02/05/96) [4: 82cv866) BRIEF by PCSSD in support of motion to amend desegregation plan [2617-1) (vj t) [Entry date 02/05/96) [4: 82cv866) NOTICE of filing of ADE's Semi-Annual Monitoring Report (vjt) [Entry date 02/05/96) [4: 82cv866J MOTION by Joshua for continuance of hrg set for 2/12/96 (vjt) [Entry date 02/06/96) [4: 82cv866)  WITNESS LIST submitted by LRSD for Unitary Status Hearings lnocket as of May 2, 1996 10:28 am Page 2 I xi I I I PToceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD ,2cv866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL 2/5/96 I 2/6/96 I 2/7/96 I I I 2/8/96 I 2/9/96 I I 2/12/96 I 2/13/96 I 2/14/96 I I 2/20/96 I 2/23/96 I :c. . .1.3/96 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 2627 2628 2629 2630 2631 2632 (vj t) [Entry date 02/06/96] [4: 82cv866] EXHIBIT LIST submitted by LRSD re Unitary Status Hearings (vj t) [Entry date 02/06/96] [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting motion to extend time until 3/1/96 for the LRSD, PCSSD \u0026 NLRSD to respond to Joshua's fee petition [2613-1] [2565-1] [2565-2] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 02/07/96] [4:82cv866] CLERK'S MINUTES: INFORMAL conference in chambers with attys and Ann Brown re: matters to be taken up at next week's hearing \u0026 Joshua's mot for continuance; Joshua's oral mot to extend time to respond to PCSSD's mot to amend granted to 3/1/96; no ruling on continuance; meeting adjourned (Waunzelle Petre, court reporter) (sc) [Entry date 02/08/96] [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting Joshua's oral motion to extend time until 3/15/96 to respond to PCSSD's motion to amend desegregation plan [2617-1] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [4:82cv866] STIPULATION for Order by PCSSD, LRSD, NLRSD and the Joshua \u0026 Knight Intervenors re which areas of the Districts' respective desegregation plans can be released from Court supervision and monitoring (vjt) [Entry date 02/12/96] [4: 82cv866] Amendment to MOTION by PCSSD to amend desegregation plan (vjt) [4: 82cv866] MEMO TO FILE: finding the motion for continuance of hrg set for 2/12/96 moot [2620-1] (bt) [Entry date 02/14/96] [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright scheduling informational hrgs on the LRSD draft budget and budgeting process for 9:00am on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996; June 6 \u0026 7, 1996; and July 29 \u0026 30, 1996; board members of the LRSD are required to attend hrgs (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 02/15/96] [4:82cv866] TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of Budget Hearing before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 8/11/95 (vjt) [Entry date 02/21/96] [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright scheduling evidentiary hrgs for May 13-15 \u0026 May 30-31, 1996 to evaluate the success of settlement plans and desegregation remedies (cc: all counsel) (vj t) [Entry date 02/26/96] [4: 82cv866] LRSD'S SECOND QUARTER STATUS REPORT (vjt) [Entry date 02/26/96] [4: 82cv866] I Docket as of May 2, 1996 10:28 am Page 3 I xii I I Proceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD , 2cv866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL I 2/28/96 1 2/29/96 I 2/29/96 I 3/1/96 I 3/1/96 I 3/1/96 13 't:../96 I I I I I I 3/11/96 13/12/96 I 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 NOTICE of filing by LRSD of \"Little Rock School D~strict Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to Executive Sununary\" (vjt) [Entry date 02/29/96) [4: 82cv866] NOTICE of Filing by plaintiff LRSD's 1997-98 Budget/February Project Management Tool (lb) [Entry date 03/01/96) [Edit date 03/01/96) [4: 82cv866] NOTICE of filing by defendant ADE'S Project Management Tool (lb) [Entry date 03/01/96) [4: 82cv866] RESPONSE by LRSD to Joshua's motion for an interim award of attys' fees [2565-1) and costs for post-judgment monitoring [2565-2) (vjt) [Entry date 03/04/96) [4: 82cv866] MEMORANDUM BRIEF by LRSD in support of motion response [2636-1) (vjt) [Entry date 03/04/96) [4:82cv866] RESPONSE by NLRSD to Joshua's motion for an interim award of attys' fees [2565-1) and costs for post-judgment monitoring [2565-2) (vjt) [Entry date 03/04/96) [4: 82cv866] Supplemental and Clarifying MOTION by PCSSD to amend desegregation plan (vjt) [Entry date 03/07/96) [4: 82cv866] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright denying as moot PCSSD's motion to withdraw court supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [2481-1); denying as moot LRSSD's motion for partial unitary status [2483-1); denying Joshua's motion for reconsideration of the court's order of 12/11/95 [2594-1); denying as moot Joshua's motion for completion of hearing [2594-2); denying w/o prej Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures [2506-1); denying w/o prej PCSSD's motion to clarify the PCSSD Desegregation Plan [2520-1); denying LRSD's motion for an order of dismissal [2573-1); denying w/o prej Joshua's motion for an Order setting forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegragation plan w/respect to faculty and staff [2544-1); granting PCSSD's motions for an Order regarding portable buildings [2546-1) [2612-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 3/11/96 (vjt) [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright directing the LRSD to submit to the Court, ODM \u0026 parties by noon on March 18, 1996 all documents, budget material, business cases and any other info to be introduced at the hrg scheduled for 9:00am on March 26, 1996 (cc: all counsel) EOD 3/12/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] l\u003eocket as of May 2, 1996 10:28 am Page 4 I xiii I I I I I I P-oceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD ~ .2cv866 Little Rock School, et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL 3/15/96 3/18/96 3/26/96 3/26/96 I 3/26/96 I 3/27/96 I I I I I I I I I 3/27/96 3/27/96 3/29/96 3/29/96 4/1/96 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 MOTION by Joshua for leave to file reply (vjt) [Entry date 03/18/96] (4: 82cv866] NOTICE of filing of the Little Rock School District 1996 - 97 Proposed Budget and the Business Cases for Proposed Budget FY 1996-97 in accordance w/the Court's Order of 3/12/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] CLERK'S MINUTES: HEARING before Judge Susan W Wright re: budget of LRSD; testimony by witnesses \u0026 certain exhibits received; hearings conclude (Robin Johnson, court reporter) (sc) (4: 82cv866] NOTICE of filing of exhibits (386 - 389) in open court (vjt) [Entry date 03/27 /96] [4: 82cv866] FIRST QUARTER STATUS REPORT by NLRSD re North Little Rock Plan Implementation in 1995-96 (vjt) [Entry date 03/27/96] (4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting PCSSD's supplemental and clarifying motion to amend desegregation plan; the Court authorizes a special millage election to be held May 7, 1996 and approves to convert Jacksonville Junior High North \u0026 Jacksonville Junior High South with one becoming a middle school hosting sixth \u0026 seventh graders and the other a traditional junior high hosting only eighth \u0026 ninth graders (2639-1]; finding PCSSD's previous motions to amend desegregation plan moot (2617-1] (2627-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 3/27/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright approving the stipulation for order filed 2/9/96 re areas in which the respective parties can be released from court supervision and monitoring (2626-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 3/27/96 (vjt) (4: 82cv866) ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting Joshua's motion for leave to file reply to LRSD \u0026 NLRSD responses to their motion and memorandum for atty's fees \u0026 costs (2642-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 3/27/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] NOTICE of filing of ADE's Project Management Tool (vjt) (4: 82cv866) NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1997-98 Budget/March Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 04/01/96) [4:82cv866] REPLY by Joshua to LRSD \u0026 NLRSD's response to fee petition (2565-1) (2565-2) (vj t) (4: 82cv866) I Docket as of May 2, 1996 10:28 am Page 5 I xiv I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I P~oceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD 32cv866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL 4/4/96 4/4/96 4/8/96 4/9/96 4/16/96 4/22/96 4/26/96 4/30/96 4/30/96 2653 2654 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright directing parties to file any objections on or before 4/15/96 to the Magnet Review Committee's request for approval of the interdistrict magnet school budget for the 1995-96 school year (letter request dated 3/13/96 attached) (cc: all counsel) EOD 4/4/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright setting hrg on Joshua's motion for an interim award of attys' fees [2565-1) and for costs [2565-2) at 9:30 on 7/1/96 (cc: all counsel) EOD 4/4/96 (vj t) [4: 82cv866] 2655 NOTICE of filing of ADE'S Supplemental Report to the 2656 2657 2658 2659 2660 February 1, 1996, Semi-Annual Monitor "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1653","title":"Court Filings concerning ODM recommendations, ADE semi-annual monitoring report, PCSSD and LRSD settlement agreement, NLRSD motion to close Baring Cross School and to expand office complex at Redwood Elementary School, and PCSSD motion to modify desegregation plan regarding class sizes.","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":["1996-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Arkansas. Department of Education","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education, Elementary","School management and organization","School buildings","School facilities","School integration","Redwood Elementary School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","Baring Cross Elementary School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","School employees","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning ODM recommendations, ADE semi-annual monitoring report, PCSSD and LRSD settlement agreement, NLRSD motion to close Baring Cross School and to expand office complex at Redwood Elementary School, and PCSSD motion to modify desegregation plan regarding class sizes."],"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/1653"],"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":["72 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, two orders; District Court, motion of the Joshua intervenors for the implementation of recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring; District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors in support of their motion for the implementation of recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) semi-annual monitoring report; Court of Appeals, standard of review; District Court, motion to shorten time to respond to discovery; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, motion to intervene as defendants; District Court, brief in support of motion to intervene as defendants; District Court, answer of intervenor school districts to second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, order; District Court, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion to close Baring Cross School and to expand office space at Redwood Elementary School; District Court, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) memorandum in support of motion to close Baring Cross School and to expand office complex at Redwood Elementary School; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to modify desegregation plan regarding class sizes; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to modify desegregation plan respecting class sizes; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing Little Rock School District (LRSD) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  ( \\ U.S. OIST:-ICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARl:ANSAS 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 RECEl\\'ED 'JUL 2 1996 JUL O 1 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES Office of D A Limited Partnership j esegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS ORDER Upon motion of the Joshua Intervenors, the Pulaski County Special School District, and the Little Rock School District, the time within which they must file their application for attorneys' - fees with respect to this Court's January 13, 1995 decision and with respect to the May 15, 1996 decision of the Eighth Circuit is hereby extended to thirty days after the mandate is issued by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. IT IS SO ORDERED this st- / day of July 1996. rl-115 DOCU:.1c:, i [::f n::r;:::0 c;~ DOCKET SHEET IN CC1MPUANCE WITH RULE 56 ANDiOR 79(a) FRCP ON 11119': --ev J;7\\:: -=s 270 3 ( IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS fiLEfD U.S. OISTi-lCT COURT [:ASTERN DISTRICT ARV.ANSAS JUL O 1 1996 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES r ~RMACK, CLERK By: \\ ' \\A}\\ AAO I:\"-:,, 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 OE? CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Upon motion of the Arkansas Department of Education, the time within which it must respond to the Pulaski County Special School District's, the Little Rock School District's, and the North Little Rock School District's pending motions to enforce the Settlement Agreement is hereby extended to and including July 22, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this ~ / day of July 1996. rHIS DOCUME ff [1-ffERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 56 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON /J It l9G BY tZJ: J I =t . 2704 u.foi\\bfJ~1RT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL O 2 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION By: -------;:;;:,;:;-;:;:;--;::-;:,;, DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL filSTRICT, ET AL. REC I MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JUL 2 1996 PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Office of Desegregation Monitoring MOTION OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OP- DESEGREGATION MONITORING (ODM) The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of orders, as described in greater detail in this motion, requiring the LRSD defendants to implement various recommendations previously made by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), including the recommendations which the court ordered these defendants to implement in an order entered om July 10, 1992. This motion is based upon the ODM reports which it cites, the \"law of the case,\" the record of the case generally, the accompanying memorandum, and the following allegations. (1.) In its court-approved desegregation plan (see amended version, April 29, 1992), the LRSD defendants agreed to undertake many actions for the benefit of the class of African-American students ( and their parents) , represented by the Joshua Intervenors. These actions were, among other things, to promote desegregation; to strengthen educational opportunities and outcomes 1 for African-American pupils; and to complete \"the transition to a system of public education freed of racial discrimination\" [Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299 (1955)] in a comprehensive and sensitive manner. (2.) In its opinion directing that various settlement agreements of the parties be approved and a subsequent opinion setting forth standards for the modification of those initial agreements, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit identified particularly important features of the settlement, including the LRSD desegregation plan. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F. 2d 1371, 1386 ( 1990) ( \"the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schools\"); 949 F.2d 253, 256 (1991) (including \"double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools; ... the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races; ... appropriate involvement of parents\"). (3.) In its 1990 opinion in this case, the Court of Appeals required the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) \"to be headed by a Monitor appointed by (this court], with such additional personnel as (this court] shall deem appropriate.\" See 921 F. 2d at 1388. The creation of ODM was to help insure \"that the parties' compliance with (the settlement agreements would] be carefully monitored.\" Id. The 1990 opinion also set forth the responsibility of this court to address inadequate compliance with the agreements and, at minimum, implicitly, the propriety of the court's relying upon the findings of its monitors as a predicate 2 for requiring remedial actions. 1 (4.) ODM has described in periodic reports many inadequacies in the LRSD defendants' implementation of their court-approved desegregation plan. Many have involved areas which the Court of Appeals identified as of critical importance. ODM has also set forth many recommendations for addressing the shortcomings in plan implementation which it found. These actions, if carried out in a meaningful manner, would strengthen the implementation of the plan, and thereby benefit the persons represented.by Joshua. (5.) Orders requiring the LRSD defendants to implement ODM recommendations constitute \"action (which] is appropriate ... to ensure compliance with the (LRSD desegregation plan] ... \" (921 F. 2d at 1394], so long as these defendants have an opportunity to demonstrate that the implementation of a particular recommendation should not be required. (6.) In an order dated July 10, 1992, this court adopted the recommendations made by ODM in its 1991-92 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report. However, the LRSD defendants have failed to implement these recommendations adequately. 1 See 921 F.2d at 1386 (\"It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to -- and here we have in mind especially the kinds 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.\"); ig., at 1390 (\"We accept these undertakings [to implement compensatory and remedial education programs], 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.\"); .ig., at 1394, para. 8. 3 (7.) It is appropriate for the court to order the LRSD defendants to implement the following recommendations, including those set forth in the ODM 1991-92 Incentive Schools Monitoring report, absent a satisfactory particularized showing of impropriety as to a specific recomme.ndation: (a.) 6/5/92 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report 1991-92 ( i) recommendation to assign students with sensi ti vi ty to the relationship between placement stability and academic progress (Summary at 2) (ii) five recommendations to improve student recruitment [Summary at 4-5; see also paras. 7-c. and 7-i.(i)] (iii) two staffing recommendations to improve quality of staff selections [Summary at 6; see also paras. 7-f., 7-h.-(ii), 7-k., 7- 1.] (iv) four recommendations to improve and implement staff development [Summary at 7-8; see also paras. 7-h.-(iii), (ix)-(xi), (xiii) , (xix)] (v) three recommendations to implement court orders and improve class sizes and three recommendations re student groupings (Summary at 10-11) (vi) five recommendations to improve implementation of the commitment to multicultural education (Summary at 13) (vii) three recommendations to improve instructional practices ( Summary at 14) (viii) four recommendations regarding materials and equipment which support the instructional process [Summary at 15; re science 4 program, # 4, see also para. 7-h.-(xi)] (ix) four recommendations re the Early Childhood program to improve its implementation [Summary at 17; see also paras. 7-h.( viii) ; 7-i.] (x) two recommendations re the Special Education program [Summary at 18; re gifted and talented program,# 2, see also para. 7-h.-(iv)] (xi) three recommendations to enhance supplemental programs, such as foreign language, Latin program, cl~ssics reading, African American studies and field trips [Summary at 18-21; re school themes, # 3, se also para. 7-h.-(x)] (xii) six recommendations to improve and implement discipline commitments in the plan [Summary at 23; see also para. 7-h.-(iii)J (xiii) five recommendations to improve implementation of the extended day, week, and year activities [Summary at 25; see also para. 7-h.-(xvi)-(xviii)J (xiv) recommendation to evaluate the relationship between the Homework Hotline and Homework Centers (Summary at 26) (xv) three recommendations re guidance counseling services [Summary at 27; see also para. 7-h.-(xxii)J (xvi) two recommendations to improve implementation of wellness program (Summary at 29} (xvii) three recommendations to improve implementation of mentoring program (Summary at 29-30; see also para. 7-h.-(xiv)] (xviii) 11 recommendations to help reduce achievement disparity (Summary at 31-32) 5 I I I I I I I I I (xix) two recommendations to help reduce student retention in grade (Summary 33) (xx) 12 recommendations to improve parental involvement through implementation of programs such as Parent council, parent workshop, home visits, PTA, etc. (Summary 37-39; see also para. 7- h.-(xxiv)-(xxv)] (xxi) recommendations to correct apparent physical facility problems . at each school (Summary at 43 (excluding Ish and Stephens); see also para. 7-h.-(v)-(vi)] (xxii) three recommendations to implement double funding (Summary at 47; see also para. 7-h.-j.J (b.) 11/16/92 Report on the Biracial Committees 21 recommendations designed to strengthen the operation of the biracial committee (see also, 1994-95 Incentive Schools monitoring report, at 62, # 38) (c.) 3/11/94 Recruitment Monitoring Report 12 recommendations to improve recruitment (at 12-13, 19-20; excluding# 11, at 19) (d.) 12/18/94 Report on the Alternative Schools 21 recommendations designed to strengthen each aspect of the LRSD alternative school program (at 14-17); (however, Joshua intervenors do not seek expansion of the alternative school program, at least until such time as the system demonstrates the ability to deal with black youth who are dropouts or potential dropouts in an evenhanded manner) (e.) 9/6/94 Involvement in the 1994-95 Selection of Principals 6 19 recommendations~ the principal interview and selection process, with an emphasis upon the effective involvement of parents (at 21-23) (f.) 12/2/94 Incentive Schools Staffing 1994-95 three recommendations to promote involvement of incentive schools staffing committees in the selection of all certified personnel (at 3, 4) (g.) 12/22/94 Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants four recommendations directed to the timeliness and quality of these activities (at 31-32) (h.) 5/17/95 Incentive Schools Mon. Report 1994-95 (and Incentive Schools Monitoring Reports for 1992-93 and 1993-941 (i) identify the actions that are working to make Rockefeller 4I a desegregated school and adopt or adapt them for the other incentive schools [1992-93, at 5; 1993-94, at 5] (ii) three recommendations designed to improve the assessment, on an annual basis, of the positions needed in each incentive school (1992-93, at 15; see also 1993-94, at 15] (iii) hold periodic meetings to discuss successful techniques for addressing disciplinary needs (1993-94, at 29] (iv) increase the amount of time the gifted and talented specialist spends in each incentive school to improve the quality of the program and the identification of youths who should be participants (1992-93, at 34; 1993-94, at 32] (v) develop a system of preventive maintenance which assures that each structure will be maintained in good working order and 7 have sufficient aesthetic appeal (cleanliness, fresh paint, landscaping, and other evidence of care and attention) to attract parents and students (1993-94, at 36] (vi) carry out any of ODM's other recommendations concerning facilities, which have yet to be carried out (see 1992-93, at 38; 1993-94, at 36; 1994-95, at 17] (vii) seven recommendations to improve the functioning of the Incentive Schools Parent Council (1992-93, at 41] (viii) two recommendations to improve ~he functioning of the Early Childhood Education Task Force (1992-93, at 43] {ix) recommendations to improve the abilities of teachers and administrators to implement the new curriculum (1992-93, at 45-46) {x) a total of four recommendations to improve the integration of the school theme in the various aspects of the program [1992-93, at 47-48, excluding recommendation re Ish; 1993-94, at 46) {xi) a total of three recommendations to insure adequate inservice training of science teachers, availability of adequate materials for science instruction, and humane treatment of laboratory animals [1992-93, at 49; 1993-94, at 47; 1994-95, at 36) {xii) a total of four recommendations to provide for the implementation of the foreign language program promised in the plan [1992-93, at 51; 1993-94, at 48) {xiii) provide in-service training to implement plan provision for criterion referenced assessment [1992-93, at 53] {xiv) three recommendations to increase the number of mentors and their skills [1992-93, at 61, 78; 1993-94, at 84] 8 (xv) allow three and four year-olds to use buses for field trips [1992-93, at 63) (xvi) a total of nine recommendations designed to increase the number of youth participating in the extended year program and to enhance its quality ( 1992-93, at 68; 1993-94, at 65-66] (xvii) a total of four recommendations to increase participation in and otherwise improve the extended week program [1993-94, at 60; 1994-95, at 36) (xviii) three recommendations re the extended day program (1992-93, at 72; 1994-95, at 36) (xix) two recommendations designed to improve coordination between teachers and teacher aides and to enhance the aides' skill levels (1992-93, at 76] (xx) two recommendations to increase the involvement in the schools of persons enrolled in pre-professional programs and employed in community agencies (1992-93, at 78) (xxi) recommendatf ons for standardizing the content of student profiles and insuring their preparation for each student [1992-93, at 85; 1993-94, at 70) (xxii) a total of eight recommendations designed to strengthen the provision of guidance and social work services in the schools, and to promote the comprehensiveness and the coordination of available services (1992-93, at 89, #'s 1 and 3; 1993-94, at 73; 1994-95, at 37) (xxiii) three recommendations re the incentive schools parent program (.i;:g parent job skills, providing requested help, and use of 9 community resources to meet parents educational needs) (1992-93, at 91-92] (xxiv) a total of four recommendations to improve parent workshops (coordinate training with other agencies, evaluate workshops in terms of their purposes, secure feedback from participants, try new approaches) (1992-93, at 97; 1993-94, at 79; 1994-95, at 62] (xxv) a total of five recommendations regarding the extent of parental involvement (standardize methods for recording contacts, develop transportation to increase parent involvement, promote increased use of parent centers and document their use, provide updated contracts for parents to sign) (1992-93, at 105; 1993-94, at 77] (xxvi) three recommendations to improve the programs for speakers bureaus and key communicators (1992-93, at 109; 1993-94, at 86; 1994-95, at 62] (i.) 5/26/95 1994-95 Four-Year-Old Program in the LRSD (i) three recommendations re improved recruitment (at 13) (ii) workshops for parents earlier in the school year (at 22) ( iii) strengthen tracking of youth attending programs to improve the ability to study the relationship of participation to later academic success (two recommendations, at 26) (iv) replace worn out consumable furnishings (at 28) (j.) 8/16/95 Double Funding of Incentive Schools budget annually an amount of money adequate to double fund the incentive schools without overspending that budget category (at 4) 10 (k.) 9/15/95 Staffing: Elementary Classroom Teachers - (i) develop policies on numerical ranges for black staffing at individual schools (at 11) (ii) develop specific methods to identify and address instances in which subgroups of staff are racially identifiable (at 11) 10) (1.) 5/10/96 Incentive School Staffing 1995-96 (i) conduct exit interviews of departing staff (at 8) (ii) develop support system for first year teachers (at 8) (iii) select experienced principals for incentive schools (at (iv) develop specific methods to identify and address instances in which subgroups of staff are racially identifiable (at 12) (see also 12\\22\\94 report on incentive schools staffing, at 6) WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the court order the LRSD defendants: ( 1. ) to implement each recommendation listed in paragraph ( 7. ) of this motion, as originally described by ODM, absent a satisfactory particularized showing of impropriety as to a specific recommendation; (2.) to report to the court and the parties 120 days from the date of the court's order re the recommendations, and at 120 day intervals thereafter until excused by the court, the system's progress in implementing each recommendation; and ( 3. ) to respond to any reasonable requests by the Joshua Intervenors to learn the system's progress in implementing a 11 particular recommendation(s). Respectfully submitted, ohn W. Walker# 64046 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 motion was sent via United States mail to all counsel of record on this ~ day of July, 1996. 12 RE UUL 2 1996 I JUL O 2 1996 / Office of Desegr:Hfli't\\{IJ!prmfil!'J'ED STATES DISTRICT COUR.l?\\MES W McCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By: WESTERN DIVISION -----~D~E=P~C~LE=R=K 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. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING (ODM) Joshua's motion for enforcement of ODM recommendations is straightforward. The LRSD defendants agreed in their desegregation plan to implement many actions for the benefit of the class of persons represented by the Joshua Intervenors . Beginning in 1992, ODM has documented these defendants' failure to fulf i ll, in an adequate manner, many of the promises which they made. ODM has also made a large number of specific recommendations for remedial action, many set forth more than once. An order requiring implementation of these ODM recommendations is in keeping with the guidance provided to this court by the Court of Appeals, and earlier action by this court. In its opinion at the end of 1990 directing appr oval of the various settlements, the Court of Appeals provided for the creation of ODM; stated that this court was responsible for the careful monitoring of the systems' compliance with the agreements 1 (obviously with considerable reliance on the work of ODM); and identified \"the job (of this court]\" as involving the framing of remedies in the event of the \"flout(ing] 11 of \"desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans .... \" See Little Rock School District v. Pulaki County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1386, 1390, 1394 (8th Cir.). The Joshua Intervenors proceed in accord with these principles. Joshua's motion provides, in effect, that a prima facie case is established by an ODM finding of non-compliance with a particular provision of the desegregation plan. That is, the ODM finding establishes the predicate for the court's requiring compliance with the corresponding ODM recommendation (or a variant deemed to be more appropriate), absent a particularized showing by LRSD that it is not appropriate to require compliance with a particular recommendation. See Motion, at paras. 5., 7. We submit that the Court of Appeals sanctioned this approach. In three instances, the Court's articulation of this court's obligation to monitor compliance with the agreements was immediately followed by the identification of this court's responsibility to take appropriate remedial action in the event of noncompliance. 1 This language either states or clearly implies that the results of monitoring -- otherwise determined by the Court of Appeals to be the task of ODM -- provide one basis for requiring further remedial action. It would be senseless to provide for a separate monitoring 1 See Little Rock School District, supra, 921 F.2d at 1386, 1390, 1394 at para. s. 2 office at considerable expense, and then to limit the impact of its actions to providing notice of problems only. In an order entered on July 10, 1992, this court after a hearing \"adopt[ed) the recommendations of the ODM contained in the (1991-92) Incentive Scho~ls Monitoring Report.\" To be sure, the court there noted the absence of objections to the report. While that may not be the case here, again, Joshua's motion recognizes the right of LRSD to seek to show that a recommendation or recommendations should not be adopted. Thus, fairness to the LRSD defendants is guaranteed. Because there has not been adequate compliance with the court's order of July 10, 1992, the current motion requests the court to reiterate the requirement to implement the recommendations set forth in the 1991-92 Report. There is an obvious relationship between the current motion and Joshua's earlier motion seeking the appointment of a wellqualified educator independent of the LRSD to direct the implementation of the incentive schools provisions of the agreements. Compliance with the current motion, if granted, will require, among other things, fact gathering; assessment of facts; policy development; implementation of policies; program devlopment; designing and carrying out training programs; and reaching out to staff and parents, including those serving on various committees. Granting of the earlier motion will mean that new leadership will lead and oversee these endeavors. The facts set forth in the earlier motion establish the need for the change in leadership. See also \"Monitoring Report: The Little Rock School District 1994- 3 95 Incentive Schools Extended Year Program,\" ODM Report, Dec. 1, 1995, at 12 (\"While we have noted pockets of excellence many times, never have we seen the top-level commitment and consistent effort that would yield the superior quality of education envisioned in the 1992 Desegregation P_lan. The extended year program in 1995 is no exception.\") The relief sought by Joshua requiring periodic reports of compliance and Joshua's ability to secure additional information is appropriate. Compare Louisiana v. United Sates, 380 U.S. 145, 155- 56 (1965) (monthly reporting); and Vail v. Board of Education, 354 F. Supp. 594, 604 (D.N.H. 1973) (right of plaintiffs' counsel to inspect records to insure compliance with court's order). Lastly, it is again appropriate to note that the LRSD - defendants have had more than enough time to comply with the promises which they made to the class represented by Joshua. Thus, one finds Judge Henry Woods in his order of December 11, 1989, 4 lamenting, i nter alia, LRSD's failure to implement its own proposals regarding the incentive schools, a continuing problem. 2 Walker# 64046 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 Ment via United States mail to all couns of record on this day of July, 1996. 2 Judge Woods wrote, in part: \" .... The LRSD apparently intends to continue its course of complying only with court orders it likes. Once again the areas of non-compliance concern the all-black schools. The LRSD ignored and failed to implement virtually every educational component which would justify the existence of the allblack schools. This includes approved portions of their own plan for the proposed 'Incentive Schools.' ... \" (at 16, footnote omitted). 5 IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. . NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ..... JUL ~) 1996 Office of DeseQregation Monitoring ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUl O 3 1996 PLAINTIFF  DEFENDAN1S INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors shall be allowed 30 additional days to respond to the discovery request of the Little Rock School District conerning the Joshua fee petition. Therefore, a response shall be served not later than July 29, 1996. fHIS DOCUM~NT ENTcRC:D O~J DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 5tl AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 1Li/9.b BY_.lj,_ ----=--- 2707  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 FILED U.S. DIST~ICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL t 2 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has previously scheduled hearings for July 29 and 30, 1996 to consider Little Rock School District (LRSD) budget matters for FY 1996-97. Also on those dates, the Court intended to review the 1996-97 budgets for the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). Due to scheduling conflicts on the Court's docket (primarily as a result of an ongoing criminal trial), the Court will be unable to hold budget hearings on the dates scheduled. Those hearings are therefore canceled. In lieu of budget hearings, the Court orders the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD to submit to the Office of Desegregation monitoring (ODM), on a date and time to be determined by them, any information ODM deems necessary for an adequate review of each district's budget. The Court expects the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD to cooperate in good faith with ODM 2709 regarding submission of any requested information so that further - orders of the Court are unnecessary. Also before the Court is the Joshua Intervenors' motion for an interim award of attorney's fees and costs (doc.#2565] . 1 The Court hereby schedules a hearing on this motion to begin at 9:30 a.m. on July 29, 1996, in room #305, 600 West Capitol Avenue, U.S. Courthouse, in Little Rock, Arkansas. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of July 1996. TE:S-- D:tSTicT JUDGE 1 A hearing on this motion had previously been scheduled for July I , 1996, but had to be cancelled due to an ongoing criminal trial. -2- Atkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division July 15, 1996 John W. Walk~r, Esq. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 M. Samuel Jones III, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Boatmen's Bank Building Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. First Federal Plaza 401 West Captiol Avenue Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Counsel of Record: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge, \u0026 Clark First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3401 Ann S. Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. TCBYTower 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECE!V~D ;!c,,,, c'  ,J,; .. ,,., ,, t d JUL 1 5 199/, c;: ::,-i' 4 ..... Office of Desegregation Monitoring ' -- - -- -- -- -- .. -  --   - - - -. -- --_,..,,  .4 Please find enclosed a copy of the Arkansas Department of Education's Semi-Annual Monitoring Report. If you need any additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, J ilMa/41/4 , ;li~~th Turner Enclosure --STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chairman - RICHARD C. SMITH~ JR .. McGeheo  Vice Chairman - WILLIAM 8 . FISHER, Paragould Members: CARL E. BAGGETT, Rogers  GARY BEASLEY. Crossett  LUKE GORDY. Van Buren  MITCH LLEWELLYN, JR. , Fort Smith JAMES McLARTY III, Newport  RAE RICE PERRY, Arkadelphia  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  ELAINE SCOTT, Little Rock SHERRY WALKER, Little Rock  JAMES WHITMORE, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employor UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL.,----- MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., LR-.C,....-. 82-866 RECEIVED )/lf,,.J- J)e/, ,,,4., c.,!_ DEFENDANTS , 1111 1 5 1996 INTER VEN ORS 7 ! .)d\"~ Olfic8 ot Desegregation Monitoring INTER VEN ORS THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S  SEMI-ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (J:fc.J ,,, ,.-1. .. ,,. .. y) In compliance with this Court's Order of December 10, 1993, and the Department's Implementation Plan filed with this Court, the Arkansas Department of Education submits its - Semiannual Monitoring Report to the parties and the Court. The Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee met on July 8, 1996, and discussed this report. The Committee noted no representatives from the parties or the Office of Desegregation Monitoring attended. The Committee invites the parties and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to attend committee meetings and offer comments and suggestions on the semi-annual monitoring reports. Respectfully submitted, ELIZETHTlJRNER, Bar I.D. # 90-181 Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 401A Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Elizabeth Turner, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing response by hand delivering on this A.day of July 1996, to: John W. Walker, Esq. John W. Walker, P.A. 1 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1313","title":"Proceedings: ''Little Rock School District (LRSD) Budget Hearing''","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":["1996-06-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School board members","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Little Rock School District (LRSD) Budget Hearing''"],"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/1313"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["8 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1599","title":"Court Filings concerning request for production of documents and interrogatories to the State Board of Education, motions to enforce settlement agreement, and project management tools.","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":["1996-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. State Board of Education","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","School management and organization","School districts","Education and state","School employees","Retirement","Teachers--Salaries, etc."],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning request for production of documents and interrogatories to the State Board of Education, motions to enforce settlement agreement, and project management tools."],"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/1599"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["13 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1356","title":"Proceedings: ''Hearing''","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":["1996-05-31"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","North Little Rock School District","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Hearing''"],"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/1356"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["86 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1353","title":"Proceedings: ''Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief Concerning the Incentive Schools''","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":["1996-05-31"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School administrators","School facilities","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief Concerning the Incentive Schools''"],"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/1353"],"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":["159 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1387","title":"Proceedings: ''Testimony of Gary Orfield, Ph.D.''","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":["1996-05-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational innovations","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Testimony of Gary Orfield, Ph.D.''"],"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/1387"],"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":["208 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1624","title":"Court filings: District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to end federal court jurisdiction; District Court, memorandum brief in support of the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to end federal court jurisdiction; seventeen exhibits","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-05-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","Educational statistics","Education--Standards","School enrollment","School improvement programs","Magnet schools","Student assistance programs","Student suspension","School discipline","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to end federal court jurisdiction; District Court, memorandum brief in support of the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to end federal court jurisdiction; seventeen exhibits"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1624"],"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":["58 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":25,"next_page":26,"prev_page":24,"total_pages":46,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":288,"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}}]}}