{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1390","title":"Proceedings: ''Testimony of David J. Armor, Ph.D.,'' Volume II","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":["1996-05-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","Magnet schools","School employees","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Testimony of David J. Armor, Ph.D.,'' Volume II"],"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/1390"],"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":["35 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1367","title":"Proceedings: ''Testimony of David J. Armor, 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":["1996-05-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education--Standards","School management and organization","Court records","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Testimony of David J. Armor, 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/1367"],"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":["128 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1385","title":"Proceedings: ''Testimony of Herbert J. Walbert, 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":["1996-05-13"],"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","North Little Rock School District","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Testimony of Herbert J. Walbert, 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/1385"],"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":["168 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1622","title":"Court Filings concerning Little Rock School District's motion to end federal court jurisdiction, LRSD 1995-96 third quarter status report, motion to enforce settlement agreement with the state, LRSD budget, and incentive school management","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"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Education--Finance","Educational planning","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization","School integration","School employees","Magnet schools","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning Little Rock School District's motion to end federal court jurisdiction, LRSD 1995-96 third quarter status report, motion to enforce settlement agreement with the state, LRSD budget, and incentive school management"],"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/1622"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["36 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1623","title":"Court filings concerning attorney's fees, Arkansas Department of Education supplement to semiannual report, and project 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":["1996-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School enrollment","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning attorney's fees, Arkansas Department of Education supplement to semiannual report, and project 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/1623"],"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":["188 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Springer, Joy C."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1300","title":"Proceedings: ''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":null,"dc_date":["1996-03-26"],"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","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''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/1300"],"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":["61 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1602","title":"Court filings concerning attorney's fees, desegregation plan amendments, management tools, and Little Rock School District 1996-97 proposed budget","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning attorney's fees, desegregation plan amendments, management tools, and Little Rock School District 1996-97 proposed budget"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1602"],"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":["32 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Jones, Stephen W."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1661","title":"Court Filings: District Court, depositions of Dr. Ruth Steele and Bobby Lester","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":["Steele, Ruth","Lester, Bobby"],"dc_date":["1996-01-26"],"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--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Education--Arkansas","School superintendents","School management and organization","Education--Finance","Little Rock School District","School integration","Educational planning","School districts"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, depositions of Dr. Ruth Steele and Bobby Lester"],"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/1661"],"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":["137 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Steele, Ruth","Lester, Bobby"],"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, 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. NOTICE OF FILING OF DEPOSITIONS OF DR. RUTH STEELE AND BOBBY LESTER PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Little Rock School District, for its Notice of Filing, states: 1. The following documents are being filed and made a part of the record in the above-styled case: (a) Deposition of Dr. Ruth Steele, taken December 8, 1995; (b) Deposition of Bobby Lester, taken December 8, 1995. (:lbomolfoadloy\\lnd\\lnd-pul- Respectfully submitted, Christopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 501/376-2011 Attorneys for LRSD By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE served on the following counsel on this zJet1. day of ..,. _____,. ,-/ I certify that a copy of the foregoing pleadinFasbe en 19 tj(, Y Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 (:lbomo\\fcndloy\\lndllnd-pw.- ,. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et. al. V. No . LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA, et.al. KATHERINE w. KNIGHT, et.al.  DEPOSITION OF DR. RUTH STEELE TAKEN IN LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1995 AT INSTANCE OF DEFENDANTS ********** APPEARANCES ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF : CHRIS HELLER, ESQ. CLAY FENDLEY, ESQ. Friday, Eldredge and Clark 400 West Capitol AV Little Rock, AR 72201 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: M. SAMUEL JONES, ESQ. Wright, Lindsey and Jennings 200 West Capitol AV Little Rock, AR 72201 ********** copy GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r so 1 , 224-6409 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS CONTENTS APPEARANCES STIPULATIONS WITNESS SWORN EXAMINATION BY MR. JONES COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE (SOIJ 224-6409 PAGE 1 3 4 4 27 2  3 STIPULATIONS The deposition of DR. RUTH STEELE, produced, sworn and examined in the offices of Wright, Lindsey and Jennings, 200 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas, commencing at 10:10 a.m. on Friday, December 8, 1995 in the captioned cause at the instance of the counsel for the Defendants, said deposition being taken according to the terms and provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is stipulated and agreed that all forms and formalities in the taking, transcribing, forwarding and filing of said deposition are hereby waived by the parties, the right being expressly reserved to object to the testimon of the witness at the time of trial as to responsiveness, competency, relevancy and materiality, other than those with respect to the form of the questions as propounded to the witness . GIBSONBRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE r so 1 J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THEREUPON, DR. RUTH STEELE having been called to testify, was duly sworn and testified as follows : EXAMINATION BY MR . JONES : Q A Q Who are you? Ruth Steele. Ruth, help me. Can you give me the dates in which you 4 became the Little Rock superintendent, and the date that you left? A Q A Q In July of 1989 and to June 30, 1992. And I trust Chris has told you why you're here? Yes. Okay. Before I get into the obvious questions, have you had occasion to review anything in writing to help you get ready for the deposition today? A A little bit of the settlement agreement, and some factual information that showed some budget . figures, and things of that nature. Q A Can you be more specific on the latter? I think it was a work-up sheet that was produced by someone at the Pulaski County School District, showing a scenario of M to M payments , and that sort of thing. Q Before you reviewed that recently, had you ever seen it GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE (501 J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or something like it? A Q No, I had not seen anything like that. Okay. Anything else that you can recall that you reviewed? A Q A Q A No. Any -- did you review anybody's testimony? No. Did Chris or anyone else summarize that for you? He talked a little bit about the - - no, I don't think not about anybody's testimony. Q A Or anybody's position, or anything like that? We just reviewed some general types of ideas, thoughts, 5 comments from -- that Don had made, that Chip had made just to kind of help me to recollect some of the things that were occurring around the time frame that we're talking about . Q What I want to ask you to do -- understanding that we're going to get down to late September of 1989 -- can you capsule for me your recollection of what was still an issue regarding the financial settlement with the state as we entered those hearings before Mr . Mccutcheon in late September of '89? A One of the issues had to do with the methods of funding for the interdistrict schools, and the problems about the actual payments, and how those would be handled. There had been a lot of prior issues over the release o GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE (S0IJ 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - 6 funds whether or not there was actually an agreement that could be acted upon, based on the problems with the -- that we had with the legislature first approving it, and then the appropriations bill being struck, and then Nap Murphy losing his key, and then the third and final decision from the legislature about the capping the amount of money, and not really agreeing in substance to anything other than a cap, in terms of the money, except for those things which had already been agreed to, like the M to M money, and transportation, and that kind of thing. Q And as the hearings began, do you have a recollection of any issues that were still out there between the parties -particularly the county and Little Rock? A The discussions about the interdistrict schools. That was one of the things discussed. And then the discussion with the -- with Mccutcheon over whether or not there was an executable agreement, it seems to me were -- those were primarily the things that I remember being an issue then. Q Do you remember anything occurring during the course of those hearings that prompted the parties to engage in furthe negotiations? A I remember there was a -- there was a room that we -- several of us were coming in and out. There was an issue over the funding of the interdistrict schools and the poolin of the -- how that would work. And there were some GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - discussions between Chris and you, and others that you were engaged in some discussion around, around that. And the -- primarily that's what I recall was going on at that particular time. Q Do you recall any specifics at all about pooling -where the term came from, what it meant -- anything like that? 7 A What I understood that it meant was that the money would be -- that would be forthcomi ng from the state in terms of the sending and receiving districts, and the amount that would be contributed, that would be pooled; and that that would be used -- that pooled money would be used for the education of students attending the interdistrict schools. And that's what -- and that the amount that would be spent would be equalized so that no students from either district would be penalized in terms of a per pupil expenditure that would be identified for them as they attended those schools, in the event that two were eventual! established one in Little Rock and one in Pulaski County . Q Do you have any recollection of why pooling came into existence? A It's -- my recollection is that it came into existence because we were attempting to establish, based on the magnet school model, that there would be an equitable, same amount of money that would be spent in the interests of furthering GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE ( 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 desegregation to those types of schools. That's what I recall. Q- I take it, then, that you do not have any recollection 8 that would involve settling an issue, like who got what part of the funds the state was willing to provide? A Well, the sending district was to receive -- or was to contribute half its table rate. And the host district was to receive the full cost of educating the child, is what I remember about the distribution of the money; and that the $200,000 per year that Pulaski County was going to get for a five - year period would be contributed toward that pool. Q Do you have any recollection of why the county was going to contribute $200,000 a year? A The only thing that I remember is that there were some difference in the amount of money per pupil that the county expended in educating its students, as compared with what Little Rock was spending to educate students; and that that amount of money was perhaps going to be used for that purpos to equalize all of that, as a 'part of that . Q Let me just try kind of a general question . Is there anything else that you can recall being either debated or resolved in that room outside of the court room during the course of those hearings? A There were, as I recall from the discussions, there wer there was agreement as to the fact that the interdistrict GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 schools would be funded along the same general types of procedures as the magnet schools. There would be a per pupil amount established. There would be equalized funding, which would come from the pool that was generated through funds from Little Rock and from Pulaski County. And that the application of that would be for all of the students that were attending the interdistrict schools, not simply those sent or received; but that that would apply to the total student population in the interdistrict school. And I think that's reflected in the subsequent paragraphs that were added to the September version of the settlement agreement, which I think is dated a day or so after the hearing that we had with Mr. Mccutcheon. Q And I didn't bring the thing with me. But -- is that it, Chris? MR. HELLER: Yeah. BY MR. JONES: Q Ruth, may I just look at that, and identify it, for the record the paragraph that you're referrlng to. A I think they're on pages 11 and 12. They're paragraph '0' and 'P' of the revised agreement. Q Let me just glance at that. After these hearings ended, do you have any recollection of reducing to writing yourself anything that was discussed or agreed to in those negotiatin sessions that took place during the hearings? GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 A Are you asking if I wrote anything, or if I have any recollection of anyone writing anything? Q A Yes. I don't recall when that was done, or how that was done. I did not write anything. Q Okay. Do you recall if you took any notes during those negotiating sessions? A I probably did because I usually always did . But I don't have any idea where they are. But I'm just sort of a note-taker, so I probably wrote some things down at some point. But I don't have them, as far as I know because I've gone through a lot of files since then. Q That would have been the kind of thing that you would have left at the district, or taken with you -- if you know? A I don't know. I took a lot of things home. And -- but there were just volumes and tons of stuff, as you know. And I have no idea where any of that might be -- probably in my rough notes that I took with me. But I wouldn't have any idea whether I saved them or not. Q After those hearings concluded in September of '89, do you have any recollection of the pooling matter coming to your attention or being anything that you were working on, o directing anyone to work on any time before you left in June of '92? A There were some discussion about that with Chip Jones GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE f 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 and Herb Cleek. And I did not work directly with that, except to -- my concern was always that you make sure that the students who move from our district to Pulaski County are not shortchanged in terms of any per pupil expenditure that were being spent for them; and that the pattern of funding for the interdistrict schools would be similar to that of the magnet schools, not necessarily in terms of the exact amount, but that there would be an amount identified that would be spent for the students who attended those schools. And my concern was that we would not want our kids to be going to the Pulaski County School District, and receiving less per pupil in any kind of significant way, other than what they had received and would have received had they stayed with us. Q Other than that recollection, do you have any recollection or knowledge of any work or analysis that Mr. Cleek or Mr. Jones may have done, . either during your tenure or thereafter? A I don't recall seeing anything in writing that they produced. Q We can look at some of the language -- the paragraph '0,' page 12 of the agreement, the particular sentence that says, 11The instructional budgets of the interdistrict school will be equalized.\" Let me ask you first, in 1989, if I had GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE f 50 I J 224-6409  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 asked you in that room what an instructional budget was, what would you have told me? A I would have told you that that included, to my knowledge, everything except transportation and capital outlay. That's generally what I think the state understood a per pupil expenditure to mean. That would have been instructional costs, excluding generally those two items building buildings and transportation. Q Since we all know that at one time you headed the State Department of Education, could you direct me at all to any document or book, or anything like that, out there that woul use the term 'instructional budget;? A I don't think that that term was used, though I think the term 'per pupil expenditure' was used, which has typically been understood to be synonymous generally with th term 'instructional budget.' And that appears, as I recall, in the document that's produced yearly by the state that compares districts throughout the state in a number of ways. And one of those is on the basis of per pupil expenditure. And I think that that term is defined perhaps in the front o that book, or somewhere. Or it's been generally understood to mean instructional costs, or the cost of educating the child that's spent on a district basis. Q Do you have any idea, then, why the settlement GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE ( 50 I J 224-6409 ]. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 J.0 ]. ]. J.2 J.3 - J.4 J.5 J.6 ]. 7 ]. 8 J.9 20 21. 22 23 24 25  J.3 agreement used the expression 'instructional budget,' rather than 'per pupil expenditure'? A No, I don't know why that term would have been used particularly. I can't really say other than to limit it from capital outlay and transportation, which were of course big issues to the state in terms of not being included in the calculation of that cost. Q One of the things Chris and I have been puzzling over is trying to figure out who wrote this language. Do you know? A No. Q Do you recall being shown it during, or shortly after the conclusion of the hearing? A I don't recall when I saw it first. You know, we went over the settlement agreement several different times, and under several different -- for several different reasons. And I don't really recall the first time that I saw the language. Q Do you recall reviewing it before your board president signed off on it? A I don't recall. Q Do you believe that the language in paragraph '0' is inconsistent with your recollection of what was agreed to an anticipated? A No, I don't think that it's inconsistent with what I agreed to at all. GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 Q Does the term 'operating budget' mean anything to you? A Yes. Q What does that mean? A Well, it means that that's the budget that's used to pay for the day to day operations -- general types of operations -- of the district. It would not include, as I recall -- and again, I'm talking from memory here. It would not include perhaps some fixed categories of funds that woul be set aside for various purposes that would not be considered as part of the day to day operational needs of the district. Q So then, operating budget or operations budget would not be equivalent to per pupil expenditure? A However, I think it's very much included in a per pupil expenditure. Per pupil expenditure would be a part of, I would think, the operating budget of the school district . Q But an operating budget is something that is more inclusive than per pupil expenditure? A It might, but I don't know how to -- I don't recall ho to break down the category exactly. But it might be more tha that. But I don't -- I'd have to give that some thought in terms of what specific categories might be included. I just haven't thought about it in awhile . Q Other than your recollections, have you been asked to give any kind of professional opinions in this hearing? GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 A No. Q You did review some work sheets that you understand were prepared by someone at the county. Do you have any reaction to those? A The reaction that I had was that the work sheets as I viewed them were not consistent with what I understood to be the intent of paragraphs '0' and 'P' from the September version of the settlement agreement. Q Okay. Chris, I'll need to explore that if you're going to really get into that with Ruth -- if you're going to get into methodology, and all that . MR. HELLER: I did not inten? to get into methodology with Ruth, other than her understanding of what the terms of the settlement agreement meant . I'll probably talk to Don and Chip about the methodology, and whether or not that reflects our position on what the settlement agreement means. But I don't expect to have Ruth work through the work sheets and talk about methodology . BY MR. JONES: Q Then let me just ask her this question. What was it as you reviewed those that seemed to be inconsistent with pooling? A The inconsistency, seems to me was that the calculation did not reflect attention to all of the students in the interdistrict schools, but only those who were M to M GIBSON-BRANTON RE PORTING SERVICE r so 1 J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 transfers, so that what you would have would be a situation where an amount of money would be spent on some students that would not be spent on others in the pool. The intent of the pooling, as I understood it, was to make sure that all the students who attended the interdistrict schools, whether M to M transfers or not would be given the same amount per child -- per pupil expenditure per child in those schools . Q Let me ask you this. What's the state of your knowledge about how those interdistrict schools are being funded today , and what has been spent at the schools? A I don't know, because I don't know Apart from the agreement to -- for the sending district and the receiving district, and the amount that's contributed, and the $200,000 per year by Pulaski County, I have to assume that that's par of the issue . So I don't really know exactly how they're being funded at this particular time. Q I want to make sure that I understand your testimony. Let's take Crystal Hill Elementary School . . Do you have any information that any child at Crystal Hill that may from the county is having more or less spent on his or her education there than a child that transferred to Little Rock. A I don't have any information about that. I would have to look at a school budget to see, I suppose, how that would work. GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE (501 J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q If you've got 340 kids from Little Rock there, and 380 kids from the county there, and they're all in the same programs, would you give me a hypothetical about how more might be spent on the county kids versus the Little Rock kids? 17 A Well, the issue, I think has to do with the kids who are there who are not M to M transfers, but who would be attending the school anyway, so that the amount per child would be equalized for all of the kids who are in attendance at the school. And that I think is one of the issues, is that we didn't anticipate in the agreement that there would be a difference in the amount per child in a school so that the pool would be created by virtue of the process of sendin and receiving districts, and the pool of money from Pulaski County. I may not be answering your question. MR. HELLER: Sam, maybe I can help. Ruth's testimony wasn't that the problem might be that different amounts would be spent on Little Rock kids versus Pulaski County kids in a Pulaski County school; but that less might be spent on all the kids in a Pulaski County school versus a Little Rock school. MR. JONES: Yeah, and I thought she said both . That's why I was exploring the form of it. If you will stipulate that's not what she was trying to tell me, I'll ge GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE fSOIJ 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 on to something else. MR. HELLER : Well, you can probably ask her that, but that was my understanding of the testimony. THE WITNESS: Yes, that's right. BY MR. JONES: Q So what Chris said is right? You'll have to say, \"yes,\" for the record . A Yes. Q All right . Let's go, then, to comparing any county school, interdistrict, to any Little Rock school , interdistrict. Do you have any information or knowledge that any of the county interdistrict schools are spending less than any one of the Little Rock interdistrict schools? A I don't have information about that. I ' ve not looked at anything that would show any kinds of comparison. Q We introduced quite a few exhibits in the on the first day that we had of the pooling hearing . To your knowledge, with the exceptions of work sheets of the county, have you seen any of those? A Now, when you're talking about the pooling hearing, which one are you referring to? Q Well A Date-wise? Q Well, the one we had a couple of months ago. A So your question is what, again? GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q To your knowledge, except for work sheets from the county, have you been shown, or have you seen any of the exhibits that were introduced at that hearing? A No. Q I take, then, you have not seen any correspondence or 19 memoranda that may repose in a file of the Little Rock School District? A No . Q I'll have to ask Chris. Do you anticipate between now and -- when do we go back -- Thursday? MR. HELLER: Thursday. MR. JONES: Showing her any of that? MR. HELLER: Well, as I recall, Sam, none of that correspondence was directed to her. MR. JONES: after she left. MR . HELLER: Oh no, she -- I think it all started I don't anticipate doing that. But if there's something that you want to ask her about correspondence -- MR. JONES: MR. HELLER: Well, I hate to drag it all out. Well, I think beyond the types of things she's testified on here already, there's nothing that correspondence that I would ask her about that is beyon the opinions that she has given so far this morning. [Whereupon parties went off the record.] GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r so 1 J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [Back on the record.] BY MR. JONES : Q We can go back for a few minutes to the negotiations 20 that were occurring in September of '89, and I want to rule out some things unless some of this jogs your memory . I take it you have no recollection of the county and Little Rock being involved in a scenario where there was two million dollars left that the state was going to provide. And the issue came down to who's going to get what part of that. Let's stop right there. Does any of that ring any bells? A In terms of the discussion that went on at that time about that? Q Yeah. A I don't recall except that it was there. And no, I don't recall any detailed discussions about that at all. Q Do you remember the figure two million dollars being mentioned? Is that a yes? A Yes sorry. Q And this may not be important, but do you remember who on behalf of the Little Rock district agreed to the pooling concept? A I can't recall exactly how that came about. I think there was some. discussion of that with Herb Cleek, with Chip, with the state, with you and Chris. But where the idea GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE (SOIJ 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - 21 originated in whose head -- I really don't recall. Q Yeah. Right now I'm beyond that and asking you when it was on the table, after it had been discussed, do you recall who on behalf of the Little Rock School District approved it? A No, I don't remember. Q Could it have been someone other than you? A I doubt that anyone on my staff -- I'm certain that if the idea originated from Herb or from James Jennings, or fro Chip, or from all three, that they would have communicated it to me, explained it to me, and that I would have agreed to it. But in terms of anything beyond that, I don't recall. Q I'm just kind of curious. You include both paragraphs '0' and 'P,' as being somehow pertinent to the pooling issue. What does 'P' have to do with it? A It's just one of the ones that got added, that was not in the March agreement. Q Okay. A It really doesn't have any relevance, other than it was just one of the ones that was added that made that document little different from the earlier document. Q I've never gone back and compared them. Do you even have old drafts? MR. HELLER: I've got the March agreement. And I can tell you that the last paragraph in that section in the March agreement was probably 'M,' rededicated millages. GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JONES: 22 Ah, yes . What I -- I don't think this really matters. But it looks to me like section '0' was probably just added to. It looks like this first part was probably agreement. probably it had to have been in the original MR. HELLER : I don't think so. MR . JONES: Yeah, you're right, because that's wha that was one of my fusses. THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. BY MR . JONES : Q Ruth, I think you touched on this. And you may have answered it fully and I've just forgotten. Do you have any recollection during those hearings -- before those hearings -- of the county taking the position that the receiving district for an M to M student should receive state payments that would be made to the sending district? A What I recall is that the sending district would receive half the table rate. The receiving, _or host district would receive the full cost of educating the child. That's what I remember. Q Well, do you remember the county taking the position that that ought to change? A No. Q Okay. So I take it, then, having no recollection of th county taking that position, that you do not have a GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE (501 J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 recollection that one of the reasons pooling came about was to resolve that issue? A Well, my recollection about pooling is that it was done to create just simply that -- a pool of money through which spending could be equalized for the students in the interdistrict schools. That was the purpose of it, as I understood it and as I recall it. But I don't remember the county taking a position about that particular part of it . Q Understanding that, do you have any recollection or explanation of why something like section '0' was not in the original agreement? A Well, other than the fact that it hadn't been fully determined how this was going to work at that point. And that was one of the things that, I suppose, we had not come to agreement on fully at that point, or it had been overlooked - - one or the other . Q And I had forgotten this. I guess when we started that process, you were representing the state . And when we ended that process, you were representing Little Rock. A Yeah, things were on kind of a fast track there for awhile. Q Do you have any recollection of any time of instructing Chip Jones to evaluate the settlement agreement with the state for any possible changes to propose? A To negotiate with the state? GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE ( 501 J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 Q Or to even just think about it, to make a recommendation to do that? A I think that there was some -- some feeling at some point -- and I'm trying to recall the sequence of dates. When we got the approval from the Eighth Circuit -- the final approval -- was it December of '90? Q Right. A That there was some suggestion again, this is very far back in my memory -- that there might be the opportunity to talk about with the parties some changes that might make the plan more workable. And I don't remember issuing Chip a directive to do that. But I remember talking about certainl exploring whatever avenues we could to make sure that we had a workable agreement. I don't recall suggesting any kinds o changes in the agreement with regard to the interdistrict school. Q I understand you're doing consulting-type work these days? A [witness nods head up and down.] Q Just out of curiosity, can you give me some examples of what you're doing and for whom? A I'm primarily working in the area of curriculum development, and in grant writing -- school districts and co-ops -- ranging all the way from early childhood education to professional development, and helping districts write GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r so 1J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 curriculum based on the requirements of Act 236. And that's primarily what I've done. Some staff development, and some areas like authentic assessment and dimensions of learning -- things like that. Q I think this happened after you left, but let me ask you anyway. Do you have any recollection of being involved in appointing people to any committees that may have been set up to consider curriculum themes for interdistrict schools? A No. Q Do you have a recollection that that was to be done at some point in time? A I think it -- I think yes, I can say that. I don't recall exactly when or how, but we did that with regard to there was a lot of discussion, for example, with regard to themes in the incentive schools. So it would make sense tha at some point there was some discussion about that with regard to the interdistrict schools. Q I think I asked you if you talked to Chris, or anyone else -- I just want to make sure. I take it you have not discussed the pooling issue with Chip Jones? A No. Q Did Chris ask you to look through anything -- A Wait, let me back up. Do you mean in relationship Q Recently? A No. GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q 26 Has Chris or anyone else asked you to look through your papers to -- to look to see if there is anything about pooling in your papers? A Not that I recall, no. Q And I think I asked you this, and just out of your own curiosity, have you looked through any of  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1652","title":"Court Filings concerning incentive school funding \"pooling\" issue, fact finding and conclusion of the law, and portable buildings motion","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":["1996-01"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School buildings","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning incentive school funding \"pooling\" issue, fact finding and conclusion of the law, and portable buildings motion"],"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/1652"],"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":["101 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; District Court, motion for leave to file reply; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' reply brief; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) proposed findings and fact and conclusions of law regarding the pooling agreement; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) second submission regarding ''pooling'' issues; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) proposed findings of fact; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) proposed conclusions of law; District Court, amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplemental motion regarding portable buildings; District Court, motion to extend time; 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.  RECEIVED JAN 5 1995 FILED a of Desegregahon Morn1orm~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN O 4 1996  JAMES w. M~ORMAC_K, CLERK By: .(, ~ \\.t,\\ y,Q f\u003e,, -- v DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plainrifl: vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL.       LR-C-82-866          Intervenors,   KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL.   lntervenors.  ORDER The Court has received the proposed 1995-96 budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). See docket entry# 2567. Having carefully reviewed the budget, and there being no objections by the parties, the Court finds that the proposed 1995-96 budget for ODM should be and hereby is approved in its entirety. SO ORDERED this 4th day ofJanuary 1996 . fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH Rl,JLE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON I It/ 9? sv_v_1 --- 2 5 9 9 Cht.c k O YJ J;;''1 . \u0026'/ ;41 / _fc,6m1JS1 b l1_ ----------- ----------------- Ji\\N 1 9 ,996 FILED EAS-H/N ~1 1ffl','tt- CAAOURT KANSAS JAN 1 7 199' . t oeseQregation Monitonn~ o Office o JAMES W M ---- ___.. .......... IN---THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~T  cCORMACI(, JLERK ----- EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 0PClRlt 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. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership MOTION POR LBAVB TO FILE REPLY PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENOR The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to afford them any opportunity to respond to the submission filed herein on behalf of Servicemaster Management Services dated January a, 1996. The response raises and addresses several cases which were not raised and discussed in our brief and motion for reconsideration. There is no prejudice to the Little Rock School District or Servicemaster by allowing such a submission. We also note that the LRSD has taken no position regarding wither the position of Servicemaster or Joshua. We further request five days beyond the date of an order granting permission to submit a reply in which to file our response. ,I I' Undersigned counsel is authorized to say that counsel for LRSD and Servicemaster have no objection to this request. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501 374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the via U.S. mail to all counsel of record on January, 1996. was delivered day of  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN 1 8 1996 JAMESjW. Mrf\\ORMACK, CLERK By: ',Ir 0\\,__/( \\\\,') u.-Q-. .'- \\.. \u003c. OEP Cl.fRJ( PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1 1 ET AL R~ ~ ~ij\\\\/~\" DEFENDANTS g;.~~~ ~j ' MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL .lt.\\N 1 f 1996 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Offi A Limited Partnership ice of Do.se~regation iv.or.itor;l1JNTERVENORS ORDER Upon motion of the Joshua Intervenors, and there being no objections, the time for filing a reply to the Servicemaster submission dated January 8, 1996, is hereby extended to and including January 26, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of January 1996. rHIS DOCUME;tlT r.:rriSRED ON DOC:(ET SHEET IN .,;{)MPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP aN -t/lo/'?L ~v t1==- fim _ T JUDGE 2604 ,. . .. -- . . ,. . : . . .. .. - ... : ...... ... . . . . . . . , . . ~ -:. - ... ... : . .  f ilED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF .ARKANSAS JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DISTRICT By: ------\"\"'!:O~EP,-C-LE-RK-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. PLAINTIFFS v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. REce,,,eo--. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. .ltlN 3 0 1996 KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET. AL. Office of Desegr . ti SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, ega on Monitoring A Limited Partnership - ~----- __ ...... - --......,.._ , .. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REPLY BRIEF INTERVENORS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENOR The Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion and a Brief in Support of Reconsideration and Completion of Hearing regarding settlement between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and Joshua Intervenors. ServiceMaster has intervened in the matter as a party of interest since its contract with LRSD is involved. A hearing was held in December of 1995 and the Court issued a subsequent Order on December 11, 1995 in which it refused to rule on the merits of whether a settlement between LRSD and Joshua Intervenors existed. Instead the Court ruled that a provision in the contract between ServiceMaster and LRSD was against public policy and could not be enforced. Joshua Intervenors then filed its Motion for Reconsideration. ServiceMaster responded that the provision was not a termination clause and the Court should examine the intent of the parties as to the provision in question. The provision in question, Section 14 .12 entitled Pending Litigation, reads as follows: Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement a motion to enjoin School from entering 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, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereafter 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. (emphasis added) 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. The Court stated this ~revision allowed one party to unilaterally escape its obligation without a similar provision to the other and was against public policy. The Court did not address the merits of whether there was a settlement between LRSD and Joshua Intervenors. Joshua Intervenors have requested that the Court reconsider its ruling on the grounds that the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that clauses in contracts that allow termination without cause are not against any established Arkansas public policy. ServiceMaster responded that Joshua Intervenors analogized the case improperly. Review of Joshua Intervenors' Brief in Support of the Motion for Reconsideration will show that Joshua cited the case for the law and not for the facts. The law was simply that a party may unilaterally terminate a contract and it does not go against any established Arkansas public policy. Union Nat. Bank v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n, 860 F.2d 847, 853 (8th Cir. 1988). The termination without clause did provide for a termination fee to be paid to Union. Union, 860 F.2d at 849. Next, ServiceMaster argued the intent of the parties was to be bound to the contract. The dominant rule is that the interpretation of a contract is controlled by the intention of the parties, and it is the duty of the courts to ascertain and give - effect to the meaning and intent of the parties as expressed in the language used. Les-Bil v. General Waterworks, 256 Ark. 905, 511 S.W.2d 166 (1974). The express language used in the provision made \"the School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the Court or otherwise) of that litigation\" --namely the motion in the school case concerning the ServiceMaster contract. When ServiceMaster entered into this Agreement it was fully aware of pending litigation. With full knowledge, ServiceMaster expressly agreed to be bound until a settlement or Court order terminated the contract. It is clear that ServiceMaster intended to be bound until a settlement or Court order terminated the contract. The Arkansas Court of .Appeals has held that parol evidence is .. . ... - . .. not admissible to show subjective intent of the parties. ThT rule does not allow a party to prove by oral testimony that clear and unambiguous words were subjectively intended to have a meaning not fairly attributable to them. Martin v. Martin, 6 Ark.App. 18, 637 S.W.2d 612 (1982). ServiceMaster cited a case which held that\" [i)t is a wellestablished principle of law that, in the interpretation or construction of the contract, the construction the parties themselves have placed on the contract is entitled to great weight, and will generally be adopted by the courts in giving effect to its provisions. This is especially true in cases of ambiguity in the written contract.\" Worthen Bank \u0026 Trust Co. v. Adair, 15 Ark .App. 144, 151, 690 S.W.2d 727, 731 (En Banc 1985). There is no ambiguity in the provision. The intent of the parties is clearly expressed in the provision, Section 14.12. The construction is that settlement or an order from the Court will terminate the contract. The objective manifestation of intent, not subjective manifestation, is what the court examines. The Court ruled that the provision, Section 14.12, was against public policy and refused to rule on the merits of the case. Joshua Intervenors motion that, in light of case law stating a provision which allows termination, even by only one party, is not against any established Arkansas public policy, the Court reconsider its ruling. In addition, Joshua Intervenors request that the Court determine whether LRSD and Joshua Intervenors entered - into settlement which serves as grounds for termination ot the contract between LRSD and ServiceMaster. In addition, since ServiceMaster was not a party to the litigation when the contract was entered, it is unreasonable to interpret the last sentence of 14.12 to include ServiceMaster as a party involved in any settlement. For the foregoing reasons, the reasons advanced by Servicemaster in oposition to reconsideration should be rejected. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 BJryiCW:a~lkeru !~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing d, delivered to all counsel of record via U.S. mail on this _ _____. ___ day of January, 1996. ~id~~ iiw.walker JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 . l~M 3 0 ,996 Oflice ot Desegregation Momtcring ENCLOSURE MEMORANDUM DATE: January 26, 1996 TO: Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry Malone, Esq. c/o Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam .Jones, Esq. \\Nright, Linrlsey \u0026 JAnnings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 FROM: John W. Walker, Esq. Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell \u0026 Streett 401 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 504 Little Rock, AR Ms. Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim Humphries, Esq. Attorney General's Office 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, Ar 72201 RE: LRSD, et al. v. PCSSD, et al.; NO. LR-C-82-866 - ENCLOSURES: Joshua lntervenors' Reply Brief HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (11221114) ROBERT V. LIGHT, r . A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, ,.A . JAMES W . MOOIU I - YRON M . EISEMAN , JR . ,, . A . OE 0. BELL, ,, .A. OHN C . ECHOLS, ,,.A . JAMES A . BUTTNY . ,, . A . FREDERICKS . UNSERY. , . A . H . T. LARZELEIH,. ,,.A . OSCAft E. DAVIS, JR . f' . A . JAMES C . CLARK, JR . , , . A . THOMAS r. LEGGETT, t' . A . JOHN DEWEY WATSON, ,, ,A. PAUL I . BENHAM Ill, ,, . A. LARRY W. BURKS , r . A . A . WYCKLIFF NISBET, Jft., ,,.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P. A . J . PHILllr MALCOM, r.A . JAMES M . SIMrSON, ,,.A . MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P .A. JAMES M . SAXTON , P . A. J . SHE,,HERD RUSSELL Ill, P . A. DONALD H . IACON , ,,.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, , . A . WALTER A . PAULSON II, r . A . BARRY E. COPLIN , P . A . RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR , ,,,A. JOSEPH 8. HURST , JR ., , . A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, r . A . CHRISTOPHER HELLER . , . A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, , . A . ROBERTS . SHAFER , P . A . WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill, r.A. THOMAS N . ROSE , P. A . MICHAELS. MOORE. ,.A . DIANE S . MACKEY , P.A. WALTER M . EBEL Ill , P . A . KEVIN A . CRASS. P. A. WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR .  , . A . FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026, CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 5013782011 FAX NO. 601-378-2147 January 26, 1996 ,/AN 2 9 1996 Offic e of Desegregation M 0nlH.l1111g 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 CLYDE TAI TUflNCR, P.A . CALVIN J. HALL. ~. A . ICOTT J . LANCAITEft, P. A . JERflY L. MALONE, P. A . M . GAYLE CORLEY, , . A . ROIERT I . BEACH, JPI . , P. A . J . LEE BROWN, P. A . JAMES C . IA~EII, Jft., r . A . H . CHARLES OICHWENO, JR . r .A. HARflY A . LIGHT, , . A . SCOTT H . TUCKER, r . A . JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH, r.A. GUY Al TON WADE, P . A . PfllCE C . GARDNER, P. A . J. MICHAEL riCKENS, r . A . TONIA r . JONES , r . A . DAVID 0 . WILSON, P. A . JEFFREY H . MOOIIE, P.A. ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M . GRAF CA\"LA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C . FENDLEY, JR . ALLISON O\"AVES JOHANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHIIISTOrHER LAWSON GREGORY D , TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRANC , HICKMAN IETTY J . DEMORY IARIARA J . RAND JAMES W, SMITH CLIFFORD W. P'LUNKETT WILL BONO DANIELL. HERRINGTON COVNlll WILLIAM J . SMITH WILLIAM A . ELOIIEOGE, Jft . , P.A . l,S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TEflRY, l\" . A . WILLIAM L. rATTON , JR ., P. A. WfUTflll ' I OIIUCT NO , (6011 370-3323 Enclosed herewith please .find an original and three copies of the Little Rock School District's Proposed Findings and Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding the Pooling Agreement 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, J~~f!~. ,er 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 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 .IM.J 2 9 1996 Office of Desegregation Monau1 u 'Y LRSD'S PROPOSED .FINDINGS AND FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF- I;AW  - - -- .. REGARDING THE POOLING AGREEMENT INTRODUCTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS This action concerns implementation of the September 1989 Settlement Agreement (\"Settlement Agreement\") in the above-styled case. The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") moved for an order requiring the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") to pay PCSSD $167,113.00 in majority-to-minority (\"M-to-M\") payments received by LRSD from the State of Arkansas based on Section II, Paragraph o of the Settlement Agreement (the \"Pooling Agreement\"). LRSD responded to PCSSD's motion alleging that LRSD was released from its pooling obligations by PCS SD' s anticipatory breach. Based on the party's pleadings, this Court ruled that, even assuming PCSSD was in breach, the clauses of the Pooling Agreement at issue were unrelated and ordered LRSD to pay PCSSD $167,113.00. appealed. LRSD On appeal, the Eighth Circuit vacated this Court's order and directed it to \"take evidence regarding the purposes of the clauses at issue.\" See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 60 F.3d 435, 436 (8th Cir. 1995). The Eighth Circuit specifically identified the following issues to be addressed on remand: (1) Was the Pooling Agreement a means to facilitate equalization; (2) What was meant by the term \"equalize\"; (3) Whether the \"instructional budgets\" of interdistrict schools are equalized; and, (4) Why is there no central account into which pooled moneys are deposited? Id., at 436-37. Following hearings during which both parties presented evidence, this Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 52. Any other statement in this opinion which may be deemed a finding of fact is also adopted as such. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Background. 1. The Pooling Agreement resolved two disputes between LRSD and PCSSD. The first dispute concerned $2 million to be paid by the State of Arkansas as a part of the Settlement Agreement. The original version of the Settlement Agreement contained formulas by which the State would make payments to LRSD and PCSSD. The final version of the Settlement Agreement converted those formulas to a fixed stream of payments. This conversion resulted in $2 million in state settlement funds to which both LRSD and PCSSD claimed entitlement. 2 3. The second dispute related to M-to-M payments from the State. The M-to-M Stipulation provides, \"The state shall pay the costs for full-time equivalent students who have been transferred to the host district.\" (Docket No. 706). PCSSD argued that this provision required the State to pay the host district the home district's average per student cost. This would have increased the amount of M-to-M payments to PCS SD because LRSD' s average per student cost was greater than PCSSD's. 4. PCSSD's argument was inconsistent with the State's interpretation of the M-to-M Stipulation and its practice of paying the host district its average per student cost. (Transcript, v. I 1 , p. 114-15; Transcript, v. II, p. 125). Dr. Donald Stewart, PCSSD's Chief Financial Officer, testified: I supported Mr. Sam Jones' ... argument that we really should be receiving (LRSD's) average cost for educating a student because -- based on the theory -- well, I'm not sure based on what. It was a good argument because it would have given us more money. (Transcript, v. I, p. 115]. 2 5. The Pooling Agreement provides: 1) In any application for aid pursuant to Section 6 of 1The transcript of the September 9, 1995, hearing is cited as volume I, and the transcript of the December 14, 1995, hearing is cited as volume II. 2Dr. Stewart later offered as a basis for PCSSD's argument that LRSD students are more expensive to educate. However, Dr. Stewart admitted that he was not aware of any evidence that LRSD M-to-M transfer students would be more expensive to educate than PCSSD students. (Transcript, v. II, p. 123). Dr. Stewart further admitted that even assuming PCSSD was spending a little more on LRSD M-to-M transfer students, PCSSD was not spending as much per student as LRSD. [Transcript, v. II, p. 124). 3 Act 24 of the 1989 Regular Session of the Arkansas General Assembly, the receiving district for M to M students may include in such application any M to M students it hosts who are eligible for participation pursuant to section 6(A) of said Act. 2) The State shall continue to make payments under the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation so that the host district receives its average cost of educating a student for each M to M transfer student enrolled in the host district. 3) When at least one Interdistrict School is operating in LRSD and PCS SD, all M to M payments generated by Interdistrict School students paid by the state to LRSD and PCSSD (including payment to each district as sending district and receiving district), except transportation payments, will be pooled for the education of all Interdistrict School students. The instructional budgets of the Interdistrict Schools will be equalized. This provision does not change each district's obligation to construct and maintain the Interdistrict Schools within its boundaries. The State payments for M to M students not enrolled in Interdistrict Schools will continue in accordance with paragraph (2) above. 4) Beginning the first year an operating in LRSD and PCSSD, $200,000 per year for five years be used by both districts to Schools. (Settlement Agreement 2, 1 0). Interdistrict School is PCSSD will contribute to the pool of funds to operate Interdistrict 6. Both LRSD (Romine and Washington) and PCSSD (Baker) had interdistrict schools operating in the 1991-92 school year. (Transcript, v. I, p. 97). B. Was the Pooling Agreement a means to facilitate equalization? 7. Al though PCS SD originally contended that the sentences in paragraph three of the Pooling Agreement concerning pooling and equalization were unrelated and \"simply happen to appear in the same section of the Settlement Agreement,\" (Docket No. 2101], PCSSD's own witnesses testified at trial that the provisions are 4 related. Dr. Stewart testified: Q: And section 110 11 is all part of one agreement made to resolve those issues that arose after the March settlement? A. That is correct. Q. And the component parts of section 110 11 are all related to each other? A. Yes. [Transcript, v. II, p. 11). PCSSD Superintendent Bobby Lester's testimony was identical to that of Dr. Stewart. [Lester Depo., p. 6 J . 8. The fact that pooling and equalization are described in consecutive sentences in the same paragraph of the Pooling Agreement also indicates that the provisions are related. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the final sentence in that paragraph begins, \"This provision . ,\" referring to the entire paragraph. [Settlement Agreement II, 1 0(3)). 9. How the provisions are related was explained by Dr. Ruth Steele who was LRSD Superintendent from July of 1989 through June 30, 1992, [Steele Depa . , p. 4), and who was involved in negotiating the Pooling Agreement. [See Steele Depo., p. 6-7). Dr. Steele testified that the funds in the pool were to \"be used for the education of students attending the interdistrict schools\" and that \"the amount that would be spent would be equalized so that no students from either district would be penalized in terms of a per pupil expenditure . . . . \" [ Steele Depa. , p. 7 J . 10. PCSSD came forward with no evidence which contradicted the testimony of Dr. Steele. Even assuming such evidence exists, 5 - this Court finds Dr. Steele's testimony to be credible and gives it substantial weight. Accordingly, this Court finds that the Pooling Agreement was a means to facilitate equalization. B. What is meant by the term \"equalize\"? 11. Both LRSD and PCSSD agree (and this Court finds) that the term \"equalize\" means an equal per pupil expenditure. 12. The only contemporaneous explanation of the meaning of the Pooling Agreement was made by Chris Heller, Attorney for LRSD, during hearings before Special Master Aubrey Mccutcheon on September 26 and 27, 1989. [Transcript, v. I, p. 124; Transcript v. II, p. 14). 3 In explaining the Pooling Agreement to the Special Master, Heller stated: Another issue that has been resolved is that once interdistrict schools are operating in both Little Rock and Pulaski County, the state funding generated by those interdistrict[) students4 would be pooled and the operation budgets for those two schools or whatever number of schools would be equalized so that interdistrict students. whether attending school in Pulaski County or Little Rock. would have the same amount spent for their education. [Transcript, v. II, p. 13 (emphasis supplied)). 13. Dr. Stewart agreed that the Pooling Agreement, as explained by Heller, required an equal per pupil expenditure: Q. Now, if we assume that equalizing instructional 3At these hearings, the parties were seeking approval of the Settlement Agreement, and the Special Master was attempting to determine whether there was, in fact, an agreement among the parties. [Transcript, v. II, p. 12). 4LRSD and PCSSD agree that only M-to-M payments are to be pooled and not all state funding generated by interdistrict school students. [Transcript, v. II, p. 43-44). 6 budgets means that the same amount is going to be spent for the education of students, whether they go to school in the Pulaski County School District or the Little Rock School District, doesn't that mean you would have to build your budget based on an agreed upon equal per student expenditure? A. Under that assumption, yes. * * * Q. In order to have the same amount spent for their education, don't you have to develop a budget based on an equal per pupil expenditure? A. Technically, yes. [Transcript, v. II, p. 43-44). Dr. Stewart admitted that the \"assumption\" made in the above question was exactly what Heller reported to the Special Master was the intent of the Pooling Agreement. (Transcript, v. II, p. 43-44]. Dr. Stewart also admitted that a budget can be prepared based on a predetermined per pupil amount. (Transcript, v. II, p. 39). An interdistrict school's budget could then be calculated by multiplying the number of students by the established per pupil budget. II, p. 44-45). (Transcript, v. 14. The parties agree that the funds from the pool should be distributed on a per student basis but disagree as to which students should be counted for the purpose of distribution. (See Transcript, v. II, p. 41-42). PCSSD contends that only M-to-M transfer students attending interdistrict schools should be considered. LRSD argues that all interdistrict school students should be considered. The Pooling Agreement is unambiguous in this regard. It provides, \"[A]ll M-to-M payments generated by Interdistrict School students . 7 will be pooled for the education of all Interdistrict School students. 11 [Settlement Agreement  II, 1 O ( 3) ( emphasis supplied) ] . Thus, the plain language of the Pooling Agreement states that the relevant student population for distribution of the pool is \"all Interdistrict School Students.\" 15. Even assuming the Pooling Agreement to be ambiguous in this regard, the evidence presented a trial further supports the conclusion that the parties intended the pool to be distributed based on the total number of interdistrict school students. 16. In addition to resolving the disputes noted above, the Pooling Agreement served two additional purposes. First, both districts were concerned that the M-to-M Stipulation would work to the advantage of the other and viewed pooling as a hedge against this possibility. Depa. , p. 7 J . [Transcript, v. I, p. 10, 11 and 20; Lester Second, LRSD was concerned that LRSD students attending PCSSD interdistrict schools would not have resources spent for their education equivalent to what would be spent on the students if they remained in LRSD. 5 At the time of the agreement, LRSD was spending on average $800.00 to $900.00 more per student than PCSSD. [Transcript, v. I, p. 10). 17. Dr. Steele testified: [M)y concern was always that you make sure that the students who move from our district to Pulaski County are not shortchanged in terms of any per pupil expenditure that [would be) spent for them; and that the pattern of 5John Walker, attorney for the Joshua Intervenors, shared LRSD's concern because it would be his clients transferring from LRSD to PCSSD. [Transcript, v. I, p. 25-26). 8 funding for the interdistrict schools would be similar to that of the magnet schools, not necessarily in terms of the exact amount [spent per pupil], but that there would be an amount identified that would be spent for the students who attended those schools. 6 [Steele Depo., p. 11). Dr. Steele explained that the Pooling Agreement contemplated that \"[t]here would be a per pupil amount established\" to equalize funding for the education of \"the total student population in the interdistrict school.\" [Steele Depo., p. 9 (emphasis supplied); see also Steele Depo, p. 15-16 and 23). 18. Similarly, Earl Jones, who was LRSD Manager of Support Services from July of 1989 through June of 1991 and who was also present during the negotiation of the Pooling Agreement, [Transcript, v. II, p. 156 and 158), testified that the Pooling Agreement contemplated that LRSD and PCSSD would agree to a per - pupil budget . for all interdistrict school students. [Transcript, v. II, p. 159). Jones explained that the requirement that the budgets of the interdistrict schools be equalized was important to LRSD because LRSD was concerned that students would not \"enjoy the same type education\" in PCSSD interdistrict schools and that equalization was a means \"to help guarantee that that [would] happen.\" [Transcript, v. II, p. 178]. Jones noted that the 6Similarly, Dr. Steele testified that the funds in the pool were to \"be used for the education of students attending the interdistrict schools\" and that \"the amount that would be spent would be equalized so that no students from either district would be penalized in terms of a per pupil expenditure .... 11 [Steele Depo., p. 7). Dr. Steele stated that the Pooling Agreement was \"based on the magnet school model.\" [Steele Depo., p. 7; see also Steele Depo., p. 8-9). Finally, Dr. Steele testified that PCSSD's interpretation of the Pooling Agreement was inconsistent with the intent of the parties. (Steele Depo., p. 15 and 16.) 9  process by which the per pupil budget for the original magnet schools was established \"could easily be used\" to implement the Pooling Agreement. (Transcript, v. II, p. 159]. 19. PCSSD presented no evidence that the intent of the Pooling Agreement was to distribute the pool based on the number of M-to-M students in interdistrict schools. To the contrary, in a memo to Lester dated September 2, 1992, Dr. Stewart stated: I would suggest that the proper procedure (to implement the Pooling Agreement] would be to pool all funds, including PCSSD's $200,000.00 as called for in the agreement and then to divide these funds equally based on the number of students actually enrolled (three-quarter average daily membership) in all Interdistrict Schools. [Exhibit 343 (emphasis supplied); Transcript, v. I, p. 29]. With regard to Dr. Stewart's memo, Lester testified: Q. So if you're going to implement what Dr. Stewart said in [his September 2, 1992] memo, then we would take the total pool of M to M funds, plus the county's $200,000 and divide by the total number of interdistrict school students, third quarter enrollment, right? A. Right. (Lester Depa., p. 24 (emphasis supplied)]. Dr. Stewart agreed that his methodology fails to take into account two requirements of the Pooling Agreement: (1) that instructional budgets be equalized, and (2) that the funds be pooled for the benefit of all interdistrict school students. (Transcript, v. II, p. 42-43]. on the contrary, Dr. Stewart acknowledged that the interpretation of the Pooling Agreement urged by LRSD is entirely consistent with the language of the agreement. [Transcript, v. II, p. 44-45]. 20. On the bottom half of Exhibit 382, Dr. Stewart demonstrated the results if the pool was divided based on the total 10 number of interdistrict school students. Dr. Stewart conceded that the methodology applied on the bottom half "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1324","title":"Proceedings: Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) Pooling issue","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1995-12-14"],"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 law and legislation","Educational planning","School buses","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization","Transportation--Buses--Arkansas--Little Rock","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) Pooling issue"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1324"],"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":["309 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1617","title":"Court Filings concerning court functions, proceedings, and motions, North Little Rock School District fourth quarter status report regarding plan implementation in 1994-95, 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":["1995-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning court functions, proceedings, and motions, North Little Rock School District fourth quarter status report regarding plan implementation in 1994-95, 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/1617"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["31 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1663","title":"Court Filings: District Court, affidavit of John W. Walker","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Walker, John W."],"dc_date":["1995-11-21"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Economic aspects","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, affidavit of John W. Walker"],"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/1663"],"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":["37 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Walker, John W."],"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 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. LR-C-82-866 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. WALKER STATE OF ARKANSAS ) )ss. COUNTY OF LONOKE ) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENOR$ Come now the affiant, JOHN W. WALKER, who submits the following affidavit under oath: A. Educational and Professional Qualifications 1. I graduated from Arkansas AM\u0026N College in Pine Bluff, Arkansas in 1958 with a major in Sociology. In 1960, I was awarded a John Hay Whitney Opportunity Fellowship which I used to obtain a Master's Degree from New York University in Education (Human Relations) in 1961. In 1961, I enrolled in the Yale University Law School from which I received my law degree in 1964. At Yale Law School, in 1964, I was a finalist in the Thunnan Arnold Appellate Moot Court Competition. I have studied further at Fisk University (the Race Relations Institute) and at many legal training seminars which focused upon the subject of civil rights law in particular. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. In 1964, I was admitted to practice before the Bar of Arkansas. Subsequently, I was admitted to, and still practice before, the United States Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth, Fifth, Eleventh, and Tenth Circuits, the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, and the United States District Court, Eastern and Western District of Arkansas. 3. I completed a legal training internship in New York City with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) in September, 1965. In 1965, I opened a private general law practice in Little Rock which emphasized civil rights law. In 1968, Norman Chachkin (now of the LDF) and I opened one of the first integrated law firms in the South. That law firm has continued to be operated on an integrated basis since that time although it has undergone several name changes. My own work continues to emphasize civil rights legal activity. 4. I hold membership in the American and National Bar Associations, and the W. Harold Flowers and Pulaski County Bar Associations. From 1976 to 1982, I was a member of the Arkansas Board of Examiners. I have served as a member of the Federal Rules Advisory Committee of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am a member of the Board of Directors of the LDF in New York. 5. The following is a partial listing of major cases where I have been lead counsel: Employment Paxton v Union National Bank, 688 F. 2d. 522, 574 (8th Cir. 1982); Maney v Brinkley Municipal Water Works, 802 F 2d. 1073, 1076 (8th Cir. 1986); Rogers 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I v International Paper Co., 423 U.S. 809 (1975); Powell v Georgia Pacific Paper Company, Civ. Nos. 73-C-1 and E.D. 73-C-3 (Ark. 1993); Williams v Anderson, 562 F 2d. 1081 (8th Cir. 1977); Clark v Mann, 562 F 2d. 1104 (8th Cir. 1977); Parham v Southwestern Bell, 433 F 2d. 421 (8th Cir. 1970); Robinson v Klassen, Civ. No LR-C-73-301 (E.D. Ark. 1981); McFadden v Arkansas State Hospital, Civ. No. LR-C-78-153 (E.D. 1989; 1994); Taylor v Jones, 653 F 2d. 1193 (8th Cir. 1981); Hollowell v Gravett, Civ. No. LR-C-86-600 (E.D. Ark. 1989); and Perryman v Johnson Products, 698 F 2d. 1138 (11th Cir. 1983); Hollowell and Day v. Randy Johnson, E.D. Ark., October 30, 1995 .. Education Clark v Board of Education, 705 F 2d. 265 (8th Cir. 1983); Dowell v Oklahoma City Board of Education, 890 F 2d 1483 (10th Cir. 1989); Arvizu v Board of Education of Waco, Texas, 296 F 2d. 1309 (5th Cir. 1974); Kemp v Beasley, 389 F 2d. 178 (8th Cir. 1972); Raney v Board of Education of Gould, Arkansas, 381 F.2d 252 (8th Cir. 1967); Kelley v Altheimer, 378 F 2d. 483 (8th Cir. 1967); Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District , 839 F 2d. 1296 (8th Cir. 1987), cert den., 102 L. Ed. 2d. 146 (1988); Smith v Board of Education of Morrilton, 365 F 2d. 770 (8th Cir. 1966); and Sherpell v. Humnoke School Dist. No. 5.; Rusk v. The Stuttgart School District,_ F.Supp. _, E.D. Ark. (1994). Housing 3 I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Williams v Matthews, 499 F. 2d. 819 (1974). Criminal Justice Winters v Beck, 407 F 2d. 125 (8th Cir. 1969). Public Accommodations Daniel v Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969). Voting Rights Sherpell v Humnoke, __ F.2d. __ (8th Cir. 1989); Harvell v Ladd, 978 F. 2d. 226 (8th Cir. 1992); Harvell v Ladd, __ F. 3d. __ (8th Cir. 1994); Williams v City of Texarkana. __ F. 3d. ___ (8th Cir. 1994). 6. I have served as Chairman of the Board of the Arkansas Opportunities industrialization Center (OIC), the Center for Law and Education (Cambridge, Mass.). and the Leadership Roundtable (Little Rock, Arkansas). In 1968, I was a member of the Arkansas Constitutional Revision Study Commission. In the early 1970's, I was a member of the Land Use Study Commission of the Southern Governors Conference. I have served as a member of the Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education. I have spoken or lectured at several annual meetings of the National Bar Association; the American Bar Association; other bar associations; many public colleges and many high schools regarding many subjects but primarily upon the subject of Civil Rights Law. I have also received numerous awards for my representation of civil rights causes and cases. B. Prior Work in School Desegregation Litigation in Pulaski County 7. I have a very large amount of experience concerning issues of racial discrimination and segregation in the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I school systems. My activities began in 1965 with the preparatory work and the filing of Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock, in which I was lead counsel. This case was a successor to Cooper v Aaron which had become inactive. Desegregation litigation concerning the North Little Rock Schools, in which I was also lead counsel, was initiated in 1967 in the Graves case. The Clark case was very active through 1982, when the case of Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District was filed. There were many appeals in Clark. I also became involved in desegregation litigation in the Pulaski County Special School District in approximately 1969 in the Zinamon case which was settled. The North Little Rock case also involved considerable time through the early 1980's. The level of activity in Zinaman did not approach that of the other two cases. I filed for black citizens a motion to intervene in LRSD v PCSSD, which was pressed, and denie~ j'fler the district court ruled on behalf of the LRSD regarding liability. On appeal, the Court of Appeals recognized the right of the Joshua intervenors to represent the black parent and students in the three districts. This led to the renewal of my active role in school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County, which has continued to the present. C. 8. Involvement in This Case I was an active participant throughout the negotiations in 1988 and 1989, which produced the five agreements and the settlement of this case. 9. I have done some work on this case, in its post-judgment phase, on the majority of days since June, 1990. My work has included, inter alia, the following activities: 5  I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,, I I I I , (a) negotiating a series of modifications to the agreements which resolved this case, with the revised agreements denominated by the parties the \"May 1991 Plan\"; (b) negotiating a series of stipulations to resolve issues arising in the postjudgment phase of this case; (c) preparing for, attending, and participating (by argument, as well as crossexamination and presentation of witnesses), in approximately 55 hearings scheduled by the court (not including the hearings concerning the return of Arkansas officials as defendants and the election case); ( d) raising in the hearings many significant issues not raised by other parties; (e) calling problems/issues to the attention of the attorneys for the defendants and school officials, in each of the three districts, on many occasions; (f) meeting with counsel and school officials, with ODM representatives present at times, to gather information, to present concerns, and to seek to resolve issues regarding compliance with and modification of the court-approved agreements; (g) responding to proposals for plan modification in accordance with the courtapproved procedure (see Pulaski County Plan, at 104-05); (h) attending community meetings to brief the plaintiff class on the agreements, to answer questions and to discuss particular issues, and, generally, to secure the views of the class members on the direction of the case; (i) informing ODM of the concerns of the Joshua lntervenors and responding 6 I I I I ,, I I I .I I I I I I I I I I I to questions posed by ODM personnel; 0) overseeing the work of Ms. Joy Springer, members of my firm, and other persons who have represented the Joshua lntervenors in the post-judgment phase of this case; (k) overseeing the work of Ms. Springer and the other members of the Joshua monitoring team who prepared and disseminated to the parties, ODM, the Court and the public for a period of three school years, three lengthy reports setting forth findings and recommendations regarding the three school districts; (I) assisting individual class members - by responding to inquiries and more formal representation - who were experiencing problems regarding discipline, placement, and other matters; also assisting school district staff members who were experiencing problems; (m) studying the large volume of correspondence, pleadings, reports, court orders, and other documents generated in the post-judgment phase of this case, as well as internal memoranda prepared by Ms. Springer for my use; (n) determining the need for particular correspondence and pleadings and their content; ( o) drafting correspondence and pleadings; (p) speaking in public forums to support the desegregation plan; and (q) resisting efforts to undermine the plan and to diminish the constitutional rights involved. 7 I 1 I I I I l1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 10. The documentation of my work and that of Ms. Springer for the post-settlement period shows a very considerable emphasis on assisting individual class members and school staff. This emphasis is a result of my many years of experience in this type of litigation, as well as the experiences of others, discussed in articles and when counsel litigating these kinds of cases convene. It has been recognized that what have been termed \"second generation school desegregation problems\" have often worked to defeat the improved educational opportunities for black youth, which are the goal of school desegregation. We have, therefore, worked to apply provisions of the plans to particular instances of discipline, program placement, grading practices, participation in extracurricular activities, hostile faculty and staff attitudes, and adverse treatment of staff. It is our goal that each time we work in a particular school, we not only help the class member ( or staff member) involved, but also help to educate the school staff to be more sensitive to those we represent in the future. 11. It is apparent from our time records that much of the work which we have had to do in the post-settlement period has been attributable to the inadequate implementation of the Court-approved settlements, particularly by the Little Rock School District. The Court has often recognized these compliance problems. See, for example, the Court's 8- page written statement of March 19, 1993, identifying many problems and areas of noncompliance; see also; Tr., March 29, 1993, at 17 (\"[The LRSD Board] must be driven by this plan. The plan has to drive their actions and that has not been happening clearly.\"); at 19-20 (\"But [the LRSD defendants] drag their feet, and they don't have a plan in place to focus and they don't have a process in place to focus on what needs to be done to fulfill their obligations and I have waited long enough and I'm tired of waiting.\"); 8 I 1- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Tr., June 7, 1994 ('Well, saying that you can do this and saying that you will do it is not going to be enough in this courtroom any more. You're going to have to say specifically in some detail what you will do, when you'll do it, whom you'll contact and what have you.\"); Tr., June 29, 1994, at 54-62 (court notes inadequacies in LRSD, in budgeting practices, program evaluation, communication with the Joshua lntervenors, and community involvement). 12. We saw the settlement agreements in their totality as designed to promote desegregation, much stronger educational outcomes for black pupils, and real efforts to eliminate harsh practices affecting black youth. We perceived these agreements to require actions bespeaking the equality of all citizens. We anticipated good faith, competent implementation of the agreements. However, we have often been disappointed. We have, therefore, used every available advocacy technique, in an effort to hold the defendants to the agreements which they made, to improve their performances. We provided three detailed monitoring reports to the systems. Our goals included strengthening cooperation and helping the defendants to identify the barrirs to full equality for black students. We offered models to produce effective results in the Incentive Schools. We have taken the lead, in dealing with the State, to protect (and increase) the financial resources available to the districts. We have been conscientious in terms of preparation for and participation in the budget (and other) hearings. We have sought to promote improved budgeting practices and to prevent the waste of resouces. We have opposed harmful budget cuts. We have emphasized that considerations of equity and equality in the provisions of resources require that some new facilities be opened in the black community ( opposing the pattern of merely closing schools in our class members' neighborhoods). The intervening class does not accept \"one way'' remedies - and we 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1, I I I I t I have made that point. We have addressed issues concerning staff hiring and placement, transportation, participation in extracurricular activities, and many others. Ms. Springer and I have been available to assist class members day after day, as evidenced to our affidavits. This description and others in my affidavit are, of course, only a brief description of our efforts and accomplishments. D. My Hours In the Post-Settlement Phase of This Case 13. The attachment to this Affidavit contains 97 pages, documenting my work in the post-judgment phase of this case. While the identification of my work is the product of a reconstruction of my efforts, I am confident that it is accurate. This is so because a variety of sources, containing overlapping information, including my memory, as well as records and court documentation were used to identify particular tasks. The identification of 1,798 hours, approximately 6.4 hours per week, is very conservative. I am certain that my actual time on this case greatly exceeded the number of hours claimed. 14. One basis for my confidence that the time claimed for me is conservative is a comparison of this time with the time for which counsel for the LRSD, the NLRSD, and the PCSSD have been paid in the post-settlement period . Analyses performed in my office, utilizing documents secured by invoking the State Freedom of Information Act, show the hours worked by opposing counsel to be as follows: LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 1995 (1-8/95) 1995 (1/4/95) 1995 (March) 1029.5 hrs. \"230.75 hrs. \"29.8 hrs.  128.7 per mo. *57.7 per mo. 10 I I' I I 'I I II I 1 I I I I I ' I I I f I 1994 1994 1994 (6-19/94) *1774.3 hrs. *668.75 hrs. *148.4 hrs. *147.9 per mo. *55.7 per mo. Note: Other bl/,. show ,,.yment for WOiie throughout the period since December 1990, but not the hours claimed. 1993 (8 mo.) 1993 *1465.5 hrs. *55.0 per mo. *122.1 per mo. (1-2, 7-12/90) 1992 1992 (11 mo.) *1256.5 hrs. 555.75 hrs. *104.7 per mo. 50.5 per mo. 1991 1991 (10 mo.) *1529 hrs. 814.25 hrs. *127.4 per mo. 81.4 per mo. 1990 (4-12/90) 1990 (5 mo.) *206.75 hrs. 372.5 hrs. 74.5 per mo. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 7261.55 hrs. 3301.8 hours Incomplete While this time does include some time which we have excluded in the current motion - for example, the time involved in seeking to require state officials to comply with the settlement agreement - it is to be noted that my work is directed to all of the school 11 I I J I -1 I, I ' I I I' I I I , , , I I I districts to a greater extent than counsel representing each district, E. The Reasonable Hourly Rate and Related Matters 15. The following factors establish, I believe, that the rate sought for my work in the post-settlement phase of this case, $250.00 per hour, is a reasonable rate: (a) I was described by Circuit Judge Richard Arnold in Taylor v. Jones as a member of the bar of the ''first rank.\" In 1995, in an order awarding attorneys' fees, Judge George Howard, Jr. of this Court wrote: ''The Court notes that Walker is one of the most preeminent civil rights attorneys in the State.\" See McFadden v. Arkansas State Hospital, C.A. No. LR-C-78-153, at 3. (b) I have very extensive experience in school desegregation litigation, both generally and in Pulaski County, as detailed in paragraphs 1 through 7 of this Affidavit. (c) I regularly charge fee paying clients $250.00 per hour when they are able to pay that rate. In most of the cases in which I have represented prevailing parties, I have settled my fee requests with the losing party at my regular rate in order to avoid the additional cost of litigating and preparing fee petitions. (d) On September 7, 1994, John Haley of the firm of Arnold, Grobmyer \u0026 Haley signed an Affidavit for use in the case of Leapheart v. City of Morrilton and Carl Gipson, C.A LR-C-91~96. Mr. Haley stated that his rate for \"a practice consisting mostly of commercial, corporate and bankruptcy law'' was then $225.00 per hour. He supported that rate for my work in Leapheart, which was for the period from October 12, 1992 through September 13, 1994 as \"consistent with fees charged 12 I 1' J I I I I I 1 I I I 'I I' I :I I by (him) and other attorneys in Central Arkansas with similar lengths of practice, standing, expertise, and ability'' (at 1-2). (e) I was awarded $175.00 per hour for work in the McFadden case, concerning employment discrimination, by Judge Howard in 1989. In the 1995 Order in McFadden to which I have referred, Judge Howard increased the rate for my work to $225.00 per hour (at 3). This year, in Ashford v. City of Hamburg. El Dorado No. 93-1032, I was awarded $225.00 per hour by the Honorable Harry Barnes. In that case, involving police brutality, Attorney John Hall reviewed my affidavit and time record for the defendant and agreed that $225.00 per hour was a reasonable hourly rate for my services. (f) The publication Arkansas Business sets forth in its November 13, 1995 issue, the results of a survey of 12 Little Rock law firms regarding their \"hourly fee range[s].\" Of 10 firms willing to furnish information, one identified a top rate of $250.00 hour, i.e., Jack, Lyon and Jones, and two identified top rates of $225.00 per hour. See Attachment Two to this Affidavit. (g) The counsel for the school districts have been paid regularly throughout the post-settlement period. In contrast, any comprehensive award to our firm will be delayed. (h) The volume of the work in this case and the unpredictable demands on my time have limited my ability to represent fee paying clients. (i) We seek the vast majority of the amount sought from the LRSD. Granting the requested rate would, hopefully, provide an inducement for those defendants 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I i 1 I I I l , , I, ' t i I I t I t I I to improve the poor quality of the district's compliance with the Court-approved settlements, about which the Court has frequently commented. 16. It is the practice in this market to bill a fee-paying client separately for the time worked by a paralegal. Our firm currently bills fee-paying clients $50.00 per hour for the work of Joy Charles Springer, given the level of her experience and the quality of her work. It is also worth noting that the assignment of considerable work to Ms. Charles, in this case, greatly reduces the defendants' liability for fees. 17. I have expended more than $150,000.00 in out-of-pocket monitoring costs over the course of this Settlement Decree. This includes time for Ms. Springer and the others who assisted with the undertaking. Her time is not separatelyclaimed except byher affidavit and time statement. Monitors Clementine Rouse (now deceased), Evelyn Jackson, Delores Sykes and Kirke Heman, are former school teachers in schools within this county. Debbie Parker is a former paralegal for Woodson Walker \u0026 Associates in Little Rock. She is a graduate of UALR. LaRhonda Pondexter is a graduate of Hendrix College. Pondexter and Parker worked frull-time in monitoring and in writing the report filed by Joshua herein. To my knowledge, both live outside the city; hence we only claim the actual payments made to them for reimbursement. The claim for monitors, except for Springer does not include their 1995 receipts (i.e., payments which I made to them for monitoring work). I expressly reserve the right to make a later claim for this time and/or expense. I seek reimbursement for the time and expense as verified by Ramsey Eddington, C.P.A. in the amount of $96,812.81. 18. Our motion seeks an apportionment of the award of fees and costs among 14 I I I I J I I t 'I j '' I I t 'l f t I the school districts as follows: Little Rock School District (75 to 85), Pulaski County Special School District (15 to 20 percent), and North Little Rock School District (5 to 10 percent) (total to be 100 percent). This reflects my assessment of the time spent litigating against the three systems, including reviewing information and filings, and their relative culpability. E. The Negotiation of and the Content of the Settlement Agreement 19. In the years 1988 and 1989, I represented the Joshua lntervenors in a series of negotiation sessions with counsel for the other parties which ended with the five agreements ultimately approved by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and this court. These agreements set forth desegregation plans for the LR, NLR, and PCSSD systems, an interdistrict plan, and the financial commitments of the state. Other participants in these discussions were counsel for the parties: Herschel Friday, Chris Heller and, Jerry Malone, for the LR school district; Alston Jennings and Sam Jones for the PCSSD,\" and Steve Jones and Phil Lyon, for the NLRSD; Walter Smiley, a local businessman, and Skip Rutherford, also a local businessman who was then a member of the Board of LRSD. 20. In the course of the discussions we addressed relief of benefit to the Joshua lntervenors and other students, which had definite financial implications for the districts and the state. The participants recognized explicitly, that in order to arrive at a meaningful desegregation plan, it had to clearly be undertaken in an arms length matter. We therefore separated those discussions from any discussion of an amount to compensate LDF and Joshua counsel for their time and expenses in litigating school desegregation issues 15 I ~ \\ J I I I' ''I I l ' ,, I I , , I I I through the years until the conclusion of the settlement itself. 21. Paragraph IV.B. of the settlement was agreed upon before we reached a substantive discussion of the topic of fees and costs. It does not refer to those subjects. There was no discussion of fees and costs in the context of this provision. This paragraph deals in its entirety with \"issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation . . . \" as of the time of the settlement discussions. This did not include a fee request for the monitoring phase of the case, the parameters of which could not be known at the time of the settlement discussions. 22. Paragraph V of the agreement on the state's liability reflects the parties' settlement of the issue of attorneys' fees and costs for LDF and Joshua counsel. It is limited to compensation for the work through the preparation of the settlement. It does not by its terms address fees for the monitoring period. Moreover, in the context of discussions regarding this paragraph, no one took the position either that the fee settlement included compensation for the monitoring period, or that Joshua and/or LDF counsel were precluded from securing fees for any part of the monitoring period. I have read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information. 16 ., -I I ) ,, , I' t fl I I J' \\ i I I ,'t , , I SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2 / day of November, 1995. MY COMMI. SION EXPIRES: ''/ /1 \"a'.' ~ NOTARY PUBLIC 17 I ,, I ! , , , , I I I t I l , , \\ I I. t r -I I I John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 In reference to: Little Rock School District, et al. v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al.; Lorene Joshua, et. al.; Katherine Knight, et al. (lntervenors); NO. LR-C-82-866 DATE 02/18/90 02/26/90 03/12/90 03/12/90 03/21/90 06/28/90 ACTIVITY STATEMENT OF JOHN W. WALKER 1990 ACTIVITY HOURS Talked to Mayor Smith about Reville's letter .3 Attended two school suspension hearings .5 Tim Montgomery preparation, consultation, re: hearing for 03/13/90 1.0 Met with Arma Hart, re: Incentive Schools and dictated letter to her 3.5 Spoke with Pat Scarborough about Central High problem regarding Magnet School; spoke with Herts about one race result in student elections . 75 Talked to C. Heller re: loan approval motion; signed motion; reviewed settlement agreement prior to signing; talked to Wiley Branton about agreement .8 SUBTOTAL 6.85 Activity Statement John W. Walker 1 I I I I , , I I I t., l 1 \\ I I I r \\I I I DATE 01/03/91 01/04/91 01/05/91 01/06/91 01/08/91 01/09/91 01/10/91 01/11/91 01/13/91 01/14/91 01/15/91 01/16/91 01/17/91 01/18/91 ACTIVITY HOURS 1991 Began implementation discussions with counsel Discussions with counsel continued 2.5 3.1 Meeting with office staff re: ways to assist in implementing plan and helping districts identifying problem areas 3.0 Continued meetings re: office monitoring and implementation assistance 1.0 Plan for and meetings with district counsel re: desegregation implementation 6.2 Plan for and meetings with district counsel re: desegregation implementation 7 .1 Plan for and meetings with district counsel re: desegregation implementation 8.0 Plan for and meeting with sam Jones re: desegregation implementation 4.0 Received mandate from 8th Circuit .1 Discussions with counsel about plan changes; conference with Springer re: Joshua monitoring instrument 6.1 Conference with Heller regarding plan modifications, Incentive School - Aerospace School 5.3 Conference with Steele and Heller re: plan implementation; review of plan 4.4 Reviewed extended day provisions of plan; talked with Steele, Jennings, Heller 2.4 Read Order denying motions for reconsideration .1 Activity Statement - John W. Walker 2 I t I I' f, I I t t, 1 t \\l I I I I t I, DATE 011/22/91 01/23/91 01/24/91 01/24/91 01/24/91 01/25/91 01/25/91 01/25/91 01/26/91 01/26/91 01/28/91 01/28/91 01/29/91 ACTIVITY HOURS Read part of Tri-District Plan; read part of LRSD Aerospace Magnet Plan; conference with Heller 3.5 Read 20 pages of Aerospace Magnet Proposal; conference with Heller and Steele 2.5 Prepare for Little Rock Hearing before Judge Wright on Aerospace Magnet School; conference with Heller and Paulson 3.2 Consideration of Magnet School Proposal; received fax from C. Heller regarding proposed stipulation; conferences with C. Heller; no agreement reached 1.2 Read letter to court from Burl lntervenors Prepared for Hearing before Judge Wright Preparation for and hearing before Judge Wright on Aerospace .2 1.1 Magnet School 3.0 Conference with Chris Heller about plan for the next day .3 Began review of QOM curriculum audit 1.2 Waited at Holiday Inn for Chris Heller who didn't show; read 40 pages of magnet application . 7 Met with Dr. Steele and Chris Heller about 2.0 gpa rule and Aerospace Magnet; telephone conferences with Heller and Jennings re: scholarship incentive 4.0 Called Dr. L.A. Davis to discuss his employment as expert, re: critique of Aerospace Magnet and to work with Angela Sewell to try to strengthen plan; Davis agreed to work for $45.00 per hour or $300.00 per seven hour day. He is to start at once; sent proposal to Pine Bluff by Vincent Maxwell; district is to reimburse costs; conferences with counsel 2.8 Obtained Little Rock Aerospace Project support - Mahlon Martin of Rockefeller Foundation; Dick Hulbert, Central Flying Service writings in support; conference with Heller; met with Activity Statement - John W. Walker 3 l ., , l ' , , I I \\ :I, t I' II I I I f I I I DATE 01/30/91 01/30/91 01/30/91 01/31/91 02/01/91 02/02/91 02/03/91 02/04/91 02/04/91 02/04/91 02/07/91 ACTIVI1Y HOURS ministers re: plan Spoke with Chris Heller by phone, re: Aerospace Magnet; telephone conference with L.A. Davis, re: Aerospace Magnet and met with Committee and Dr. A. Sewell who agreed to work for $45.00 per hour or $300.00 per seven hour day. He is to 4.0 start at once; Sent proposal by Vincent Maxwell 4.5 Met with Dr. Davis, re: Little Rock proposals for Aerospace Magnet; began revising and drafting formal document 6.5 Order granting motion of Knight lntervenors for order to substitute class representatives .1 Continued to work on Aerospace Magnet issue; conferred with C. Heller, Dr. Steele, and parents, as well as expert Lawrence Davis; additional drafting and editing of proposal 11.5 Drafting, editing and redrafting plan for Aerospace Magnet for finalization for filing with Judge; conference with Heller, Springer, et al. 6.0 Four telephone conferences with C. Heller; telephone conference with Dick Hulbert, re: revising Aerospace Magnet School settlement; revising same with Mark B. 2.5 Preparation 2.1 Returned Chris Heller's call regarding settlement approval; conference with Hulbert, preparation 3.1 Worked with Chris Heller, Richard Roachell and J.S. on Aerospace proposal 2.0 Read Stipulation \u0026 Consent Order finding that the LRSD's desegregation plan is modified to include the Aerospace Technology Magnet School; spoke with C. Heller, and district officials .5 Conferences with counsel re: stipulation and extended day problems 1.5 Activity Statement - John W. Walker 4 I - I , . I 'I I I I I , , t \\I '' I I, t l DATE 02/09/91 02/11/91 02/12/91 02/13/91 02/13/91 02/19/91 02/21/91 02/22/91 02/25/91 02/26/91 02/26/91 02/26/91 02/26/91 02/28/91 ACTIVITY HOURS Reviewed PCSSD's First Quarter Status Report for 1990-91 \u0026 Special Report concerning the J.C. Cook Elementary School .6 Reviewed Order granting motion of Burl lntervenors .1 Reaching agreement and entering Stipulation, filed by Joshua lntervenors, LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD \u0026 Knight lntervenors, for approval of substituting Bonnie Brown in place of Sara Matthews Facen as class representative .4 Reviewed Order granting stipulation of parties re: class representatives .1 Read Stipulation \u0026 Consent Order concerning Washington and four other topics .6 Reviewed Affidavit of Richard N. Hulbert re: Aerospace Magnet School .2 Read letter to Stephen Jones re: concerns on memo with appearances of plagiarism and racism; attended school board meeting 2.2 Read State's letter to court re: funding payments from Dept. of Educ. to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .2 Conference with Joshua monitoring team members to discuss monitoring LRSD schools 1.5 Review of letter from Sharon Street to Judge Wright .3 Received and reviewed letter to Chris Heller from Sam Jones; letter to Sam Jones .2 Review of letter from Sharon Street to Judge Wright .3 Received \u0026 reviewed letter to Chris Heller from Sam Jones; letter to Sam Jones .4 Read Order finding that the State is obligated under the terms of the settlement agreement to continue funding the ODM .1 Activity Statement - John W. Walker 5 1- 1 I I I ' II I I t i t I f '' f' I t 1 DATE 03/01/91 03/05/91 03/06/91 03/15/91 03/15/91 03/17/91 03/18/91 03/18/91 03/19/91 03/20/91 03/21/91 03/21/91 03/25/91 03/26/91 ACTIVITY HOURS Conference with Jennings, Matthis re: Incentive Schools 1.1 Meeting about plan m "}],"pages":{"current_page":26,"next_page":27,"prev_page":25,"total_pages":46,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":300,"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}}]}}