{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1726","title":"Court filings concerning LRSD motion for protective order and for preliminary hearing, and PCSDD Baker recruitment plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-08-15/2001-08-31"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Parents' and teachers' associations","School management and organization","School discipline","School administrators","School employees","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning LRSD motion for protective order and for preliminary hearing, and PCSDD Baker recruitment plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1726"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["83 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, plaintiff's motion for protective order and for preliminary hearing; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion for protective order and for emergency hearing; District Court, order; District Court, consolidated response to motion for preliminary injunction and corrected motion for relief from orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001; District Court, plaintiff's motion for comtempt; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion for contempt; District Court, order; District Court, supplement to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSDD) Baker recruitment plan; District Court, plaintiff's motion for contempt; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, response to Joshua's motion for extension of time; District Court, three orders; District Court, motion for enlargement of time  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    RECEIVED AUG 1 7 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL PLAINTIFF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL ,.. .. ._!!\\THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTNE ORDER AND FOR EMERGENCY HEARING Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing states: 1. LRSD seeks a protective order to prevent unduly burdensome and harassing - discovery being conducted by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") via the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (\"FOIA\"), Ark. Code Ann.  25-19-101 through 25-19-110. 2. On August 13, 2001, Joshua submitted the FOIA request attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Items one and two of the request seek all correspondence and e-mail between each LRSD principal and other District personnel for over three years. LRSD seeks a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) requiring Joshua to more narrowly tailor the request and/or .. granting LRSD 60 days to respond to the request and requiring Joshua to conduct future discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Joshua's use of the FOIA to conduct discovery is intended to annoy, oppress and unduly burden LRSD. First, the request is over broad. Joshua made no effort to limit its request to the issues currently before this Court. Second, the request is unreasonably cumulative. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(i). This request is one in a long-line ofFOIA requests by Joshua. In response to a prior request, LRSD provided Joshua access to all of the e-mails of each associate superintendent. These would have included any e-mails with principals. Finally, the burden and expense of complying with Joshua's request outweighs any likely benefit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. i6(b )(2)(iii). The documents sought by Joshua may contain personal information about students. The FOIA requires LRSD to redact this information. See 2001 Ark. Acts 1653. It will take a substantial amount oftime and resources to review over three years worth of correspondence and e-mails and make the necessary redactions. Principals need to be preparing for the start of school on August 20, 2001. It will be impossible for them to comply with Joshua's FOIA request and also adequately prepare for the start of school. 4. LRSD has attempted to confer with Joshua, but Joshua refused to narrow the ~  -.r-eqnest or allow LRSD the time needed to respond. 5. LRSD's memorandum brief in support of this Motion is hereby incorporated by reference. As discussed therein, this Court has discretion to enjoin Joshua's use of the FOIA to conduct discovery. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a protective order requiring Joshua to more narrowly tailor its August 13, 2001, FOIA request and/or granting LRSD 60 days to respond to the request; for an order requiring Joshua to conduct future discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; for an emergency hearing on this Motion; and for all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37. 1 B: John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE   I certify ~ copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by fax and mail on August~ 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol . Little Rock, AR 72201 ~  -Mr:steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-73 88 - Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ John C. Fendley, Jr. 3 08/ 13/2001 15:59 501-324-2213 SQ-IDOL SERVICES PAGE 03   - JOHll W. W.Al.XU SH.AWN OJIILl)S JoHN W. WALJaR, P.A. moJQmArL4w l72S~AT Lrrn-l Rocm, A8JwGAs 722()6 TILZ:fflon (SOl) \u00267+8758 FAX (!501) 874-4l87 August 13, 2001 r  Dur Principal: -- Please provide punu~t to the Arkansas Freedom oflnfurmation A.a:  i. I 1) ali errcspond~ that yo-1.1 have .na~ in \\\\'if.ti other Little Rock S~l ~ strict P6onn.l fot 0\\4 ~riC)d baitfflll'la Math l. 1~8 ano en(!in~ J,.m\" 30, 2\u003cj(l1 ; , t I fol' th pen~ bta,nnin; M~c:h 1, 1998 .na .adina Jw,o )0, :2001; f 2) Qll ._~, that yo~ ha.Vt .r,;agci in wiih ocbr Li\"W llock Sclaool Di~J- '10,mel. 3) copies of all plAni that your \u0026chool dC!Veloped reaarding the following r.~bj i: a) discipline ;- b) gradea e) transportation d) flXtneurricular acti\"vjtie., j e) remediation of achievemanl activities ;: 1 f) participation in gifted and talented~ honors and advanced placc:inent i g} participation in spoc:ial education : , .  . I 4) ail wrltina, which rdlect the followin\u0026: . ! ) evaluario,u of pro,rama. policie, and proccdur11 that you imp .. ~ ! duriA\u0026 each of the last tbr\" yoan ,. b) appraiaaJa ofpro,rama, policies and.procedures that you impl~t. duri.q *b  of the last three years = .. c) assessments of pr~. policies ap4.:p;OGedures that you im.r,jem. j d during each oftbe last three years; and   . ::_ . i .  5) al.I rcporta resardina the success or fiilure : ~ propm. policy aodf ir  . ire that you nave under1aken in your ;school during eaeh of the past three rear whij e you h\u0026ve rec;ommsodod changes (regarding the proaram. Policy or prooedllf to !bl admi.Disu1tion io writin1, ' : .. I ~ l  ~ PLAINTIFF'S t axrmn 08/13/2001 15:59 501-324-221:3 SCHOOL SERVICES rt !i r-   y 011 may gpw witJl M~. ~Pfl!10!f HI my offica f'lRA!'dmJ tt\\A 4AM W tiftt  review and inspect the requested information. JWW:j\u0026 I I I I ! ; . j ' PAGE 04 11/17/95 14:52 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, \u0026 JENN I NGS  NO. 1.54 Hal6~/l:l1Qb ALio-:30-84 TUE 15:45 US DISTRICT CLERK FAX NO, 15019724812 P. 02 IN THB tiam A'l'BS DISTRICT cou.:'dr.JJrlC~~ DSTDN STRICT 01 AJlKAN .RNDlffllCf AAIWIIU JONISBOI.O DIVISION AUG 3 O 1994 ~~ DR  .JOHN KANGIDI, PLAIMTI1? ARKANSAS ITA'l'B UNlVIRSITY, B'l' AL, , DIJ'DDANTS MIM9BAttRPI MP 9BPIB In this action bro~9ht puruant to ,3 u.s.c. I 1913, th Defendant have aouqht a protactivo order (docket entry 3) which would _prohibit discovery ot attorney-clian~ communicationa batvean the Defendant and their lavyera and would protect attorney worlc product from dJ.acloure. Th latter would include lawyer to lawyer co1111unioat1ona aad tor th pupoae of preparin9 and detendinq the 1ntant l1t19ation. Plaintiff taadtaetly re1ita th entry ot ucb a protect! va order, pointing to th Arkanaa Freedom ot Intonation Aot, Ark. Code Ann. S as-19-101 at sag. (Supp. 1993), th Defendant' tatu aa ~c of  public 1ftat1tution, and the tact that th Detanclanta have baan auecl in their official aa well  individual capaoitiaa, and a body of Arkansas c law addra11inq the POIA and the aubjeot ot Defendant' propoaed order. 1 = PLAINTIFF'S l 9i'Bl1 t l/l?/95 14:52 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, \u0026 JENN I NGS I N0.134 P003/006 AUG-30-94 TUE 15:46 us TSTRJCT CLERK I FAX NO, 15019724612 P.03 e Initially, it auat be detarttlna4 which rul of law the court ahould apply. Thi caae, brol.!4ht in Federal Ditriot Co~ by a former State univer itr ~reaident over his treatment by the Board of Truateea ot ,.id intitution, i  tor rdr ot righta protected ~Y the law and eontitution ot th united stat In a auit ~roupt in federal court purauant to 42 u.s.c. I 1913, federal law control CZUNtion ,,--- ot priv1le9e. 1SglHn1 Ye Powtll, 773 ,.2c1 191, 1.1, (8th C:iJ:. 1911), cart. denied, 475 u.s. 1119 (1ta6); Youn!Jblood y. Qataa. 112 7.R.D. 342 (C.D. c.1. 1915). 'l'hia 1  true even where a pendnt or auppl ... ntal jurisdiction claim 11 joined with a federal claia. BIDIID Ye Alln IMPEial Hpapi\\al. 141 P.R..D. 115 (S.D. Iowa 1193). Work product protection - cautiona are detanined by looking to federal law, even in d1vrity ca Attbert; v, Cbis1aA i u,w, Tranap, Ce,, 121 P.R.D. 569 (D.s.o. 1989); Harpar Ye Auto oVDVI +DI, Co,, 138 r.R.D. ,ss (S.D. Ind. 1991), Tli attorney-oUent privilaqa i an indipnble tool of juatioa, and i 919011nded in th tederal 00111110n law. It ori9in8 ;o baclc_well before .th 1700' 8t4ient aurnr, Inc. Y, yarican A A11eei1tisn, 320 r.ad 314 (1th cir. 11,l). '?he benefit ot the privila,e, l:)otb to t.ha aainiat.rat1on o.t juatic and to the attorner.;client relationahip, are o \u0026oW\\da-nt a to need no recitation hare. It 1 tharatora held that tha aotion 1 GRAN'l'ID  ~ tho 001111\\Ulioationa between attorney and gliant that oomo under tho attornerclient  a l ,l / lt::35 14:~ Wl-\u003c:lrl, LlNu:x.T, ll. Jt::NN!~ fG-30-94 TUE 15:48  US DISTRICT CLERK . FAX J\"'IU ,, .L~ 15019724612 wv11e9e, See ,a\u002611,.-i.._..-._..,_,_....,.~.....,.,...._..._......_,.......,'-llilll,-\" r.~.D. ,st (D,C, Ill, 1975), Th motion 1 aleo GaAMTID  to into;-ation, letter, o~anda, and th lika .ganez-ated  lt.or~Y work product. HiglQaln y. Taylor, l2t U,S, 495, '7 +ct. 385 (1147) I bG E1atn1u1ar Tit;l c;e, v, 2111.. 101cb ~otxi 132 P,R.D. 301 (S,D. Pl\u0026, 1990), Th real ditticulty, ot course, co in determining whether a 9iven item tall within or without on ot th ~vo protected ~te9or1 Counl are called upon to u their sound jud;mant, and to conault the ColU't when and if bQno tide diput arbe in th cour ot cUsoovery abo~t 1tea that ara po ai~ly protected. A wo~d ut be qivn to th Arkansas authorit.ie that have touched on the iaeuea of privilege and work product in the context ot FOL\\ requeta. In Mc;C:ombJ:idga Yr Cit A( Little Jgck, 298 Ark. 21,, 766 s.w.ad 109 (1989), the Arkan suprue court hald that the Arkan rule of the attorneyclient privilet did not create an exemption to the Arkan rreedoa ot In(~raation Act. 'rhe ca heavily rlied on by Plaintiff, city q( f111ttayillt Yr Nmark, 304 A~k. 179, 801 s.w.ad 275 (ltta), held, ipt9r alia, that legal aemoranda prepared for tbe City tor li ti9ation purpo war not axeapt from tbe Arkan rraedoa ot Intomation Act. ~ttornay work product va thu dbcloaed .. 3 P. 04 : l 11/17/95 14:53 WRI(JiT, LlNU~~Y, ~ Jt::.NN!Nl\"l~ AUG-30-94 TUE 15:47 1u S D[STRICT CLERK NU  .L~ FAX NO, 15019724612 P.05 e Th court tinda 1aarJc and Mgcambri0;1 \" not bindin9 on thi Court and even 1~ the court aawnaa that they ara, the daoiaiona ~o not foracloaa thia _Court troa 1uinJ an order protecting attorney-oliant coDllllunicationa or attorney wor\u003ec product. (See Ark. Coda AM. I 25-ltlOS(b)(I), Which xempte tro th FOll dOOWNftta . which ar protaotecl fro dialoaure by order or rule ot court.) It i intueatinq to note that . ,.- Louiaiana' Public Raoorda Law apeai.riaally expt attorney work product rroa it tena, but not aaterial protected by the attorney-client privilege. sea 'tlllQP y. Lgui1iana Land 1 1Xpl;ratign. aos ,.supp. Ja5 cx.o. 1,a. ie9a). In axaminin; tha Arkan autboriti it i readily apparent that the tocu and concern of the Arkana Stata 9 oourt11 1a with the whole body or Arkan law, ancl the function of Arkan law in the attair ot Arkan oitiaen Thi Padaral cour~, while aituated within Arkan, must navarthel have  1 t prilaary concern th atf 1c1ent adaini tration ot juatio and the tair resolution ot federal olaiaa radreaaable by the parties liti;ant in federal oourt. Thu , taderal law and prooedura auat ba applied. I'l' IS, 'lHD.ll'OU, ORDDID that all papera, 111atarial, and other thing colleotad or praparact by th parti or their raprntativea in anticipation for trial, or otharwi1 within the cope ot the taderal work product: doctrine, and all private couunicationa of any kind between th defendant an4 their counl v1thin the 1 rec09ni1ad boundaries ot the 4 11/17/95 14:54 WRl.GHTf LlNJ.kit.Y; \u0026 . Jl:NNl~t:o NU  .1.~ . , -~.!JG-30-94 TUE 15:48 u~DISTRICT CLERK . FAX HO, 15018724812  . P. 06 91:ornayoliant privilege, an hereby ~rot,~tcad t~oa dicovery . . by tb oppoainq party or ralaa to any third pa~y, except by order ot thi court. 5 i : I e IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, ARKANSAS STATE OF ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF vs. CIVIL NO. 92-100 HABILITATION CENTER, INC. an Arkansas Corporation d/b/a MILLCREEK OF ARKANSAS; MILLCREEK MANAGEMENT, INC., a Mississippi Corporation; DR. JAMES O. STEPHENS, M.D., {in his individual capacity, and in his official capacities as President and Chairman of the Board of Habilitation Center, Inc., and Rehabilitation Centers, Inc. , and as Chairman of the Board of Millcreek Management, Inc.); JOSEPH L. STEPHENS, ( in his individual capacity, and in his official cap~6ities as Vice President of Habilitation Center, Inc., Rehabilitation Centers, Inc., and Millcreek Management, Inc.); BILL SIMMONS, (in his individual capacity, and in his official capacity as President of Millcreek Management, Inc.); and  WANDA MILES-BELL, (in her individual capacity and in her official capacities as Executive Director and General Manager of Millcreek of Arkansas and Vice President of Millcreek Management, Inc.); DEFENDANTS ORDER On this 31st day of January, 1995, there is presented to the Court the Motions for Protective Order filed on behalf of defendant Habilitation, Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. and William Sutton. The Attorney General ht:lving f;;lly :responded and the Court being sufficiently -advised, having heard arguments of counsel and having fully considered this matter IT IS NOW, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The office of the Attorney General served a request for records under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, Ark. Code Ann 25-19-101, et seq., (hereinafter FOIA) upon Mr. William Sutton, custodian of records at the law firm of Friday, Eldredge \u0026 hob'l.onl PLAINTIFPS EXHIBIT 3  Clark, attorneys for the defendant Habilitation Center, Inc. d/b/a Millcreek of Arkansas, seeking the law firm's files relating to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. (hereinafter Millcreek Schools) and Habili tation Center, Inc. (hereinafter Habili tat ion) . The requests specifically seek \"documents, notes, pleadings, memorandum [sic] _, work papers, attorney work papers including work product ,p_~epared, genarat~d or relai:ed -to any '.lark done by your finn for Habilitation centers, Inc. (sic] or Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, . ~- ;,. .. -=_:Inc. in State of Arkansas v. Habilitation Centers, Inc., [sic] CIV- 92-100 in Dallas County, Arkansas.\" The Attorney General served similar FOIA requests on Habilitation and Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. Jurisdiction and Venue The threshold issue for this Court's determination is whether the Court has jurisdiction to enter the protective orders sought. The plaintiff selected the Dallas County Circuit Court in which to bring the pending case pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-13-201 and venue was established in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. 16-106- . !.01 (d) . Juri.::;dicticn-in .this Court was t~en proper, ,and this CoU::r:t retains that jurisdiction and control over the case pursuant to the aforesaid statutes. Although the Freedom of Information Act establishes a separate authority under which information may be obtained under certain circumstances, there is no question but that a FOIA request to a law firm representing a defendant in a pending case within the jurisdiction of this Court is so intertwined with that pending case as to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court. 2   If the Attorney General makes a FOIA request of a totally separate ~ntity, that .separate entity would not be subject to the jurisdiction of this Court, and the Attorney General would be free to pursue its FOIA request in whatever jurisdiction may be permitted by law. The Attorney General has not named Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. as a party defendant. The Attorney General has made reference to  \"Millcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, a -'separate entity owned by defendant, Habilitation\" in .,_its first amended  complaint. The Court is convinced that Millcreek Schools of Arkansas and Millcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, both allegedly owned by Habilitation, should be considered to be the same entity as Habilitation d/b/a Millcreek of Arkansas, and accordingly Millcreek Schools of Arkansas is not truly a separate entity but rather it is an integral part of Habilitation. Therefore it, too, comes within the jurisdiction of this Court. In holding that this Court has jurisdiction and is the proper venue to resolve the issues relating to the FOIA, the Court acknowledges -that i-c is iriappr0pric:1.te for -che threat of pot:.ential enforcement in another forum to hang over the defendants as they prepare for trial, and it is in the interest of judicial economy to have this Court handle all issues relating to the matters at hand. Venue is proper only in the circuit court of the judicial district in which the entity is located when the defendant is an entity which is a private organization even though supported by public funds. Here, all the FOIA targets are such private --- 3 organizations resisting the turn over of information pursuant to the FOIA. The mere fact that the Attorney General itself is located in Pulaski County and is a state agency does not create venue in that county in these circumstances. Standing The defendants' attorneys seek a protective order in order to protect the attorney/client privilege being asserted on behalf of their clients which include the defendant Habilitation. . J ;. \"'  ..  =_.Habili tat ion has standing by virtue of being a party litigant in the case brought by the Attorney General . The law firm of Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark has standing to seek a protective order since it represents Habilitation. Habilitation is Not Subject to the FOIA. The major issue is whether Habilitation Center, Inc. is an entity subject to the FOIA. If it is, its attorney's files may be discoverable under FOIA. It is settled under Arkansas law that attorney work product and records are not per se exempt from FOIA disclosure under Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-105. See Scott v. Smith, 2-92 Ark. 174, 728 s. W. 2d 515 (1.987), Arkansas. Highway Department v. Hope Brick Works~ Inc., 294 Ark. 490, 744 S.W.2d 711 (1988) and City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, 304 Ark. 179, 801 S.W.2d 275 (1990). Although a court hearing a FOIA enforcement action may not issue a protective order under that section to protect information otherwise subject to disclosure, 1 nevertheless, the trial court is 1Ark. Newspaper, Inc. v. Patterson, 281 Ark. 213, 262 S.W.2d 826 (1994), City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, supra, at page 193. 4 able to create an exemption from the FOIA as authorized by Ark . . code Ann. 25-19-105 (b) (8) since the limitations on protective orders do not apply to trial courts. The threshold issue, however, is whether FOIA even applies in the situation before the Court. In order to make that determination, the Court must decide whether the materials sought by the Attorney General are public records within the meaning of the FOIA. 2 Habilitation is a privately owned for-profit entity receiving Medicaid funds; it is ;..  ___ not a government agency. Given the facts of this situation, it may be an \"other agency\" subject to the FOIA. because it is \"wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds.\" Courts have enforced FOIA requests to particular private entities when they are wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds. 3 This Court has also considered a number 2Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-103 (1) provides in pertinent part, \"Public records means writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes or data, compilations in any form required by law to be kept or otherwise kept and which constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions which are or should be carried out by a \"public official or an employee or government QJ;: any other agency wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending . public funds . . n  [emphasis supplied] 3See North Central Association of Colleges and Schools v. Trout Brothers, Inc., 261 Ark. 378, 548 S.W.2d 285 (1977); Arkansas Gazette Company v. Southern State College, 273 Ark. 248, 620 S.W.2d 258 (1981}, app. dismissed 455 U.S. 931 (1982}; and Rehab Hospital Services Corp. v. Delta Hills Health Systems Agency, Inc., 285 Ark. 397 687 S.W.2d 840 {1985). The first two of the cited cases indicate the factors that must be present before a private entity will be subject to the FOIA. First, there must be direct public funding. Secondly, there must be indirect public support. Third, there must be public concern with respect to the organization's activities. The primary source of funding being governmental and the serving of a public purpose may subject the private organization to the FOIA. Rehab Hospital Services Corp. supra. Recently the Arkansas Supreme Court has declared that public funds bohl- 5 ! . I i I ' I of Attorney General's opinions which are not binding as precedent,  ,- but which are instructive. The Attorney General has opined that \"when the activities of a private organization and the government become so intertwined, the private organization may well render itself part of the state for [FOIA] purposes.\" Ark. Op. No. 83- 163. In that opinion, the AG opined that the mere receipt of Medicare and Medicaid funds by a private nonprofit hospital or a for-profit investor owned facility would not trigger the FOIA. , -.-_More recently, the Attorney General has opined that the mere receipt of public funds is not in itself sufficient to bring a private organization within the FOIA; rather, the question is whether the private entity carries on public business or is otherwise intertwined with the activities of the government . Ark. Op. AG No. 94-131 (May 13, 1994), citing City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, supra, (1990) and Op. AG Nos. 91-131, 94-154 and 83-163. Here both Habilitation and Millcreek Schools do not conduct their activities with or for the benefit of or in the place of any public agency. Neither is established by law. Neither is any more . regulated -0r supervised than hospitals or nursing homes or schools. No governmenta1 authority is ~t Habili tat ion nor is any Habili tat ion employee located in any government office. Habilitation determines the programs for the children, not the State . include only direct public funding, not indirect support. Sebastian city Chapter of the A11lerican Red Cross v. Weatherford, 311 Ark. 656 (845) S.W.2d 641 (1993). 6 Habilitation and Millcreek are engaged in the private r endering of Medicaid and other Medicaid eligible services to private individuals. People performing these services are not public officials. Habilitation is providing Medicaid and other services pursuant to a standard form contract, not making public policy. Even though all or a substantial part of its income is derived from the government, it is being paid only for services and is not being subsidized as an extension of government. These facts do not lead to the conclusion that Habiliation and Millcreek are so connected or intertwined as to bring them within the purview of FOIA disclosure. After evaluating the facts and in light of precedent, the Court finds that Habilitation and Millcreek are not private entities subject to the FOIA. While the line limiting the reach of FOIA is not bright and while the FOIA is to be liberally construed for disclosure of records in the public domain, Ragland v. Yeargen, 288 Ark. 81, 702 S.W.2d 23 (1986), the facts in this case cannot justify a conclusion that \"public business\" was or is being conducted by Habili tation. The intent of the legislature was to expose the performance of public officials and of the decis1ons that are reached in public activity and in making public policy. While the public at large as electors do have an interest in how the Medicaid program is being conducted and should have access to all agency records relating thereto, including those supplied by Habilitation under its contract, they have no overriding interest in how a private service provider renders its services to private 7 individuals. There simply is no legal precedent or suggestion that  it was the intent of the legislature to subject the private activities and all licensed entities and individuals to public scrutiny under the FOIA. Thus it is the decision of this Court that Habilitation is not subject to the FOIA. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark is Not Subject to the FOIA Additionally, the Court also finds that Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark is not' subject to FOIA. It is an obviously private entity .--Eeceiving no obvious public funds, and its clients are not a public entity. The Court believes that the Attorney General's FOIA request to Habilitation and Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark is discovery abuse. Defendants and their counsel are entitled to protection to maintain the integrity of the discovery process set out in the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Unauthorized access to attorney/client or attorney/work product privileged material can deprive defendants of due process. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion for Protective Order to protect the FOIA requested material from Habili tat ion .should be and  hereby is granted. Additionally~ the protective order is extended to Millcreek of Arkansas, to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc., to Millcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, and to Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark as attorney to the extent of any mater~als in any way related to this litigation. The Attorney General may, if it so chooses, amend its complaint with respect to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. if it determines that amendment of the name of the defendant is appropriate. 8 Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-l0S(b) (8) Exemption The Court further finds that even were the defendant subject to the FOIA, the exemption provided in Ark. Code Ann. 25-19- 105 (b) (8) which expressly exempts \"documents which are protected from disclosure by orders or rules of court\" would apply in this case. As the Supreme Court stated in . City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, supra at 191: A triar' court has the inherent authority to protect the integrity of _the Court in actions pending before it and . ...- may issue appropriate protective orders that would provide FOIA exemption under 25-19-l0S(b) (8). This Court having underlying jurisdiction over the underlying litigation finds that a protective order should be issued to restrict disclosure of documents being sought pursuant to FOIA. If there is any subsequent review by any other circuit court considering related FOIA requests, this protective order is issued specifically within the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. 25-19- 105 (b) (8) to protect from the FOIA materials which otherwise might be disclosable. Id. Other Motions The defendants' Motion to Quash Notice of Depositions is governed by the Written Agreement of the Parties provided to the Court in their  joint Motion for Continuance. Accordingly, depositions of parties may begin again only as set out in the Agreement. The Attorney General's Motion to Strike Affidavits will be considered by the Court when it receives the plaintiff's Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendants' Reply to the 9  - Attorney General's Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, if  .any, will be due within ten business days thereafter. The Attorney General has filed a Motion for Default on Attorney General's Motion to Strike. That Motion is denied. Conclusion IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendants' Motion be and it hereby is granted. It is further ordered that a protective order be and hereby is issued over all materials sought by the Attorney ~--General under the FOIA unless they are otherwise discoverable or admissible into evidence. The Motion to Quash Notice of Depositions is hereby granted until otherwise provided in the agreement of the parties. The Motion for Default on the Attorney General's Motion to Strike is hereby denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1995. hobJ- ~ day of deJn ~ CAROL C Circuit/ DATE: ,)/t4/ f (\" 10 IN Tiffi UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURJ.4 IN TIIB EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANs~M PINE BLUFF DIVISION ROGER HEATHSCOTT vs. NO. 5:00-CV-00333-WRW UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. ORDER DEFENDANT For the reasons stated in a telephone conference yesterday, the plaintiff's motion (Doc.5) for a protective order is GRANTED. Accordingly, defendant must not compel the plaintiff to attend the physical examination scheduled for February 14, 2001 , with Dr. Baskin, M.D., and it must not compel the attendance of the plaintiff at the functional capacity examination scheduled for February I 9, 2001. Further, plaintiff must not be disciplined for failing to attend these examinations. I rely primarily upon Smith v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 878 F.Supp. 171 (D.Co. 1995) and Vicary v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 942 F.Supp. 1146 (N.D. Ohio 1996) which seem to be well reasoned. Unlike the plaintiffs in Calvert v. Trans World Airlines, 959 F.2d 698 (8th Cir. 1992), the plaintiff here unquestionably has a separate, independent cause of action under the Federal Employers Liability Act (\"FELA'') 45 U.S.C.  51 et seq. I believe discovery in the FELA action should proceed under the standard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that these rules are not trumped by the defendant's medical examination rules (via the Railway Labor Act 45 U. S.C.  151 et seq.) In fact, under the theory urged by defendant, a railroad could severally hamstring a FELA plaintiff with company regulations. Defendant contends that this order is in the nature of an order \"granting, continuing, modifying or dissolving [an] injunction\" which would be subject to an interlocutory appeal under l... PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT. I it ' . i 287 U.S.C.  1992. I do not know what authority I have to enhance defendant's right to an interlocutory appeal, but to the extent that I have such authority, I grant it in full. IT IS SO ORDERED this l!:!!4 of February, 2001 . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS OOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCK!T SHEET IN .COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(1) FACP oN 11/a, lo I av \u0026.bN I   RECEIVED AUG 1 7 2001  \"_ -- OFFICE OF DESEGREG.4TION MOMTORIN\u0026 IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL ,,,..p~ PLAINTIFF ,,. . . KA-THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR EMERGENCY HEARING LRSD s.eeks a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to prevent unduly burdensome and harassing discovery being conducted by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") via - the Arkansas Freedom oflnformation Act (\"FOIA\"), Ark. Code Ann.  25-19-101 through 25- 19-110. Rule 26(c) provides: Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending or "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1705","title":"Court filings concerning Baker recruitment plan, school resources study, orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001, and Joshua's objections to unitary status","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":["2001-08-06/2001-08-15"],"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--21st Century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School enrollment","School superintendents","Parents' and teachers' associations","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Baker recruitment plan, school resources study, orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001, and Joshua's objections to unitary status"],"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/1705"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["18 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel for state defendants; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to Joshua intervenors' objections to Baker recruitment plan; District Court, notice of filing of school resources study; District Court, motion for relief from orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001, by defendant Gary Smith and for other appropriate and/or alternative relief; District Court, corrected motion for relief from orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001, by defendant Gary Smith, and for other appropriate and/or alternative relief; District Court, motion for preliminary injunction; District Court, memorandum in support of motion for preliminary injunction; District Court, plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and requests for production to the Joshua intervenors regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status; District Court, two orders  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  LAW OFFICES MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026 WOODYARD, P.L.L .C. TIMOTHY G. GAUGER DIRECT DIAL 501 - eBB- B843 e-mail tgeugeiOmwsgw.com M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings . 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P. 0 . Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Ann Marshall 42!5 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201- 3!52!5 TELEPHONE !501 -688-8800 FAX !501-688-8807 August 6, 2001 Sammye Taylor Mark Hagemeier RECEIVED AUG S ~ 2001 Clflllf  ,,  ...... ,, Arkansas Atomey General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 123 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. I, et al; No. 4: 82 CV 000866 SWW Counsel and Ms. Marshall: Enclosed for your files is a copy of the Motion To Withdraw As Counsel For State Defendants which I have filed today in the above-referenced matter. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026 WOODYARD, P.L.L.C . Counsel of Record and Ms. Ann Marshall August 6, 200 I Page2 TGG/jd Enclosure Very truly yours, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026 WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. ~a7/4~ By t,,:.J/ f/--; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV000866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR STATE DEFENDANTS  Timothy Gauger and Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard, PLLC hereby move the Court for an order pennitting them to withdraw as counsel of record for the State Defendants in the above-referenced case. The motion is made on the following grounds: 1. In February, 2001, the undersigned left his employment with the Office of the Attorney General. He has continued to assist in the representation of the State Defendants as outside counsel under contract with the Arkansas Attorney General's office. That contract has expired, and the undersigned is therefore no longer authorized to represent the State Defendants in this action. 2. The undersigned's withdrawal will not prejudice any party to this action. The State Defendants will continue to be represented by Chief Barrister Sammye Taylor and Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier of the Attorney General's office. WHEREFORE, Timothy Gauger and Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard, PLLC respectfully request that the Court enter an order permitting them to withdraw as counsel of record for the State Defendants. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026 WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3525 (501) 688-8800 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on August 6, 2001, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P. 0. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Sammye Taylor Mark Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S REPLY TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN RECEIVED ~UG '7 200\\ -=- PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS There are no geographical limits. but rather a discreet targeted area. Baker remains open, on a space available basis, to any African-American student from the LRSD who would like to attend and who is in good standing with the LRSD. The PCSSD has been criticized in the past for recruitment efforts which, its detractors asserted, lacked \"focus\". In contrast here, the PCSSD has identified a minority community proximate to Baker. Baker is the closest public school of any kind to Chenal Park. Because of the limited number of seats that can be made available at Baker, the PCSSD submits that it is not only reasonable but prudent for the PCSSD to designate Chenal Park as its principal recruiting target. 273080-v1 Except for the kindergarten classes to be added, there is little available space at Baker At Page 4 of its objection, Joshua asserts that: Joshua notes that the response of the defendant is from defendant's counsel; it is without affidavit support and the factual representations may not be subject to examination because they have been lawyer generated. PCSSD first notes that the statistical representations made by the PCSSD were supported by exhibits from both the LRSD and the Baker school itself. In contrast, Joshua asserts with absolutely no factual support the following at Page 3: d) The defendants allege that they have not admitted more minority students to Baker, despite the applications of minority students for Baker from Little Rock, because the PCSSD \"has not had room at Baker to accommodate all of [their] requests\". This proposition is factually incorrect on its face. See the ODM report on capacity. Baker does not now appear to be at or near capacity. Indeed, Baker has space to accommodate, without class additions 70 students. It could easily accommodate more than 40 black applicants in grades kindergarten through fifth with ease at one time. While Joshua vaguely refers to an undated and otherwise unidentified ODM report, the fact is, there is no such ODM report which reflects anything even approximating that which Joshua has asserted concerning room for 70 additional students. As the Court can see from a re-examination of Exhibit 1 to the PCSSD Baker Recruitment Plan dated July 13, 2001, with the exception of the fifth grade, a temporary anomaly, there are simply no seats at Baker before the addition of the proposed kindergarten classes. One simply cannot take the two former sixth grade class rooms and magically convert them to seats spread over K-5. The remaining \"math\" contained in subsection d) of Joshua's objection is equally - flawed and consistently obtuse. 273080-v1 2 Joshua spurned the PCSSD overtures to participate in the Baker planning process. On May 18, 2001, the PCSSD proposed the Court approval of the activities complex at Baker. In that submission, the PCSSD specifically proposed that it develop in conjunction with Joshua a specific recruiting plan for Baker. (Motion pp. 2-3) On the same day, counsel wrote Joshua regarding the Baker M to M issue (Exhibit \"A\"), stating in pertinent part that: I would hope that you could meet at least once with us, both so that we could have your input and so you can completely understand the logistics of this issue. I very much need to get it done next week. Please let me know when you could be available. Thereafter, events transpired which required the PCSSD to inform the Court that it appeared that Joshua's participation in such a plan would not be forthcoming at this time. With a copy to Joshua, we specifically informed the Court that: The Court will recall that we promised in our Baker motion field May 18, 2001, that we would consult with Joshua and furnish the Court with some particulars. While it appears that collaboration with Joshua on this issue is not going to occur at this time, nevertheless, we do wish to make a further filing and I wanted the Court to be aware that it should be imminent. (Exhibit \"B\", Emphasis Supplied) Thus, Joshua's current assertion that it was \"not consulted\" and should now be involved is simply false. IF THE COURT AND JOSHUA WISH FOR THE PCCSD TO STATE THE REAL REASON JOSHUA DECLINED TO PARTICIPATE, IT WILL BE OBLIGED TO HONOR SUCH A REQUEST. Conclusion The PCCSD Recruitment Plan is sound given the space limitations at Baker and the proximity of Chenal Park. Joshua's math and its mathematical assertions are not 273080-v1 3 only unsupported, they are simply not of this world. Joshua spurned the PCSSD's invitation to participate in this process and should not be heard to complain now. 273080-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By~4~ ~'-:--- ~.--samuei1ineslll(7606o) J 1/ Attorneys tgrPulaski County Special \\~strict ,J 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 6, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 273080-v1 5 ., EDWARD L. WRIGHT (100~1177) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1113-1081) ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR . JOHN G. LILE GORD_ O_ATHER.JR. TERRY HEWS DAVID ELL ROGER A. -...SGOW C. DOUGLAS BUfORO. JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M, SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L, LOWTHER. JR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDN ROGER D. ROWE JOHN D. DAVIS VIA FACSIMILE Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www .wlJ.com Of COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Wrller's Direct Dlal No. 501-212-1273 mJonesOwlJ.com May 18, 2001 JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY f . COX. JR. TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY. JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILIER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNlfER S. BROWN C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY\" M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. 1,lcKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE ROIERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHERTY. Ph.D. ' l.lolnHd lo pn,ctlce before ,,.. Unled Slater Pa/ent - T-Ollicw Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866SWW Dear John: I am writing you this letter in case we do not connect by telephone this afternoon. This morning Karl Brown and I spent a considerable period of time with Beverly Ruthven discussing the issue of space accommodations for additional M to M transfer students at Baker. While we made some progress in that regard, this is not as easy an issue as you might expect. This afternoon I am filing a barebones motion to get the issue of the proposed construction on the judicial table. In the motion I recite that we will be working on the issue of space and transfers and will supplement the motion with a specific plan as soon as possible. I would hope that you could meet at least once with us, both so that we could have your input and so you can completely understand the logistics of this issue. I very much need to get it done next week. Please let me know when you could be available. Thanks. Cordially yours, MSJ:ao A~INDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ~muel Jones, Ill cc: Mr. Karl Brown 255714-v1 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY DATE: May 18, 2001 TO: COMPANY: Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. Fax No. 374-4187 Message From: M. Samuel Jones Ill OUR FAX NO.: (501) 376-9442 TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 2 REMARKS: CONFIRMATION: ~By Regular Mail By Expedited Mail None Rush DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED: P001 MESSAGE CONFIRMATION REPORT 05/18/01 15: 39 ID:WRIGHT LINDSEY SESS. MODE DATE/TIME TIME DISTANT STATION ID PAGES DIAL RESULT 639 G3.S 05/18 15:38 00'55\" 5013744187 002/002 04 D K 6000 \\ ' \\ ... EDWARD L. WRIGHT (190,- 1977) RDBERT S. LINDSEY (11131111) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S, RATHER, JR. TERRY L, MATHEWS DAVIDII .-LL ROGER A. GOW C. DOUGL FORD, JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES II. SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 LEE J . MULDROW N.11 . NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLU L. SCHLUMBERGER WAL TEA E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOD!N ROGER 0. ROWE JOHN D. DAVIS WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www.wlJ.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY JAMES R, VAN DOVER II. TODO WOOD Writer's Direct Dial No . 501 -2121273 mJonuQwlJ.com June 6, 2001 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright 600 West Capitol, Suite 302 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR. TROY A. PRICE PATIUCIA SIEVERS HARl'IIS JAMES II. MOODY, JIil. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERl'IY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER HT\u0026Y MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI II. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY\" II. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS II. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W, DUKE ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHERTY, Ph.D. UcenMd lo pracllce - the lklled States Patent and Trademlrlr Offlce Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866SWW Dear Judge Wright: I am awaiting some student enrollment and gee code information from the Little Rock School District before I can finalize our proposed recruitment plan for Baker Elementary. The Court will recall that we promised in our Baker motion filed May 18, 2001, that we would consult with Joshua and furnish the Court with some particulars. While it appears that collaboration with Joshua on this issue is not going to occur at this time, nevertheless, we do wish to make a further filing and I wanted the Court to be aware that it should be imminent. Thank you very much. MSJ/ao cc: Ms. Ann Brown Marshall Mr. John W. Walker 259780-v1 Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Richard Roachell Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Stephen W. Jones Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY} JENNINGS LLP ----7 .7 7  ~ -j?~..__----- -\" .,,,...,...~\"\" A;/  t--' M_..- Samuel ~ones Ill I ... ~ / .,., i /.' (. / '--' \\. ____ .,,... RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION I\\UG 7100\\ tfil\\1e-i: -- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING OF SCHOOL RESOURCES STUDY Pursuant to Section \"J\" of the PCSSD Plan 2000, a School Resources Study was conducted under the auspices of a bi-racial committee of administrators, teachers and others. The roster of the committee is appended toward the end of the report. The report was completed in May 2001 and has now been approved by the School Board. Pursuant to page 6 of the narrative, the reader will note that the Study concluded there was no significant statistical difference between the racial composition of the District schools and the amount of resources allocated to a particular school. The Study in its entirety is appended to this filing as Exhibit \"A\". 273064-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By----:-:---:::,,-+:-~_..;a'.\".\"\"\":::-T\"~------ . 060) r Pula~County Special . rict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 6, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 273064-v1 2 RECEI\\IED AUG 1 0 2001 - OFFIC~OF DESEGREGATI~ MONITOAIN6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUJ.\u0026t EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSA~ ~Li=~) ,WESTERN DIVISION EASTElN 1\u0026ii~~'g '.{~~f~SAS AUG OB r31 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ~~:MES W. McCORMACK, t['~TIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 DEP CU,i;:'\u003c PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDERS ENTERED ON APRIL 27, 2000 AND MAY 9, 2001 BY DEFENDANT GARY SMITH, AND FOR OTHER APPROPRIATE AND/OR ALTERNATIVE RELIEF This motion is brought by the Joshua Intervenors against the Pulaski County Special School District Defendants (PCSSD) and especially against Defendant Gary Smith, Superintendent of Schools of PCS SD: The matter is of general public importance in that it affects African American students and their parents as a class. It involves implementation of the PCSSD Revised Desegregation Plan and the good faith of the defendants. The persons whose circumstances are being presented to the Court are referred to by fictitious names in order to avoid undue and inappropriate responses by persons related to the PCSSD to their having initiated this action and because of the ages and continuing enrollment in the PCSSD schools as small children. The parents of the minor children are referred to as \"Harold\" and \"Amanda X\". Their actual names will be presented to the Court and to the parties with a request that the actual names be sealed and kept out of the public domain. With this background, the Joshua Intervenors present the following set of facts upon which they seek for relief to be granted: -1- 1. Harold and Amanda X are the parents of Alisha X. Alisha X is a ten year old student who will be enrolled in PCS SD fifth grade elementary program during the 2001-2002 school year. Alisha X has a sister, Alisha Y, age four, who will be entering a four year old program in the PCS SD during the 2001-2002 school year. These parties are members of the certified class herein and they seek relief provided by the standing . Consent Decree or Court Order. 2. Dr. Gary Smith is the Superintendent of Schools of the PCSSD. Carl Brown is the Associate Superintendent of Schools for Desegregation for PCSSD, among other titles. Hazel W., also a fictitious name, was the Principal of Murrell Taylor Elementary School operated by PCSSD during the 1999-2000 school year. The actions which give rise to this motion began in April, 2000. 3. Prior to April, 2000, Harold and Amanda X were parents in good standing at Murrell Taylor Elementary School. Alisha X was enrolled as a student in the Gifted and Talented Program. Her grades, attendance and conduct were sterling. 4. In March, 2000, Alisha X took home a school communication informing the her parents that Alisha X was invited to participate in a Pre-teen America Scholarship Recognition Program. The program was limited to students in Gifted and Talented and was by invitation only. 5. On April 131\\ Harold and Amanda X went to Murrell Taylor PTA, in conformity with the letter notice to Alisha X. Harold X expressed his gratitude to the school for selecting Alisha X to participate in the program. He further stated that he could not believe that the opportunity was real, and requested the support of the PT A so that -2- Alisha's participation in the competitive activity could be facilitated. Hazel W ., the Principal, stood in response to Harold X's statement and said that the invitation was extended to Alisha X in error and that she was not eligible by school rules to participate in this competition. A further reason given for rejecting the application and request for PTA help by School Principal Hazel W. was that Harold and Amanda X were not members of the PT A. Hazel W. was mistaken. Harold and Amanda X were in fact dues paying members for 1999-2000 as well as for the preceding year. 7. On April 14, 2000, Harold X went to Principal Hazel W.'s office to discuss the matter with Hazel W. Hazel W. declined to respond to Harold X's visit. On or about April 18, 2000, Harold X received a letter purportedly from the PT A Executive Board of Murrell Taylor which stated: \"We apologize for any embarrassment that we may have caused you at the PTA meeting April 13, 2000. It was our clerical error and we are sorry.\" See Exhibit A hereto. 8. On April 18, 2000, Hazel W. wrote Harold and Amanda X a letter which is attached as Exhibit B regarding'what she referred to as a \"confrontation that took place in the hallway after the PTA meeting on April 13, 2000\". Hazel X went on to chastise Harold and Amanda X for a letter which they had written seeking financial support for their daughter to attend the \"2000 Pre-teen Arkansas Scholarship Program.\" She then indicated that Harold and Amanda X misrepresented to the public that Alisha X was the school representative in that program. Hazel W. went on to say: \"if this kind of conduct happens again, I want you to know that I will petition -3- Pupil Personnel to revoke the permit for [Alisha X] to attend school at Murrell Taylor Elementary.\" See Exhibit C. ',\" 9. On April 18, Amanda X went to Murrell Taylor in order to pick up Alisha X after school. Hazel W. called plaintiff into the principal' s office. At that meeting which Principal Hazel W. initiated, Hazel W. engaged Amanda X in conversation regarding a purported threat that Hazel W. said a parent had reported_to her that was made after the PTA, the night of the 13th of April. Hazel W. did not identify the parent who made the complaint or provide Amanda X with a written statement from the accusatory parent. Amanda X denied that she had threatened a parent and attempted to leave Hazel W.'s office. At that point, Hazel W. blocked the door. Amanda X sought to get around Hazel W. and in doing so opened the door and the door struck Hazel W. Hazel W. scratched plaintiff in the process as she sought to restrain Amanda X from leaving the office. Amanda X sustained other injuries as a result of her seeking to leave Hazel W. 's office. 10. AmandaX went to the Prosecuting Attorney's Office of Pulaski County on April 19, 2000 where she met \"'.'ith Deputy Prosecutor John Johnson. She informed Deputy Prosecutor Johnson of her treatment. Johnson took her statement verbally and told her that he would get back with her. On information and belief, Johnson then informed Hazel W. that Amanda X was seeking to file a criminal charge against Hazel W. Upon Johnson's representation, Hazel W. then initiated criminal charges against Amanda X three days later. As a consequence of those charges, Amanda X was arrested, handcuffed, taken to county jail, photographed and fingerprinted. She -4- 11. stayed in jail overnight and was released on her own recognizance the next day. Amanda X was pros.ecuted in Jacksonville Municipal Court and charged with battery, second degree, a misdemeanor. The Jacksonville Municipal Court, the Honorable Robert Batton, convicted Amanda X. 12. On April 25, 2000, Judge Batton entered a No Contact Order. See Exhibit D. On 13.  October 4, 2000, Judge Batton convicted plaintiff of Battery of Assault in the Second Degree. In the intervening time period minor Alisha X persisted despite Murrell Taylor's school officials' objections, won third place in the talent contest among 161 Gifted and Talented students from the State of Arkansas. No white Murrell Taylor student placed in the talent competition for the Pre-teen America Scholarship and Recognition Program. Amanda X appealed the decision to the Circuit Court to the Honorable John Langston and her conviction was upheld. That Court did not enter any Orders regarding plaintiff's ingress and egress to public schools in Pulaski County. The appeal abated the municipal court's jurisdiction. 14. Harold and Amanda X bring this action seeking vindication of their civil rights and of their rights under the Revised Desegregation Plan to be involved in the schools activities and lives of their school aged children. They have now have a four year old who will be entering the four year program at a PCSSD school. 15. Harold X appeared before the PCSSD School Board on or about June 12, 2001 in order to contest a restraining order upon Amanda X entered by Defendant Gary Smith, April 27, 2000 and another Order dated May 9, 2001 (see Exhibit E) which -5- restricted her access to and upon any PCS SD school property. The PCS SD Board did not consider the appeal. There is no other provision for appeal provided Harold and Amanda X and other parents from such Orders as those entered by Dr. Gary Smith. 16. The appearance of Harold X before the County Board of Education was pursuant to the Board policy which allowed public comment. The Board, pursuant to a policy drafted by Defendant Gary Smith, may not make responses to public comments. Only Smith may respond. Harold X's appearance was not really an appeal because the board was estopped by its own policy of hearing evidence regarding the matter. 17. Defendant Gary Smith delegated Carl Brown to respond to Harold X. Carl Brown, Desegregation Assistant Superintendent, informed Harold and Amanda X that he would seek to have minor Alisha X transferred into a school in the LRSD. Desegregation Superintendent Brown's view at the time was that such a transfer was not authorized by the transfer provision known as the majority to minority transfer between the LRSD and PCS SD. Under that agreement, however, African American PCSSD school children may not transfer to LRSD schools. 18. The foregoing acts developed because PCS SD School Officials sought to deny entry to a school recognition program to a black child. The only students who were invited by Murrell Taylor school officials to participate in the Pre-teen Recognition Program were white. The school had no standards for determining to whom to extend invitation regarding that honor. Murrell Taylor is a racially mixed school. It has many racial problems. School officials then sought to deter African American participation, on April 18, 2000 by threatening to \"revoke the permit for [Alisha X] -6- 19. to attend school at Murrell Taylor Elementary\". [Underlining added for emphasis] The Joshua Intervenors know of no law, regulation or board policy which allows a student's attendance at a particular school to be \"revoked\" because of a parent's conduct. Moreover, the Joshua Intervenors know of no white parents who have been threatened with punishment because they sought support of their child's participation ,  in a school related activity. Furthermore, the Joshua Intervenors believe and allege that the attendance of Alisha X in a PCSSD school is matter of right rather than privilege and that that right may not be revoked absent compelling circumstances, upon and after exhaustion of defined due process rules and regulations. There are no such rules or procedures of this kind in the PCSSD. There are other persons of African American ancestry who either have been, or, will be similarly affected by PCSSD school officials upon the advent of their seeking to avail themselves of rights, privileges and opportunities which are traditionally made available and limited in PCSSD to white children and their parents. 20. Amanda X's only adverse activity at this school was in trying to leave Hazel W. 's office on April 18, 2000, after being invited into, over the objection of Hazel W. As a consequence of trying to leave Hazel W.'s office, to which Amanda X had been invited, plaintiff was subjected to treatment grossly different from that of white parents. The treatment of Harold and Amanda X and their child, Alisha X, with respect to the Pre-teen Arkansas Scholarship and Recognition Program was racial. Their prosecution was racially motivated. It was initiated solely and simply because Harold and Amanda X sought to avail their minor African American child of an -7- 21. award and recognition which, unknown to this at the time, was not intended to be extended to African_American children, at least at Murrell Taylor Elementary SchooL By denying Amanda X access without threat of prosecution to PCS SD property, PCSSD officials deny Harold and Amanda X the equal right to participate in the school learning environment of their children. They also deny minors Alisha X, and Alisha Y, the four year old first year PCSSD student, the right to have their mother accompany them to and from school and to be available when emergencies arrive to provide care and comfort. School officials are effectively restrained from having any communication whatever with Amanda X The Gary Smith directives therefore tend to deny minor class member an opportunity to even attend schooL School officials have a practice of prosecuting African American students who are truant. Amanda X upon failure to secure attendance of minor Alisha X and Alisha Y is effectively being threatened with denial of truancy laws as welL 22. There is no legitimate public interest involved to support the administrative directives 23, from Defendant Gary Smith. The Order is void or voidable, as being in violation of the Desegregation Plan and of the Fourteenth Amendment and due process clauses. As long as this these Orders stand with respect to Amanda X, they will serve as a precedents for similar actions or exclusion regarding class members by Defendant Smith and his subordinates. Moreover, there is no way such Orders may be subjected to review before the PCSSD School Board. Due process is therefore absolutely lacking to a parent who is adversely affected by the Smith Orders herein. The parents in this case have exhausted whatever remedies which are provided by -8- PCSSD for administrative review of the Gary Smith Orders set forth herein have been unsuccessful. This action before this Court for declaratory, injunctive relief and other possibly relief including damages is the only available remedy that Harold and Amanda X have for being able to provide education to their children. Their children Alisha X and Alisha Y have no likelihood of being successful in school an "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1716","title":"Court filings: District Court, motion for pre-trial order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for pretrial order; District Court, two orders; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) Baker (Elementary School) recruitment plan; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to the Baker recruitment plan; District Court, Joshua intervenors' objections to Baker recruitment plan; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, motion for pre-trial order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for pretrial order; District Court, two orders; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) Baker (Elementary School) recruitment plan; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to the Baker recruitment plan; District Court, Joshua intervenors' objections to Baker recruitment plan; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1716"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["4 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MOTION FOR PRE-TRIAL ORDER For its Motion, Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: RECEIVED .JlJL 1 o '7h01 _O.OUC f .. ... . , PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS 1. The Court directed counsel for the Joshua interveners on Friday not to directly contact LRSD employees concerning this case. On Saturday, counsel for the Joshua interveners called an LRSD employee at home to discuss the case. 2. The Court also directed the Joshua interveners to provide LRSD a witness list by Friday subject to revision of the witness list on Monday. Joshua provided a list on Friday afternoon which listed twenty-five people as witnesses, and additional seven people \"tentative witnesses\" and noted that Joshua also intended to call \"the monitor and associate monitors of the ODM\". Counsel for Joshua said by telephone and confirmed in a letter that Joshua's witnesses for Thursday and Friday would be five LRSD witnesses as well as Ann Marshall, Gene Jones and Horace Smith from the Office of Desegregation monitoring. LRSD confirmed in writing that the witnesses would be available and asked Joshua to provide the order of their expected testimony so that arrangements could be made to have them in Court at the appropriate time. 3. Counsel for Joshua also said by telephone and confirmed in writing that Dr. Lesley would not be needed as a witness until the August hearing dates. LRSD confirmed in writing that - Dr. Lesley will not be available until the August hearing dates. 4. On Monday afternoon, counsel for Joshua added ten names to his witness list bringing Joshua's total number of witnesses to forty-five. 5. Counsel for Joshua requested time to \"interview\" for LRSD witnesses on Monday evening or Tuesday. Joshua was informed that two of the witnesses were out of town and that the other two were busy preparing the hearing. 6. On June 10, 1998, LRSD and Joshua made the following agreement with respect to Joshua's participation in implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: For fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD will reimburse your firm up to $48,333 .33 per year for three years beginning July 1, 1998. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan contained a process by which Joshua could bring to the attention ofLRSD, and ultimately the Court, and problems with LRSD' s implementation of the plan. No such problems were brought to the Court's attention during the entire three-year period. LRSD filed an interim compliance report in March of2000 which showed that LRSD was in compliance with its obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Joshua filed no response or objection to the interim compliance report. LRSD' s final compliance report was filed on March 15, 2001 . Joshua was given until May 18, 2001 to file objections and a hearing was set for July 5 and 6, 2001. Joshua's deadline for filing objections was extended twice and the objections were filed on June 25, 2001. Within the past two weeks, Joshua has sent dozens of FOI requests seeking thousands of pages of documents many of which were previously provided to Joshua, many of which were produced by committees which contained Joshua representatives and all of which Joshua could easily have reviewed months ago in accordance with the LRSD's 2 agreement to reimburse Joshua's fees for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. During the last two weeks, Joshua representatives have also met personally and by telephone with the LRSD Administrators responsible for drafting the Compliance Report. 7. After the close of business on Monday evening, Joshua sent two faxes. The first added eleven names to Joshua's witness list, which now totals fifty-six. Joshua has apparently still not made a final determination about the exhibits to be presented at trial. The second fax purports to rescind Joshua's agreement that Dr. Leslie would not be called as a witness on Thursday or Friday. Apparently in retaliation for LRSD's inability to present witnesses for \"interviews\" at the last minute, counsel for Joshua threatened to subpoena Dr. Leslie to appear on Friday. This can only be because of counsel's knowledge that Dr. Leslie is willing to appear on Thursday but must attend a family reunion in Texas on Friday. 8. The Court expressed on Friday the hope and the expectation that counsel for the parties would be able to resolve any pre-trial issues. That has not happened. LRSD must now request that the Court limit Joshua's presentation on Thursday and Friday to the five LRSD witnesses originally requested as well as the representatives of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and that the Court require reasonable witness and exhibit lists and establish the parameters for any remaining discovery in this case, including the opportunity for LRSD to depose the witnesses from outside the district who were added last night to Joshua's witness list. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order limiting the presentation of witnesses on Thursday and Friday to those originally identified by Joshua, establishing deadlines for providing exhibit lists and reasonable witness lists, establishing a pre-trial process to determine the expected length of trial and providing reasonable limitations on the issues 3 to be presented at trial and on the length of the trial, and establishing a deadline for the completion of any remaining discovery. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christopher Heller, hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing pleading has been served upon: by mailing a copy of same by U. S. Postal Service on July 3, 2001. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 3rd day of July 3, 2001 : Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 5 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue  ock, AR 72201 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4: 82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. - KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PRETRIAL ORDER JUL 5 -1001 OfflCEOf DESEGREGAl\\ON MONUOUI PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Comes now the Joshua Intervenors, for their response to LRSD' s Motion for Pretrial Order, and state that Joshua is just in receipt ofLRSD's motion to limit evidence and to prevent a fair hearing. Since the court orders on Friday, June 29, 2001, the District has sought to obstruct and preclude the Joshua Intervenors from obtaining information and having access to witnesses. The District's counsel has made himself unavailable to be responsive to the reasonable requests of the Intervemors for information and access to personnel. This is the same vein in which LRSD's sought to lull Intervenors counsel's into the belief that counsel was preceding to undertake settlement negotiations in good faith. It is now evident that the settlement negotiations were delayed, and not otherwise conducted in good faith in an effort to prevent Intervemors' counsel from having access to information. The Motion for Pre-Trial Order is untimely and designed - further to interfere with Intervenors' counsel's ability to prepare for hearing set for Thursday. LRSD's motion is a motion for reconsideration of the court's ruling wherein the court required the LRSD to make its personnel reasonable accessibility to Joshua so that neither side would be subject to surprise during the trial. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the court reinforce its order requiring the LRSD to cooperate with the Joshua Intervenors, in the manner established during the years of this litigation so that the court can have the benefit of actual facts and evidence to enable the court to make her judgments herein. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) Sii:::t~~fe CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing response has been faxed to Mr. Chris Heller at 376-2147 and Ms. Ann Brown at 371-0100 and copies sent to other counsel ofrecord via United States mail, postage prepaid on this 3\" day of~ 'ti!; y('~ FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT .A.RKANSAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL O 9 2001 JA_MESJW.~\\CORMACK CLERK By. \\v ,~\\l [\\ C\\I\\ ~C\u003e D PCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JUL 11 2001 OffiCEOf DESE6REGATJON MONITORING 0 RD ER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS On July 5th and 6th , 2001 , a hearing was conducted pursuant to Little - Rock School District's request for the Court to declare it t o be in unitary status and Joshua's objections thereto. The evidence not being completed, the hearing with respect to the issues of achievement and discipline will continue on August 1, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., and proceed until noon on August 2, 2001. The deadline for the mutual exchange of witness and exhibit lists shall be no later than July 2 4, 2001.  Thereafter, the remainder of the hearing on the issues of achievement and discipline will continue on November 19th and 20th , 2001, at 9:00 a.m., if necessary. The parties are to exchange lists o f any additional witnesses or exhibits no later than November 1, 2001. A hearing on additional issues in this matter is hereby scheduled to begin on Monday, January 28, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., if necessary. For P. 1 :14 5 4 i,  - 2 - this hearing, witness and exhibit lists are to be exchanged no later than January 4, 2002. IT IS SO ORDERED this '11t\\_ day of~' 2001. S~B8u.~~ Chief United States District Judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULl;.58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 2:ID-0 J sv___.Ttr\"---t---- RECEIVED ttrric~ ..... VITI f: !.Jr COURT FILED \u00266REGATIOM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. DISTRICT COURT '=ASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL JUL 1 0 2001 JAMESJ. M~RMACK, CLERK By: \\ , -....U /\\ (\\/\\ fl..A DEP ~LEf$.-. vs. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER Pending before the Court is a motion for a pretrial order filed by Little Rock School District which appears to be moot at this time pursuant to the order entered this date setting forth deadlines for the mutual exchange of witness and exhibit lists prior to the hearings that currently are scheduled in this matter. The Clerk is directed to make the necessary docket entry removing said motion from the pending motions' report in this matter. Dated this 10~ day of July, 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE: 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 7--f0 - 0/ BY lJt:: SUS WEBERWRIGirr' Chief United States District Judge \"\"\" . t J4 5 5 I, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COlJNrv S~PE CIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN RECEIVED JUL 16 2001 OFFICE OF DESmREGATION MONITOill PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS There has been significant demand by LRSD minority students for seats at Baker Elementary over the past several years. Exhibit 1 is a copy of the most recent enrollment projection for Baker. The conversion of Baker to a middle school frees up the two sixth grade classrooms. The PCSSD proposes to add an additional kindergarten class for the 2001-2002 school year to be followed by the addition of yet another kindergarten class for the following school year. This would give Baker, in year 2, three first grade classes and three kindergarten classes. These classes would then be \"rolled up\" year by year until the first entering kindergarten class matriculated in the fifth grade and the process would then start over. The PCSSD believes that the emphasis upon recruiting at kindergarten over two years is the most practical approach it can take. It believes that attracting children at this level before they are settled into other schools is both rational and the most reasonable strategy to deploy. 249234-v1 Baker needs to recruit only about 22 additional minority children over two years to attain an enrollment that is safely 20% minority 1 . The PCS SD believes that this strategy, as outlined above, will accomplish this objective.2 The PCSSD believes that the construction of the new activities complex, approved by this Court, will facilitate and ---~!lhance it~ current recT~i!i!1] _effort_s. A~ a source for new students, the District's recruitment strategy will be narrowly focused as described below. Recruiting Target A new apartment complex for low income housing was completed recently at 15000 Chenal Parkway approximately one-half mile from Baker Elementary. The name of the complex is \"Chenal Park\". It is on the border of the PCSSD and LRSD. Chenal Park contains 176 two and three bedroom apartments for low income families. Information supplied by the LRSD reveals that the LRSD currently educates 48 elementary-aged minority students from Chenal Park of whom 40 are currently assigned to Terry with the remainder scattered among other schools, principally the stipulation magnet schools. (Exhibit 2). In the last two years, school-aged children from Chenal Park have applied to attend Baker under the assumption that its proximity to their homes meant it was their neighborhood school. Until now, the PCSSD has not had room at Baker to accommodate all of these requests. Because of Baker's proximity to Chenal Park, its reputation, the enhancements to the campus that the Court has approved and because of the prior interest expressed by - 1 This, of course, is a minimum goal. However, the PCSSD believes this to be a reasonable initial goal for this on-going effort. 2 Ideally, the PCSSD could commit the funds to add a class at each grade level. However, the recent millage defeat and the allegation made by some that Baker is an \"identifiably white\" school has dissuaded the District from this proposition. 249234-v1 2 some residents of Chenal Park, the PCSSD believes that this recruitment effort over a period of two years should bring Baker into compliance with its racial balance goals. The PCSSD has scheduled a \"registration carnival\" to be held at Baker on August 1, 2001. The publicity for this event has been targeted to Chenal Park. August 1st is the first day of PCSSD's three-day registration period. Thus, this timing will permit - - - - - -- --. -- - ---- - -- --- the PCSSD to prefer potential M to M students from Chenal Park before the PCSSD must commit any remaining seats to applicants from within its attendance zone. 249234-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By __:__...:;....,1 _ ___;;;_.....:..;1=-------M. A Sc 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 13, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway -- Little Rock, Arkansas 7220f --. -  Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 249234-v1 M.S~onesll 4 07 / 12/!ll f.Iru 15: 46 FAX -~141002 Memo . ... _ To: From: Date: Re: STUDENT REGISTRATION OFFICE Chris Heller  x/ /\\ J Julie Wiedo~er, Director of Student Reg-istrati~O v eJ unes~~ ~ Requ.~~~ for Student Information Pursuant to our telephone conversation yesterday, I have determined that there have been at least 40 Little Rock School District students who have applied through the M to M Transfer application for a school assignment at Baker Elementary School in the Pulaski County Special School District over the past four years and who have not been enrolled. The County's inability to place our M to M students at Baker has been related to a lack of scat capacity after they have placed the Baker zone students. Our data for the 2001-02 school year shows a total of27 Little Rock School District M to M students assigned to Baker, including no kindergartners and only two 1st graders. Pulaski County Special School District has requested the number of elementary students currently on our database living at the apartment complex at l.5000 Chenal Parkway. There are 48 black students and 12 non-black students and 40 of these students are attending Terry Elementary school, the attendance zone school for that area. The remaining 20 are attending Williams, Carver, Booker, King and Washington magnet schools, as well as McDermott, Fulbright and Dodd attendance zone schools. All of these schools are racially balanced. CC: Junious Babbs, Associate Supcdntendent for Administrative Services EXHIBIT I 501 SHERMAN STREET - LITTLE ROCK AR. 72202 - P.HONE: 32~2272 - FAX: 324-2281 - - - .. . al --.J '- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT I-'. ! w Enrollment ProiecUons - 2001-2002 Revised 05-21-01 i '-' Iv C1ass PRE-K KIND. FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH SIXTH TOTA\\. ELEMENTARY a:19 .a..l. . Capacity DLK WHT TOT BLK WJIT TOT BLK WlIT ror BLK WBT TOT BLK WOT TOT BLK \\VDT T\u003cJf fiLK WIIT 1'0T BLK WJIT ror BLK \" WBT ,,. TOT  ~LEMENTARY SCHOOLS CS) .C.D I-' .DIJNS 370 16 4 20 16 4 20 29 19 48 23 18 41 21 11 44 19 20 39 25 22 47 0 0 0 155 60% 104 40% 259 I-' illNOLDDR. 420 0 0 0 ts Gl 77 15 62 77 11 6S 76 I4 41 62 17 44 61 J-4 47 \" 0 0 0 86 21~ 328 1''il, -414 IAXER 330 0 0 0 6 34 40 6 34 40 7 37 44 7 41 4\u0026 2 46 48 10 30 -4(1 0 0 0 38 15~ 222 \u0026s'il, uo U1 al I-' IATBS 750 31 n 54 31 23 54 43 43 16 47 '7 94 48 3:5 83 51 46 97 12 S8 J'.lO 0 0 0 323 S4'1\u003e 27S 46~ S'JS I ~ IAYOUMETO \" 0 0 0 4 61 n 4 6B n 2 83 15 3 11 80 2 90 n 2 75 77 0 0 0 17 4'1, 461 96'11 478 \u003c.D al I :ATO 576 0 0 0 15 49 64 JS 49 64 10 68 78 16 46 62 20 59 79 16 54 70 0 0 0 92 2291- 325 78'1, 411 I-' w :LINTON 8l3 31 33 71 38 33 71 37 41 78 42 49 91 59 52 111 41 48 89 S9 52 lit 0 0 0 314 50% U1 308 50% 622 Iv '.:OLLl!GESTA 34-0 0 0 0 6 3 9 4 6 10 9 3 12 II 2 13 27 19 46 20 lO 50 0 0 0 77 SS% 63 45% 140 CRYSI\"ALIUL uo 29 24 53 29 24 53 46 54 JOO 53 49 102 41 47 9S ,1 49 96 54 52 ,~ 53 59 111 359 50% 3S\u0026 50% 717 DUPIIJ!R 465 0 0 0 13 39 52 13 39 .52 15 31 46 ll 34 47 20 49 69 12 37 49 0 0 0 86 17% 229 7311, 315 IJ..UUUS 525 0 0 (I 12 10 22 12 10 22 16 12 78 16 12 28 21 7 34 29 21 50 0 0 0 112 61~- 72 :w;i. 184 l'VILU .ELE.\"1 715 0 0 0 62 4, 111 62 49 Ill 45 SI ,6 j5 38 93 54 45 99 51 40 91 0 0 0 329 5$\\l, 272 45',/, 001 l.ANDllfARK 568 11 18 3S 11 u lS 24 26 50 25 26 SI 22 28 ,o 30 37 61 35 34 69 0 0 0 170 48111, 187 52% 3S7 111 LAWSON 325 0 9 40 49 9 40 49 3 32 JS 8 24 32 7 34 41 ' 11 36 0 0 0 45 19~ 197 81',\\ 242 ) C H JAKGROVJU 476 17 55 72 17 55 n 9 .(0 .(9 12 41 SJ 11 33 44 JO 33 43 14 41 55 14 37 51 104 24~ 335 76\\l- .. 439 --1 \u003c DAirnROOKB 500 0 0 0 II 27 38 11 27 38 18 33 51 21 )6 51 14 41 55 14 27 41 0 0 0 \u00269 32% 191 6S% 280 lJ C ~JNRFORIISf 556 0 16 44 w 16 4' 60 JO 5-2 62 13 31 so 10 73 83 II 53 M 21 65 116 91 21% 361 19% 6:5 lJ H r ~INJ!.WOOO 5l3 0 0 0 12 54 76 12 54 16 n 38 61 22 4\u0026 70 22 411 10 30 39 69 0 0 0 141 3J'ilo 211 67% 422 lf) lWBIN. ELEM. 459 0 s 39 47 ' 41 .:so ~ 39 48 14 43 S1 15 41 51 15 47 62 0 0 0 10 21')1, 251 78'i1, 321 111 ;o \u003c SCOTI 180 0 4 19 23 4 l9 2) 8 21 29 7 10 17 8 10 18 7 JI 18 0 0 0 38 30,t 90 7(111, 118 H () 111 SRl!Jl \\\\'0OD 460 0 )9 37 SC, 19 37 56 19 33 52 16 37 53 20 43 (i3 19 33 52 0 0 0 112 34'll\u003e 220 6~1' 3]2. SYL. IDLl.S El 456 0 11 38 s~ 18 38 56 11 33 44 21 19 so 22 45 67 25 46 71 0 0 0 11:5 339, 2:2.9 67'l 344 TAYLOR uo 0 21 3S 56 21 35 56 19 36 55 JO JI 61 30 36 66 22 32 54 0 0 0 143 4191, 205 59'1- 348 l'OLLl!SON 570 0 0 0 13 46 59 13 '6 S9 15 51 66 11 48 6.5 20 47 61 14 40 54 0 0 0 92 l!i'll, 278 7S'l, 310 T01\"AJ.11L~t. U81 141 157 .l415 421 150 tl72 461 921 1312 452 943 1400 519 853 nn 535 1011 1546 51JI 941 1527 88 161 l49 32Al~ 35~ S1149 65% ,e53 lJ l\u003e EXHIBIT G) 111 I I al Iv '- CS) Iv -- - --- UFILEO EASTElN '6\\i~~',g. COURT ARKANSAS JUL 2 6 2001 ~AMES W. McCORMACK IN THE UNJTED STATES DISTRICT cctDR1  CLEF~K EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERK WESTERN DMSION LITTLE'ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEIVED DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. JUL 2 7 2001 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORIN\u0026 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Baker Recruitment Plan, state: 1. Counsel is preparing in the instant case for a hearing scheduled for next week, August 1, 2001. 2. This request is not made for purposes of delay. 3. Undersigned counsel has been unsuccessful in contacting counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District to determine whether he has objections to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enters an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Baker Recruitment Plan up to and including July 30, 2001. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501):-J)3758  By ~ fi'Wdl~ John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing motion has been sent to all counsel of record on this 26th day ofJuly, 2001 via United States m , postage prepaid. fY, W'ttt\u0026~ RECEIVED AUG 1 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 3 0 2001 OfRCEOF QESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK WESTERN DMSION By: ' DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN The Court entered an order on June 5, 2001 where it approved defendant's motion for  permission to add an activities complex in Baker Interdistrict school. The Court noted that the defendants had asserted \"that the addition of an activities complex would enhance recruitment of minority students to Baker ... \" The Order was not a final one for purposes of appeal. Accordingly, the Court noted the Joshua Intervenors' objections in Footnote 2 of the Order and called attention to Section J of the plan by which the defendants are now reportedly operating their school. The Court did not address the Joshua question of the possibility that private donations may not be used to establish \"separate but unequal schools\". The Court required the Defendant PCSSD to file a report \"setting forth how it intends to improve racial balance at Baker and how it is going about meeting its obligation of Section J of Plan 2000. The Court further [ directed] the PCS SD to set forth target dates for the completion of these obligations. The defendants have now submitted their recruitment plan. The Joshua Intevenors observe that the Court required a report which set forth how the district intends to meet its obligation under Section J and directed a target date for completion of the obligation. The Joshua Intervenors do not believe that the defendants have complied with the -1- Court's requirements. The defendants propose the following: a) There will be no recruitment. This is so because enough Little Rock students who reside within the Chenal Park area have applied for entry to Baker but have not been admitted before now because Baker did not have sufficient space to accommodate b) c) d) e)  their requests. If PCS SD recruitment does occur, it will be at the kindergarten level only, and be spread over a two year period. It will involve only 22 Little Rock minority children, a number which will cause the Baker enrollment to eventually be 20% minority. It will not involve and be limited to those pupils who apply during recruitment of black students from the Little Rock District as a whole. It will involve the \"registration carnival\" targeted to occur on August 1st . The Joshua objections at the least are as follows pending a hearing: a) The defendants' response is totally insufficient in that it to meet the explicit orders of the Court. b) The defendants seek to limit the geographic area of Little Rock from which minority students may be selected or, may themselves make a choice of their own for school attendance. Joshua objects to transfers from the Little Rock School District of minority students being limited to the Chenal area or, for that matter to low income minority children. c) The purported recruitment plan imposes no affirmative obligations upon the -2- d) defendants, or for that matter the Little Rock School District, to recruit minority students to Baker, by number, method of recruitment, or by date of recruitment. The defendants allege that they have not admitted more minority students to Baker, despite the applications of minority students for Baker from Little Rock, because the PCSSD \"has not had room at Baker to accommodate all of [their] requests\". This  proposition is factually incorrect on its face. See the ODM report on capacity. Baker does not now appear to be at or near capacity. Indeed, Baker has space to accommodate, without class additions 70 students. It could easily accommodate more than 40 black applicants in grades kindergarten through fifth with ease at one time. Accommodation of only 40 black applicants, assuming that the defendants' projections are otherwise correct, would mean that Baker would experience a racial balance of74% white and 26% black for the next school year. The District's proposal to limit placement of black students in kindergarten classes is totally unreasonable and negative to desegregation objectives. Furthermore, the school district proposes to add two kindergarten and effectively an additional first grade class. This undoubtedly would result in between 60 and 75 additional students for a total enrollment 335 students with a net result of Baker's enrollment being only 17% - up from 15% - rather than 20%. Joshua submits that the Baker plan is simply a plan to further enrollment options for majority race students at Baker. Joshua further submits to obtain preliminary Court approval for expanding the basic enrollment capacity of Baker and to enlarge the Baker attendance zone in order to accommodate the increased demand being made by white pupils. -3- e) There is no justification submitted by PCS SD for disallowing primary grade minority students' attendance at Baker as proposed by the defendants. f) The defendants did not set forth as required target dates for the completion of its obligations. Specifically, the defendants did not consult the Joshua Intervenors nor did they otherwise meet the Court's expectations before they submitted their report. g)  The defendants' plan requires a minimal goal of 20% for an interdistrict school. The Joshua Intervenors further believe that they are entitled to have an evidentiary hearing before school for which they pray. At that time the defendants should be required to sufficiently . demonstrate the actions which it has taken in response to the Order of the Court. Joshua notes that the response of the defendant is from defendant's counsel; it is without affidavit support and the factual representations may not be subject to examination because they have been lawyer generated. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the defendants' \"Baker Recruitment Plan\" be disapproved, because it is not in compliance with the Court's Orders of June 5, 2001 ; that the defendants be directed not to accept any new white students for registration for Baker pending further Orders of the Court; that the defendants be required to develop and implement an effective recruitment plan which affords Little Rock School District minority students immediate transfer options and to assure that such persons electing to transfer will be treated on equally favorable terms as PCSSD Baker attendance zone white children; and that the Court schedule a hearing, before the beginning of school, so that the defendants may report upon the actual progress and results that the district has achieved. The Joshua Intervenors further requests that the defendants be specifically required to involve the Joshua Intervenors in all planning and implementation activities of the school district to the extent that same is required by the revised desegregation plan -4- approved by the Court, pendente lite. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) 74- 187 (Fax) J CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this M day of July, 2001. Mr.M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 -5- Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 \\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for July, 2001. RECEIVED JUL 3 0 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINQ Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 20 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on July 27, 2001, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 :TohnW. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway LittleRock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Timothy G. Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard 425 West Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 s'tepheri w. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 - -------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1708","title":"Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplement to motion to approve middle school implementation; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for additional time to respond to compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education, Secondary","Educational innovations","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplement to motion to approve middle school implementation; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for additional time to respond to compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1708"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["8 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION The PCSSD, for its supplement to motion, states: RECI\\VEO jU~ 4 10m --==-- PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Attached as Exhibit \"A\" is a timeline received today from the Little Rock School District setting forth its middle school activities. 2. While the Little Rock District began a pilot program that concluded in 1997, it is clear that the actual work of committees and others to plan and implement a district-wide implementation did not begin in earnest until January of 1998. 3. Thus, if one compares the activities of the LRSD and the PCSSD respecting district-wide implementation and activities undertaken with respect thereto, it - is apparent that the timelines, actions and other strategies are very similar. 4. Indeed, in the area of professional development and training, the timelines and activities are virtually identical. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD renews its requests that its motion to implement middle schools be approved as soon as possible. 258646-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 1, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 258646-v1 2 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 258646-v1 .am el Jones Ill ~  3 JUN-Oi-ot FRI t0:05 AM FAX NO, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MIDDLE SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE DATI: 1990- 1997 December, 1995 January, 1998 January. 1998 January, 1998 March, 1998 March, 1998 October, 1998 Fall, 1998 ACTIVITY Middle school concepts piloted within  junior high configuration at Pulaski Heights, Forest Heights, Cloverdale and Southwest Junior Highs with support of the New Futures/C~sey grant LRSD Strategic Plan approved by Boa.rd of Education: Strategic Plan Includes district wide middle schools Revised Desegregation and Education Plan includes establishment of a sched1.1le for the orderly conversion of some or all of Its junior high schools to middle schools arades 6-8 Completion of district wide plan for an orderlv transition to middle schools Initial meeting of the LRSD Middle School Steering Committee. Committee received the cha,ge and tasks of serving as the coordinating committee throughout the planning and initial implementation process and to make recommendations to the Superintendent regarding the development and lmplementatlon of the middle school transition. LRSD Middle School Program Mission Statement adopted by LRSO Board of Education Stl;lering committee eleven subcommittees receive charge and task\u0026 and becin work LRSD Middle School Program Standards adopted by the Board of Education Steering committee/sub-committee recommendations finalized; regular communication briefing\u0026 conducted throuahout communltv l;XHIBIT I A P. 02/03 JUN-01~01 FRi t0:05 AM FAX NO. P. 03/03 Winter, 1999 Phase One of professional development program initiated; continued communlcat!on updates Implementation of initial phase of approved recommendation5; steering committee submits final recommendations to Superintendent; completed staff assignments for middle schools and high schools; elementary, Junior highs and high schools complete clans for student transitions Spring, 1999 Finalize logistical plans; Phase Two of professional development program; continued communication updates; implemented Intermediate phase of oroarem recommendations Summer, 1999 Phase Three of professional development program; implement logistical plan; complete final phase of oroQram recommendations Fall, 1899 OoeninQ of LRSD middle schools -- ----- - - - - - - - - ------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUN O ~ 2001 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * Intervenors. * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RECEIVED JUN 8 2001 OfflCEOF IISBi\u0026IIIIIIJI Before the Court are the motion and supplements to the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for Court approval of a conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools for the 2001-02 school year. Also before the Court are the PCSSD's motion and supplement to the motion for approval of middle school construction modification. The Court held a hearing on the motions for approval of conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools on May 4, 2001. On May 21, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors and the Knight Intervenors, on behalf of the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff (\"PASS\"), filed objections to the middle school conversion. On May 29, 2001, the PCSSD filed its response to those objections. Upon review of the motions, objections, and response, as well as the evidence presented during the May 4, 2001 hearing, the Court determines that it will not prevent the PCSSD from proceeding with the conversion to -middle schools for the coming school year and grants the motions. 34 40 I. When the PCSSD initially filed its motion for approval of conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools, the Court had concerns about the degree of planning that the PCSSD invested in the conversion and about whether its desegregation obligations were being addressed. The submissions in support of the motions did not reflect a coherent plan of action and there was no indication that the PCSSD used desegregation and equity as a filter through which to plan and implement various aspects of the middle school concept, such as racial balance, student assignment, staffing, capacity, and student recruitment issues. Further, the PCSSD's filing did not reflect evidence that the Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services and the Director of Desegregation were significantly involved in the middle school planning or implementation process. In addition, there was no budget document that broke down all the costs of the middle school conversion, and there were no projections of enrollment and racial balance at Bates Elementary School nor recruitment plans for Bates in conjunction with the middle school conversion. The issues regarding Bates were specifically raised by the Court during the August 9, 2000 hearing on an administrative reorganization and a modification of the PCSSD's student assignment plan. At the hearing held on May 4, 2001, several parents testified as to their involvement in the conversion to middle schools. From their testimony, the Court concludes that parental involvement was minimal. Ms. Gloria Rousseau, Director of Secondary Education and Chairman of the Middle School Task Force, who took over in the middle of the conversion process after Dr. James Fox, an assistant superintendent, became ill and subsequently resigned, testified regarding her efforts to involve parents and teachers in the process. She testified that the PCSSD had no 2 written comprehensive district-wide plan for conversion to middle schools nor did the District have an overall plan addressing the effects conversion would have on desegregation. The Joshua lntervenors object to the conversion on the basis that the PCSSD has yet to comply with its desegregation commitments, has not considered the racial impact of the middle school conversion, has no written plans for conversion of the schools or a time table, has not involved the PCSSD's Office of Desegregation regarding desegregation impact, and has not collaborated with the other parties in the case regarding implementation or planning. The PACT and PASS contend that the PCSSD has failed to involve stakeholder groups in the planning process. They object to the conversion as well, asserting the lack of a district-wide comprehensive written plan, the lack of a staff development training program, the lack of space, and the lack of timely deployment of staff. All these shortcomings have resulted in confusion, - frustration, anxiety, and low teacher morale. In response to these objections, the PCSSD disputes the Joshua Intervenors' assertion that the District has not complied with its desegregation commitments and has not considered the racial impact of middle schools. The PCSSD reiterates that no student assignment zones will change, and that it will continue to apply the same rules regarding assignment and allocation of staff. Further, the PCSSD submits a Plan for Transition to Middle Schools as an exhibit to its response as well as consolidated timetables for all activities which have occurred and the few that are yet to occur. The PCSSD points out the testimony of Mr. Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services, who stated he is comfortable with the process and the activities which have occurred, and Ms. Rousseau's testimony concerning the middle schools and districts which the PCSSD examined and visited as part of this process. 3 In response to the PACT and PASS objections, the PCSSD asserts their objections are \"untimely, speculative, and premised largely upon double and triple hearsay, and . mischaracterization of witnesses' testimony.\" 1 In addition, the PCSSD submits exhibits which it contends show that, contrary to the assertions made by PACT, the staff allocation process is 94 % complete for the middle schools,2 and that the agreement between the District and the Union regarding the conversion does not require that middle school personnel placement be completed by the end of May. 3 Further, the PCSSD submits an exhibit which it contends shows that the reservation of openings for minority staff is in keeping with Plan 2000 in which the District committed to increasing the number of African-American secondary core teachers. 4 Neither the Court nor any of the parties or intervenors conceptually oppose the conversion of the school grade alignment from essentially a six-grade primary, three-grade junior high and three-grade senior high to a five-grade primary, three-grade middle, and four-grade high school configuration. The Court continues to have its own concerns and shares the concerns of the objectors about the lack of planning and stakeholder involvement on the part of the PCSSD in the conversion to middle schools. However, the Court believes and hopes that the implementation of the middle school concept will benefit student achievement and reduce disparity. In addition, the Court believes it is important for the PCSSD to align its grade configuration with those of the Little Rock and North Little Rock school districts as soon as possible to avoid negative impacts 1See Docket entry 3435 (PCSSD's Combined Reply to Joshua Intervenors and PACT) at 3. 2See Docket entry 3435, Ex. D. 3See Docket entry 3435, Ex. E. 4See Docket entry 3435, Ex. E. 4 on M-to-M recruiting and magnet school attendance. The Court determines that putting a hold on the conversion to middle schools, however flawed the planning has been, would be more damaging than allowing the PCSSD to proceed to middle school conversion on the present schedule. The Court, therefore, will not prevent the conversion to middle schools and will grant the motions. The Court will direct the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor closely the conversion process and the impact of the realignment on the desegregation plan. II. Also before the Court are motions to approve middle school construction modification.  The Court notes that the construction projects at Mills and Robinson High Schools were underway  prior to the filing of the April 13, 2001 motion and April 18, 2001 supplement to the motion. Additionally, to seek the court's permission for construction after the fact is neither a demonstration of good planning and management nor a manifestation -of good faith on the part of the PCSSD. The Court is concerned about the changes in building capacities and in the use of space created at the elementary schools when the sixth grade is moved to middle schools. Again, the Court does not wish to obstruct the implementation of the conversion to middle schools in the PCSSD and, therefore, grants the motions. The Court will direct the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor closely the impact of the construction upon the desegregation plan as well as the use of space created by the middle school conversion. 5 m. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motions to approve middle schools and revamped high schools5 are granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to approve middle school construction modification6 are granted. i1f1\\.... DATED this _\"T_ day of June 2001. 5Docket entries 3402 \u0026 3422. 6Docket entries 3418 \u0026 3419. -~~~~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH R~,LE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 6 r Lf--0} BY_vf:..-,1.... __ 6 -  FILED EAsTMRsN. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN 0 5 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~~:ME1'f, ~iri~~ ~K DEPCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL. , * Defendants, * RECEIVED * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * JUN 13 100\\ Intervenors, * * omCEOf KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * DESE61Sll0li MONll0RlNG Intervenors. * ORDER On April 4, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the LRSD 's Notice of Filing and Request for Scheduling Order. On the same day, the Court filed an Order setting forth deadlines and hearing dates to address any challenges to the LRSD Compliance Report. 1 Therefore, the Court finds that the motion [ docket entry 3415] is moot. The Clerk is directed to remove said motion from the pending motions report. DATED this~ day of June 2001. \u0026iLll~.)1~~ F JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 The Court referenced in that Order a letter from the Joshua Intervenors' counsel in which he stated he needed additional time to review the report. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE -~l~_')._U~~ ~8 AND/D_~9(a) FRCP FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN O 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. , Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW RECEIVED JUN 1 3 2001 OFFlCE Of DESEGREGATION MDNITOiUNS Before the Court is the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for Court approval of the addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School. The Joshua Intervenors have responded in opposition to the motion. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion. The PCSSD notes that parents and an area business have approached the principal of Baker Interdistrict School about privately funding the building of an activities complex that would include a gymnasium, music room, and art room. 1 The PCSSD asserts that the addition of an activities complex would enhance recruitment of minority students to Baker and help it compete more effectively with the private schools in the area. The Joshua Intervenors object to the motion, 1See Ex. A, PCSSD Mot. to Approve Add. of Activities Complex, docket entry 3430. arguing that the proposal has not been developed and fully considered, and may serve to further establish Baker as a racially identifiable school. Among the specific concerns expressed by the Joshua lntervenors are the PCSSD 's recruitment ( or lack thereof) of minority students from the Little Rock School District and the lack of a recruitment plan in the motion; the absence of a plan setting forth any additional resources, including staff that may be required in expanding programs; the lack of a statement of costs; no indication of whether existing programs will be duplicated; and no indication of the effect of the addition on other schools. Lastly, the Joshua Intervenors -- question whether private donations may be used to establish \"'separate but unequal' schools. \"2 The Court believes community and parental involvement in public schools, including voluntary contributions, should be encouraged. Perhaps the Baker experience will serve as an example to encourage similar parental and community involvement at other schools in the three - Pulaski County school districts. In granting the motion and approving the addition at Balcer, however, the Court directs the PCSSD to file a report by July 9, 2001, setting forth how it intends to improve racial balance at Baker and how it is going about meeting its obligations under Section J of Plan 2000. The Court further directs the PCSSD to set forth target dates for completion of these obligations.3 2See Joshua's Resp. to PCSSD's Mot. to Approve Baker Addition (docket entry 3436) at 3. 3Section J of the Plan, School Resources, provides: \"PCSSD shall design and carry out, in consultation with the Joshua Intervenors, a study to detennine whether school resources are allocated equitable (sic) among the schools of the district. The resources assessed may include such factors as pupil/teacher ratio; pupil/staff ratio; square feet per pupil; percentage of staff with a masters degree and nine or more years of experience; the turnover rate of certified staff; school size; computer/pupil ratio; per pupil expenditure; volunteer hours per pupil; and donations per pupil. The study shall contain recommendations, where appropriate, to address any problems identified.\" See docket entry 3337, Attach. C (PCSSD Plan 2000). 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to approve the addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School4 is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the PCSSD file its report on or before July 9, 2001. ..JI\\.. DATED this l,) day of June 2001. ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO{IB.T THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH Rl,ILE 58 ANO/OR~) FRCP ON (c, - l.;,- Q) BY---'\\.._[L __ The Court notes that the same ten factors were addressed in the \"Report of LRSD's Assessment of the Equitable Allocation of Resources,\" docket entry 3214. 4Docket entry 3430. 3 .,I FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN f 5 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTJA.MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By. ______ =-=-- WESTERN DIVISION DEP CLEl\u003cK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLIANCE REPORT PLAJNTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSDs Compliance Report, state: 1. Counsel is in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District regarding the compliance report and other matters. 2. This request is not made for purposes of delay. 3. Counsel for Little Rock School District has been consulted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School District' s Compliance Report up to and including June 25, 2001. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-3~74]/5]8 ~ I . By _{__Jj; _Qv'-\u003c:...,-v-'----\" J W. alker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been sent to all counsel ofrecord on this 15th day ofJune, 2001. RECEIVl:IJ JUN 2 5 2001 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUN 2 O 2001 ~(I~ WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, * * * * *  JA~E1. ~RMACK. ~ By. \\ ' \\ l /\\ /\\f\\ DEPCLERK vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * Intervenors, * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., lntervenors. * * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which - to respond to the Little Rock School District's Compliance Report. For good cause shown, and without objection from the Little Rock School District, the Court grants the motion. The Joshua Intervenors have until and including June 25, 2001, within which to file their response. No further exte~ions will be granted. SO ORDERED this ~ay of June 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wll1' RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON e_~c)..(,Ol sv_rr=-: __ ~A, ~ F JUDGE --=-- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRicf coUR1J.foU~1E,D EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAf SA's'STERN DISTRg A~~:~SAs WESTERN DMSION f' . JUN 2 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, NIRS . LORENE JOSHUA, et al:, Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * .~:~ES W. McCORMACK, CLERK * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * * * * * * * * * * RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2001 OfRCEOf OESE6RE6AnON lllNJTORJNG JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S OPPOSITION TO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE REPORT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to defer final decision upon the petition of the Little Rock School District for a declaration that it is now unitary as that term has been defined by relevant case law. Toe Joshua Intervenors believe that there are numerous significant questions which are not addressed in a clear, accurate and substantive manner which need to be further explored in an evidentiary proceeding before the Court. Upon that event the Court would be in a better position to make the necessary analysis to determine whether the objectives and commitments of the revised desegregation plan have been fully met. Toe Joshua Intervenors believe further that = the Court must have before it a written response to the district's plan or other written analysis -1- regarding that plan from the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be incomplete and not in keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. The sc:hool district's compliance report of March 15, 2001, which incorporates by reference its interim compliance report dated March 15, 2000, is before the Court reportedly to inform concerned interests of \"the status of the district's efforts to meet its obligations under the revised plan . . . \" The district makes reference to the fact that it offered the opportunity for interested parties to provide comments or suggestions to the interim court and that it received none. Because it received no comments or suggestions regarding that report, the district has determined that the form of the report is appropriate for the present report. That position is inaccurate. Joshua made many comments throughout the year to District officials regarding areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation. Joshua notes, however, that before either of the reports was submitted to the Court, the district did not consult and meet with Joshua regarding the contents in order to reach the agreements of the report contemplated by the desegregation plan. The present report has many of the same failings of earlier reports to the Court. In fact, it has been the exception rather than the rule for the district to affirmatively involve Joshua in preliminary stages of any report or other activity undertaken by the school district. Joshua submits that the Little Rock School District is far from being \"unitary\" at this time, and that the District has much work to accomplish before court release is appropriate. Joshua further submits that the burden of proof that the District is unitary, i.e., has fulfilled all of its obligations, -2- is upon the District rather than upon Joshua. The following comments by Joshua to the March 15, 2001 report raise appropriate for further inquiry by the court. JOSHUA'S SERIATIM RESPONSES TO THE DISTRICT'S REPORT DATED MARCH 15, 2001 Section 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. The district firsts projects the covenants dated January 11, 2000 to illustrate its good faith beyond March 15, 2001 in.the event that the Court declares the district to be unitary. It points to meetings of administrators who were informed of the covenant; the involvement of Dr. Terrence Roberts, a consultant to the district1 ; and the receipt of the district of a \"quality interest award\" from the Arkansas Quality Award Nonprofit Agency to demonstrate that the initiatives now in place will continue. Joshua notes that the emphasis of the report is upon the objective to improve the academic achievement of all students through the use of its resources in a manner which complies with the non discrimination requirements of law. The commitment is vague! It allows equal, we say greater, attention to the higher achieving white students than to the lower achieving Black students. It does not address the problems which have persisted since the settlement agreement was reached in 1989, especially the concern of remediating preexisting achievement disparities between white and Black 1 Dr. Roberts is one of the first African American students to enroll in Little Rock Central High, i.e., \"the Little Rock Nine\"; he is a clinical psychologist who is on the staff of the University of Antioch University. .., -.)- students. The district received at least $20 million dollars in the form of a forgivable loan by which to address the remediation disparities. Those achievement disparities linger. 2 In this respect, the State of Arkansas has given the district little assistance in meeting this objective and, on information and belief, despite noncompliance, has agreed to forgive the Little Rock School District loan obligation (See Exhibit 1 hereto). Joshua further notes that an objection to the incentive schools by district officials was that those schools were too program heavy and therefore did not lend themselves to effective implementation and evaluation of those programs. We believe that the district now has even more programs which were present in its schools and that the district's past criticism of the incentive schools programs may be applied to the programs which it has put in place since it reduced the number of incentive school programs. Effectiveness of the programs is still lacking. Effect is usually determined after program evaluation. The district's evaluation system borders upon being nil. The district makes reference under good faith to the success of the Campus Leadership Team, later referred to herein as CLT. The person assigned the responsibility for the CL T was Ms. Gayle Bradford. She (like School Superintendent Les Carnine and Associate Superintendent Brady Gadberry) is leaving the school district as of July 1. Her assignment to the position was makeshift in the first place in that it was a job created for her while the district determined what good use could be made of her services after she was removed as principal at Hall High School due to problems associated with desegregation complaince. The Campus Leadership Program was ill conceived, and 2The plan which set the objective that African American achievement as measured by appropriate standardized tests, on a comparative basis, would come within ten percentage points of white student academic achievement. -4- has been poorly implemented. It may be said that the CLT is only a hope for better school management for the future. But it too lacks an assessment or evaluation component. The Campus Leaderships Team are generally under the overall leadership of Associate Superintendent Ms. Sadie Mitchell, to whom Ms. Gayle Bradford reported. Ms. Mitchell, to her credit, has sought to create a working environment conducive to better cooperation between administrators and teachers. But those efforts .on her part are have just begun and with the departure of Ms. Bradford, must begin anew with new staff. The program is not so fundamentru.ly sound as to be self executing. Good faith is to be determined, we submit, within the context of the objectives set by the parties and by the law, especially the law of the case; the actions promised to be taken in order to achieve the objectives; and the manner in which those actions are actually undertaken. Good faith contemplates results as well as processes for achieving the contemplated results. The Little Rock School District outrageously argues that it is simply obliged to make promises to meet its objectives and to set up a procedure for fulfilling those promises but, having done that, it is not required to meet  the objectives set. That position reflects the basic difference between Joshua and Little Rock. Joshua believes that the commitments agreed upon required that the processes or plans for achieving the agreed upon objectives actually be fulfilled and that only conditions of impossibility could preclude compliance. Joshua further believes that the agreement contemplated that there would be prompt undertaking of the commitments; and that that undertaking would be vigorous and sustained. Joshua also believes that implicit in the agreement is that the commitments would be subject to professionally competent evaluation of policies, programs, and procedures put in place as implementing tools for the plan objectives. As will be shown below, the District's efforts have been neither timely nor prompt, vigorous or sustained; nor complimented by competent professional -5- evaluation. We are thus met with a pleading of excuse with promises (the Covenant) of actions that will follow upon Court release. The question before the Court is whether the district can be expected to achieve goals and objectives without Court oversight (the Covenant) that have not been achieved with Court oversight. Moreover, how can Black students enforce this Covenant? \"The LT program was at the heart of the District's efforts to met its obligations under the reviewed plan\". P. 1, Compliance Report. \"A quality school district meets the needs of all students.\" In adopting the CLT program, the District committed itselftoproviding each school the leadership and autonomy necessary to meet the needs of each school's unique population. With that autotomy comes a responsibility to ensure the success of each student.\" Page 3, Compliance Report. Joshua differs with that obj~.ctive. Remediation of disparity conflicts with that concept. When racial grouping is taken into account. Joshua has not been provided with any report which reports an evaluation of the CLT program or of the results that have been achieved by that program. The program appears to accept the proposition that individual schools, through the CLT, will meet their responsibility to each of its students. Because of this \"autonomy\", some magic conversion or remediation of disparities will occur it seems to be argued. Joshua submits that the CLT's actually provide more opportunity for discrimination and for mischief and maintenance of the status quo_ than a system wide appr "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1707","title":"Court filings concerning LRSD's compliance report, addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School, and motion release of LRSD from federal court supervision","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":["2001-05"],"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--21st Century","Knight Intervenors","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS)","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education, Secondary","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School buildings","School employees","Student activities","School integration","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning LRSD's compliance report, addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School, and motion release of LRSD from federal court supervision"],"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/1707"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["57 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Knight intervenors' motion for extension of time; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time; District Court, order; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report; District Court, motion to approve addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School; District Court, motion objecting to release of Little Rock School District (LRSD) from federal court supervision; District Court, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS) intervenors' objections to proposed Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) conversion to middle schools; District Court, response of the Joshua intervenors to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle schools; District Court, order; District Court, the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) combined reply to Joshua and Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and further submissions to this court; District Court, Joshua's response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to approve addition of an activities facility at Baker Interdistrict School; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FILED EAsrM;...sN01STR1cr COURT K 01STRICT ARf\u003cANSAS MAY JC ;,nrn IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAY 11 2001 Offliit 1:. EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 8JAy M ES W. McCORMACK, CLERK DESmRE6ATION MONITORING WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME For their Motion, Knight, et al. Intervenors, state: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. At the close of the hearing on Friday, May 4, 2001, the undersigned counsel for PACT and PASS requested a ten (10) day period to file objections to the 4I PCSSD plan to implement middle schools within the district. The court granted the request and gave PACT and PASS ten (10) days to file such objections. PACT/PASS intend to file objections to the PCSSD proposal. 2. Because of scheduling conflicts, the Mother's Day week-end and the absence of Sandra Roy, Executive Director of PACT, counsel has been unable to meet with PACT and gather information with which to file said objections. 3. Granting a seven (7) day extension of time to file said objections until close of business on Monday, May 21, 2001 will cause no prejudice to PCSSD or the other parties. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors, et al., and JJ10re specifically PACT and PASS pray that the court grant an additional seven (7) days or until close of business on ,,,, 'ft DEP CLEHK Monday, May 21, 2001 to file their objections to PCSSD's plan to implement middle schools within the district and grant them all other relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 (501) 224-1110 Richard W. Roachell (78132) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE  I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify that a true and correct c~y. of the foregoing document was sent by U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, on this. l \\ T ~Y of May, 2001, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated. M. Samuel Jones III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings, LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ~.~ Richard W. Roachell RECEIVEO MAY 1 6 2001 MAY 1 4 2001 VlfiCl:OF DESEGREGATION MONfflJRJNQ JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: OEP CLER~ rn THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERmEKNIGffi, ET AL. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PLAmTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Come the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to PCSSD l\\Jotion for Approval of Middle Schools up to and including May 21, 2001. For their motion, Joshua states: 1. Additional time is needed in order to provide a response due to undersigned counsel's schedule. 2. Counsel for the Knight Interv~nors has filed a similar request. 3. Counsel for the PCS SD has been contacted and he has indicated that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an Order extending the time up to and including May 21, 2001 in which they may file their response to PCSSD's Motion for Approval of Middle Schools. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 50137~ By~r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been sent to all counsel of record via United States mail postage prepaid on this 14th day of May, 2001. ~-~ \\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY 15 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff (s) vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW RECEIVED Defendant(s) MAY 21 2001 OfflCEOf DESEGREGATION MONITORING Intervenors Intervenors Pending before the Court are motions filed by the Knight Intervenors and the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which to file responses to PCSSD's motion to approve middle schools. The Court finds that the motions should be, and they are hereby, granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Knight Intervenors and the Joshua Intervenors are allowed an extension up to and including May 21, 2001, to file responses to PSCCD's motion for approval of middle schools . 11' Dated this ___ii_ day of May, 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED .ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WI ~ULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP ON - '{;..~(J/ BY er:-: 9?~~M SUAN WEBBER WRIGH~ Chief United States District Judge -FIECEl\\fEO - MAY 18 2001 MAY 1 6 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONrroRING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C=S W. McCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERI( WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSD'S COMPLIANCE REPORT Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension ohime to Respond to LRSD's Compliance Report, state: 1. Because of undersigned counsel busy trial schedule, additional time is needed for undersigned counsel to review the voluminous report of the Little Rock School District. 2. Undersigned counsel has at least a dozen trials scheduled within the next thirty days for which he has been and is being required to prepare and to meet imminent time requirements and deadlines which included the following cases: Name of Case Date of Trial Bennett v. First National Bank May 21 , 2001 State of Arkansas v. Tyrone Gamble May 22, 2001 U.S.A. v. Joe Bryant III May 29, 2001 Beverly Burkett v. USDA June 4, 2001 Schroeder, et al, v. Ibbottson, et al. June 4, 2001 Jamie Tims v. DHS June 4, 2001 Court/Judge Prince George Co., Maryland Craighead Co. Circuit Court Judge George Howard Jr. Judge Susan Webber Wright Judoo G. Thomas Eisele 'r!., Judge George Howard Jr. Carolyn Adkins v. McGhee SD D. Williams, et al. v Parkcrest Apts. J.C. Springer v. Rita Rowland State of AR v. Tremaille Ross State of AR v. Ravin Taylor Tenisha Stewart v. Dr. James Trice June 4, 2001 June 6, 2001 June 8, 2001 June 11, 2001 June 11, 2001 June 13, 2001 Judge William \"Bill\" Wilson Judge Jim Moody Ouachita County Chancery Court Jackson County Circuit Court Jackson County Circuit Court Jefferson County Circuit Court 3. In addition, undersigned counsel has been in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas regarding the District's compliance report and related matters. 4. This request is not being made for purposes of delay. 5. Counsel for the Little Rock School District has been contacted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enters an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School District's Compliance Report up to and - including June 18, 2001 . Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374- 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been sent via United States mail postage prepaid to all counsel of record on thi th day of May, 01. EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1077) ROBERT S. LINDSEY WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR.' ,, .... ,  ,1 ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR. JOHN G . LILE GORDON S. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR . PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER , JR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER O. ROWE JOHN 0 . DAVIS Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: ATTORNEYS AT LAW TROY A. PRICE . ... ,..,...... -.a,. \" wlICIA SIEVERS HARRIS 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE Bl\"' e C MN !'.0 P 0 R 0 /o~R. SUITE 2200 . . .  A SOH\"oV~~ HANCOCK LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3 9 KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS (501) 371-0808 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON FAX (501) 376-9442  ~ICHAEL 0 . BARNES MAY 2 i 200 TEPHEN R. LANCASTER , ~ UOY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM www.wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN l\\C:j ; u\"i: C. TAO BOHANNON Ur.-lwJ;; I MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD ~TIN! M0NITQMl(tia~~'b~i;HERTY' ~ _......Ni.I M. SEAN HATCH ., PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE Writer's Direct Dia I No. 501-212-1273 JANE W. DUKE mJonesCwlJ .com ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J . DAUGHERTY. Pn.o .  May 18, 2001 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 l..icflnHd to practice before the Un#ed Stat Patent and Trademark Off,ce Enclosed is a copy of PCSSD's motion to approve addition of an activities complex at Baker lnterdistrict School, which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 255717-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP \u0026-~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION TO APPROVE ADDITION OF AN ACTIVITIES COMPLEX AT BAKER INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL The PCSSD for its motion, states: RECEIVED MAY 21 200f GROF BM WN1aomNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Attached as Exhibit \"A\" to this motion is a letter from the principal of Baker lnterdistrict Elementary School to the PCSSD Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services outlining what she feels to be an opportunity to enhance recruitment of minority students to Baker Elementary. 2. Briefly stated, the principal and administration believe that the construction of the complex described in Exhibit \"A\" would present a unique opportunity not present at the District's other elementary schools. 3. While the construction of the activities complex would relieve congestion in the building regarding music, art and other activities, it would not literally expand capacity. The District would commit not to utilize any of the new construction for regular classroom space without permission of this Court. 255238-v1 4. However, the Court's approval of the District's current motion to convert to middle schools would generate space sufficient to accommodate newly recruited M to M students and intradistrict transfers to Baker, for the 2001-2002 school year. 5. Further, in a matter not mentioned in Exhibit \"A\", it is important for the Court to note that Baker and other PCSSD schools in the western part of Pulaski County compete directly with established private schools in the area. One is Walnut Valley Christian Academy located at 19010 Highway 10. Walnut Valley has a gymnasium/activity complex. Chenal Valley Montessori School is located at 15717 Taylor Loop Road, which offers preschool through middle school. Baker itself also competes directly with Hebron Christian Academy located at 18715 Kanis Road, about 1  miles from Baker. 6. Further, it is known. and has been known for some time, that Pulaski Academy plans to relocate to a site proximate to the Wildwood Performing Arts Center on Denny Road located approximately two miles from Baker Elementary. 7. The District believes that the construction of a complex as described in Exhibit \"A\" would enhance its ability to recruit additional minority students to Baker and at the same time help position it to compete more effectively with the schools described above. Three pages depicting the location design and dimensions of the proposed complex are attached as Exhibit \"B\". 8. The District will need to supplement this motion as soon as possible to outline a specific strategy and plan for the recruitment of additional minority students to Baker as well as provide the specifics of how additional students would be - accommodated as regards space. The District anticipates that this plan can be 255238-v1 2 - developed in coordination with Joshua and submitted to the Court as soon as reasonably possible. WHEREFORE, the District prays that the construction plans set forth herein be approved and for all proper relief. 255238-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 0) ty Special 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On May 18, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 255238-v1 4 Baker lnterdistrict Elementary School May 18, 2001 Karl Brown Assistant Superintendent Equity and Pupil Services 15001 Kanis Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 (501) 228-3250 Pulaski County Special School District 925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dear Mr. Brown: Baker Elementary is located in west Little Rock off of Chenal Parkway. In the original Desegregation Plan, because of its low minority population, Baker Elementary was identified as an lnterdistrict school with an extended day program to attract minority students. Since 1988, Baker has struggled to meet the targeted percentage of minority students. Again this year Baker's minority population is below the target range, at sixteen percent. As the new administrator of Baker lnterdistrict Elementary, I have a strong commitment to Pulaski County Special School District's Desegregation Plan. I have realized during this past year that the recruitment efforts to attract minority students to Baker have not positively impacted our racial composition. Recognizing Baker's need to increase the minority enrollment, I have established a recruitment committee that has formulated and implemented a recruitment plan. At the beginning of the year, we met with Horace Smith from the Office of Desegregation and Monitoring to seek his guidance in our plan. The District's Director of Equity has also been involved in Baker's recruitment planning. As the year has progressed, we have made good faith efforts toward our goal of increasing minority enrollment. These include, but are not limited to, 1) participating in city wide events (World Fest and Boo at the Zoo); 2) surveying our M to M parents as to why they chose to attend Baker and what keeps them at Baker; and 3) visiting our partner Little Rock school, Romine Elementary, where our students presented Baker's economic specialty program and the extended day program (selling points identified from the survey) to this group. Information was then sent home with Romine students. To date, however, these efforts unfortunately have not yielded the results we had anticipated. While seeking to find an added incentive that will attract minority families to Baker, a unique opportunity has presented itself. Parents and an area business have approached me about privately funding the building of an activities complex that would include a gymnasium, music room , and an art room. While exploring this opportunity, I began to envision what this building might mean to my goal for increasing Baker's minority student population.  Baker has a strong and highly successful studio art program offered by volunteers and supported by the district with materials and training. The availability of a room designed for art would be optimal for the in-school program and extension of the after school extended day program.  Volunteers offer Baker students additional curriculum in the area of vocal music that is now held in an open space room with heavy traffic or the regular classroom. A music room would allow for school-wide music instruction as well as enrichment for the extended day program.  Just this year, volunteers have offered a high-interest curriculum teaching physical education. However, this instruction competes for available open spaces. The EXHIBIT Pulaski County Special School District I A gymnasium would optimize instruction and create opportunity for intramural sports and before and after school program use. The opportunity to acquire a facility free to the District (on the heels of voters having declined a millage that would be directed at facilities improvement) may be the blessing Baker has hoped for-a recruitment tool we have not tried. With an activities complex, our art, music, and physical education programs could be expanded during the school day and beyond to enrich our lnterdistrict Specialty after school extended day program. As parents and the lead business continue to plan, the recruitment possibilities seem to be limited only by our imagination (i.e. intramural sports, music and art lessons). Pending court approval, the District has made a \"good faith\" offer of support, approving this request and allocating a part-time certified physical education teacher that validates the program as a recruitment tool. The District has identified Crystal Hill Magnet Elementary School to share the certified physical education teacher in an effort to offer an additional program for their recruitment of minorities. With this facility, the support of a certified teacher, and strong parental and community involvement, this may just be what we need for additional incentive for increased recruitment for Baker. An important note, our district currently has schools that seek to attract white students through physical education (Bates Elementary) and music/art (Landmark Elementary) for desegregation purposes. However, there is no school that seeks to attract minority students through physical education and music/art programs. Therefore, it is our hope that it would please the court to grant our request to allow for the construction of the proposed activities complex to assist with Baker's recruitment plan. Thank you for your attention and representation of our request. M'tk -TJ!t:._, Beverly M. Ruthven Principal Baker lnterdistrict Elementary Pulaski County Special School District A NEW GYMNASIUM FOR BAKER ELEMENTARY LI TTL E ROCK , ARKAN SAS FRONT ELEVATION a ~ BAINUI C0Hsu.T,HT F I'I $ P_ROPOSED SITE PLAN A NEW GYMNASIUM FOR BAKER ELEMENTARY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLAN t BAINUM CONsll.TAHt( MtPJ -f ,  .vr. I J ~?Y. .- ,};.?~~~''.( :.:;,,~,:~,?,)~'\\'~ .:-?r~itF~)f.f!~, ;~:~;;;~~j;lr~~~{ :ti~r.;f !I~t: ~~!1~.:;'fi;:l.cf*:'t .   \" ;:tf:l:-.. l! \\. ;:;y{h::ttf :-T: .. :ii{'~t ~ ~, ~-. -,:c :,.:~:t\"\\i J,i!: !,,,~., ?:fi : rJ~~~tf l!\\:~-\\1~;itfi} . .:, ,. !~ i ~.,J-:,:\\ ~_l'::;!';\\: ~  '-~:-~{~.t!:~~rr:-~~\\ -:-.~D: --- ......____..... ...... ,P. .R.O. POSED SITE PLAN- MAY 2 9 2001 FILED EAST~ifN ~i; RR/ICCTTCOURT AR/\u003cANSAS MAY 1 8 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JBy:~ A~~CL ERK vs CASE NO. 4:82-CV-866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFENDANT MOTION OBJECTING TO RELEASE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION Comes Franklin A. Davis, former employee of Little Rock School District, representing himself PRO SE, and for his action states: 1. Venue is proper under Ark. Code Ann. 16-60-115 as at least one, if not all, Defendants (LRSD) live in Pulaski County and the cause of action arose in Pulaski County. 2. 3. 4. Jurisdiction is proper as Frankliil A. Davis is a resident of Arkansas and all Defendants are residents of the State of Arkansas. Davis became a principal in the Little Rock School District in 1989. In late December of 1994, Defendant Sadie Mitchell, made repeated sexual advances and remarks towards Davis while she was his supervisor. 5. Davis rejected these advances. 6. In December of 1997, the Little Rock School District, Dr. Leslie Carnine, Brady Gadberry, and Sadie Mitchell began an orchestration to tortuously interfere with Davis' employment contract with the Little Rock School District. 7. This tortuous interference directly led to Davis' termination as a principal in the Little Rock School District. DEP CLERK e..r.:. 8. The Little Rock School District denied Davis his due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution by terminating his employment without providing Davis adequate notice, adequate opportunity to respond, and a timely hearing. 9. The Little Rock School District materially misrepresented Davis' job performance as a principal in the Little Rock School District. 10. The Little Rock School District violated the procedural due process requirements of the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. 11. The Little Rock School District wrongfully committed slander and defamation of Davis' character and reputation by publicizing unproven facts and allegations claiming Davis had committed sexual harassment to various individuals in the community, in his profession, and state agencies. 12. The Little Rock School District intentionally discriminated against Davis by treating Davis detrimentally and causing his termination based on his race and gender. 13. Davis has suffered emotional, financial and physical damages as a result of these actions caused by the Little Rock School District. 14. Davis has suffered irreparable damage to his reputation and monetary loss of income damage as a result of his termination by the Little Rock School District and their actions in this matter. 2 15. All of the discriminatory actions the Little Rock School District took against Davis, happened after the LRSD submitted its current Desegregation Plan to this Court. 16. On April 3, 2000, the Little Rock School District issued a report aimed at reassuring the public and this Court that it. 'is moving swiftly and in good faith' to carry out its revised desegregation plan. Defendant Brady Gadberry was a co-author of this report. 17. As recent as today, May 18, 2001, the Little Rock School District's scandalous, whitewashing, and 'dirty linen' covered behavior covers the front page of the state's largest newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. All of the praise lauded on Dr. Les Carnine the past several months has been merely a subterfuge by the Little Rock School District to convince the Honorable Chief Judge Susan Webber Wright to grant their release from federal Court supervision. SUMMARY OF WHAT THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DID TO FRANKLIN A. DA VIS SINCE SUBMITTING THEIR REVISED DESEGREGATION PLAN TO THIS COURT The bulk of Franklin A. Davis' suit against the Little Rock School District, and certain school officials, falls under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1983 which states: \"Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.\"  3 The Little Rock School District is liable under  1983 for violating Franklin A. Davis' Due Process rights under the 14th Amendment. According to current law, Due Process mandates that a Teacher be provided a hearing prior to termination if the nature of the termination involves an attack on the teacher's character or reputation. The Supreme Court hoJds that a teacher, even a nonprobationary one, has a property interest that requires a prior termination hearing by the school board to respond to claims that affect his/her \"good name, reputation, honor, or integrity.\" See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573-577 (1972). The Eighth Circuit, which Arkansas falls in, has also held that there is a liberty interest when an employee is fired based on a charge that would impair that employee's opportunities within his profession. See Wellner v. Minnesota State Junior College Board, 487 F. 2d 153, 155-156 (1973)(citing Harnett v. Vlett, 466 F.2d 113, 116 (8th Cir. 1972)). The Eighth Circuit has constantly held that a teacher or government employee, who has been fired under circumstances that tarnish the teacher's character and negatively impact future job possibilities, is entitled to a prior termination hearing with full opportunity to respond to the charges. See Wilderman v. Nelson, 467 F.2d 1173 (1972); Scheelhaase v. Woodbury Central Community School District, 488 F.2d 237 (1973); Buhr v. Buffalo Public School District NO. 38, 509 F.2d 1196 (1974). Franklin A. Davis was a Principal with the Little Rock School District for many years. During all those years, he received outstanding evaluations. In 1995, Sadie Mitchell wrote in his evaluation, \"An open line of communication (with Assistant Superintendent) was evident\". \"Mr. Davis has been very cooperative and receptive to constructive criticism.\" She also wrote, \"His leadership style and relationship is respected 4 - by personnel, colleagues, parents, students, and the community.\" She again gave Mr. Davis a near perfect evaluation in 1996. In a mid-year evaluation in February of 1996, Sadie Mitchell wrote, \"Correspondences to parents, teachers, and District personnel displays that Mr. Davis is a team player.\" \"Administrative policies are followed while working well with others.\" She also gave him an excellent evaluation in June of 1997(the last evaluation Franklin A. Davis received as a LRSD employee). Yet, somehow by December of 1997, six months after his evaluation, Franklin A. Davis was suddenly reassigned. Four months later in April of 1998, Superintendent Les Carnine sent a termination letter to Franklin A. Davis. In less than six months, Franklin A. Davis had gone from the Little Rock School District's exemplary tenured principal to being considered an outcast without the LRSD granting him a hearing. It is noteworthy and interesting that Franklin A. Davis became a principal with the Little Rock School District at the age of twenty-seven (27). Essential to a full understanding of Franklin A. Davis' claim against the Little Rock School District is the timing of what occurred. This is the timeline, followed with an explanation of what it means: 1.) June 1997 - Sadie Mitchell gives Franklin A. Davis a great evaluation. 2.) December 30, 1997 -Davis is asked to leave Wilson Elementary and temporarily reassigned. 3.) April 2, 1998 -Dr. Carnine sends Davis a letter informing Davis of Dr. Carnine's intent to recommend the School Board terminate Davis and suspending him without pay, which is later temporarily reinstated. 5 4 .) May 4, 1998 - Davis gets an attorney to write the School Board requesting a hearing, with an offer to arbitrate the superintendent's recommendation for termination before going before the school board. 5.) May 12; 1998-Dr. Carnine writes Davis agreeing to arbitrate Dr. Carnine's termination recommendation before proceeding to the board with it. 6.) December 1, 1998 - Davis still has not had a hearing of any kind, yet the Little Rock School District quits paying Davis. 7.) June 28, 1999 - Fourteen months after Dr. Carnine's recommendation, Davis is given an arbitration hearing covering solely the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. Davis is awarded back pay, but not reinstated. Franklin A. Davis and the Little Rock School District did come to an understanding to arbitrate under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, however, this was under the assumption that the arbitrator would decide whether he would be terminated if the recommendation went before the School Board. Davis did not expect the School District to terminate him fourteen months later without a hearing. Afler the understanding to arbitrate whether Davis would be terminated, the Little Rock School District did the following: 1.) Dr. Richard Hurley sent a form to the Arkansas Employment Security Division checking the box stating that Davis was discharged. 2.) The Little Rock School District stopped paying Davis in December of 1998, and 6 3.) The Little Rock School District sent Davis a letter on June 29, 1998 informing him his insurance would terminate on August 31, 1998. These actions were in direct conflict with the letter from Dr. Carnine, dated May 12, 1998, which stated that the arbitration was to be an \"alternative method for binding adjudication of the termination recornrnendation.\"(Emphasis added). This was not to be an arbitration of a Principal who was already terminated. The Superintendent wrote the letter recommending Davis' termination in April of 1998. Davis requested a hearing. All Davis received was an arbitration hearing 14 months later, but after the Little Rock School District terminated him anyway despite his understanding. Although Davis' attorney (at that time), did write a letter that included a proposal to arbitrate his claims under the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, this letter was prior to his termination. Davis NEVER agreed to waive his right to a full and open hearing in front of the School Board when the Little Rock School District later terminated him. This is what this MOTION OF OBJECTION is about. CONCLUSION I, Franklin A. Davis, have been fighting for justice in this sad and unfortunate situation for nearly four (4) years. The Little Rock School District's attorney Chris Heller has continuously advised the school district against doing the right thing and reinstating me to my principal' s job with appropriate back pay and damages. Mr. Heller has the advantage of working for a large law firm and the support of the Arkan "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1728","title":"Court filings concerning NLRSD July 1998 - June 1999 status report, ODM report, ''2000-01 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion of the PCSSD to approve middle school construction modification, and PCSSD motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-04"],"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--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","School buildings","School facilities","School improvement programs","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning NLRSD July 1998 - June 1999 status report, ODM report, ''2000-01 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion of the PCSSD to approve middle school construction modification, and PCSSD motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1728"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["84 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing and request for scheduling order; District Court, notice of filing, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) July 1998 - June 1999 status report; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2000-01 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, separate motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to approve middle school construction modification; District Court, supplement to separate motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to approve middle school construction modification; District Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools; District Court, supplemental memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project managment tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  - RECEIVED APR 'J 2001 OfftCEOF 111116ATIONMONITORIN6 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 0 4 2001 JA~~sw. M~cc MACK, CLiRK .By. '5J- I ~k, ~ /\\f\\ 1!A DEPCLERK\"\" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT * * Plaintiff, * * * VS. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. * * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. * * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. * * Intervenors. * ORDER On March 15, 2001, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a Compliance Report and asked the Court to issue a Scheduling Order setting a date by which the parties must file any objections or challenges to the report.1 The LRSD suggests that the parties be given no more than twenty days within which to file their challenges and, in the event any party files a timely challenge, that the Court schedule a hearing before June 30, 2001. The Court has heard informally from one of the parties, who contends he needs more time to review the report and file challenges. See Attachment A 1See docket entry 3410. Having reviewed the Compliance Report, and considering the informal request for additional time, the Court finds that the parties need more than twenty days to review the many details set forth in the Report and prepar~ any challenges. After having consulted the Court's own calendar, the Court hereby establishes the following deadlines and hearing dates~ Any challenges to the LRSD's Compliance Report must be filed on or before May 18, 2001. If challenges to the report are filed, a hearing will be held on July 5 and July 6, 2001, beginning at 9:00 a.m. If necessary, the hearing will continue on August 1 and August 2, 2001. If the parties desire the Court to examine any documents pertaining to this hearing, those documents shall be submitted to the Court no later than June 29, 2001. Also before the Court is the motion of Tim C. Humphries to withdraw his appearance as counsel for separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education. The motion [ docket entry 3411] is granted.2 The Clerk is directed to remove Mr. Humphries as counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education. SO ORDERED this ~11\\.__day of April 2001. a;z_\u0026,,~ CHIEF JUDGE ' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON . DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE 0~1~~8 A~~/m::a) FRCP 2On February 21, 2001, Sammye L. Taylor and Mark Hagemeier entered their appearances as counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education. See docket entries 3405 \u0026 3406. 2 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LlTILE ROCK, .ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-418~ Via Facsimile March 26, 2001 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD Li'ITLE RocK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March 19-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 191\\ I am just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing, Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more than two hundred (200) pages in length, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filing a motion, because Mr. Heller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does, a public dispute which the Court must resolve. ! I understand that the Court .intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle s~hool issues raised by the PCS SD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the : scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties-are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and I have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who I intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Court's reply to this letter. With due respect to the court, I remain, JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones  Y...r. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Timothy Gauger Sincerely yours, ) i APR 12 2001 r:11 Glf.GEif u.!.o1s~fD EASTERN DISTAi r OURT l'Bn!atll!! C AFlKAMc:~c: lllillPII~ A PR O 4 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO_MRT OOl EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARK.ANSAp)i~S W ..eggRMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION  I \" ' ....   DFP.'TJt[Af LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF Tll.VIE TO RESPON~ TO LRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING ORDER DEFENDANTS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for - Extension of Time to Respond to LRSD Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order, state: 1. Due to undersigned counsel's trial schedule and other obligations, additional time is needed to review LRSD's Compliance Report. 2. In addition, undersigned adopts, by reference, his letter to the Court dated March 26, 2001. A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 3. This request is not for purposes of delay. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for an Order extending the time in which to file their Response LRSD's Notice of Filing Compliance Report and.Request for Scheduling Order for an additional thirty days including and up to May 4, 2001 Respectfully submitted, John W Walker, PA. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-3 74-4187 (fax) CERTIFICATE O.F SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing motion has been sent to all counsel of record. \u003c)L JI/ ~~ / ~ ,JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHlLDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, AR1\u003c.,\\.\\S..\\S 72206 T ELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile March 26, 200 I Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 7220 l Re: LR.SD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright : OF cou:--:SEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNA .J. McHENRY 82 10 Ht::sOF.RSO~ ROAD LITTLE ROCK. :\\.JlK,\\:SS,IS i22 l 0 PHO:sf.: (501) 3i2-3-l25  F.-\\X (50l) 3i2-3-128 E~l\\lL: mchenryd'!!-swbell.nct Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March l 9-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 191\\ I am. just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing, Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more t_han two hundred (200) pages in lengJh, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filing a motion, because Mr. Heller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does, a public dispute which the Court must resolve. I understand that the Court intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle school issues raised by the PCS SD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and I have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who T intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Court's reply to this letter. ,../ I -r-, ---I With due res pect to the court, 1 remain, JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Timothy Gauger 1 Sincerely yo~urs, . ' , ~~? r.. / 1 tA'r;Jf!-(!,c v fo'hn w. Walker l JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW .. Nashville Office #11 Music Circle South Suite 202 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 (615) 259-4664 Telecop;er (615) 259-4668 3400 TCBY TOWER REce,,,EDrk ~:;:~i~~:mplex 425WESTCAPITOLAVENUE Cf~, 400SalemRd .. Suite3 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 7220 1-3472 Conway,Arkansas72032 (501) 375-1 122 (501) 329-1133 TELECOPIER (50 1) 375- 1.027 ! APR 5 Telecopier (501) 336-9089 April 5, 2001 200/ VIA HAND DELIVERY OffiCE Of Christopher J. Heller, Esq. fBIREsAnoN MONITliRINS FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Ill, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Bank of America Bldg. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Sammye Taylor, Esq. Mark Hagemeier, Esq. Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Tim Gauger, Esq. Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard 425 W. Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3525 RE: NLRSD Status Report/July 1998 - June 1999 Dear Ms. Brown and Counsel: Enclosed please find a copy of the above referenced Status Report. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. SWJ:tl Enclosures yours, IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS RECEIVED APR 5 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING NOTICE OF FILING PLAINTIFF North Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the following document: 1. North Little Rock School District's July 1998 - June 1999 Status Report. Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (50 75-1122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that I have this 5th day of April, 2001, sent one copy of the foregoing via Hand Deliv~i;y, to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Ill, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Bank of America Bldg. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 172;3 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Sammye Taylor, Esq. Mark Hagemeier, Esq. Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ann Brown OFFIC.E OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 51 O Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Roak, Arkansas 72201  Tim Gauger, Esq. Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard 425 W. Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3525 1. I I I I I I I 1e I I I I I I ~ I I tT  FILED 2000-01 ENROLLMENT AND RACIAL BALANCE IN 'Ufflt r/~;1i;:.~g9..i~~sAs LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APR 1 1 2001 Melissa R. Guldin Associate Monitor April 11, 2001 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor  JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: DEP CLERK Polly Ramer Office Manager !'.I I, 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. SEPARATE MOTION OF THE PCSSD TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION MODIFICATION The PCSSD for its separate motion states: RECEIVED APR J 4 200:li illfflCEQf 1lESl!HfEGATION1MONITORINW PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The PCSSD Board of Directors approved a conversion to middle schools on May 9, 2000. 2. On September 27, 2000 PCSSD submitted to this court, the ODM and the other parties its comprehensive Business Case which explains and justifies the overall middle school conversion. 3. On February 16, 2001 PCSSD filed its motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools. A copy of the business case referred to in paragraph two was appended to that motion as was a comprehensive bound set of materials explaining the work and preparation that the District had done since May of 2000 to implement the middle school conversion. 4. As part of the conversion, physical modifications to Robinson High School and Mills University Studies High School were deemed necessary and were explained 248200-v1 - in the Business Case. The details of the modifications are set forth at page 57 of the booklet of materials filed February 16, 2001. For the convenience of the court and the parties, this page is re-appended to this motion as Exhibit\"!('. 5. The renovations referred to Exhibit'~' are already in progress. Because of the general oversight which this court has pursuant to the PCSSD, the PCSSD requests that this court formally approve the renovations described in Exhibit'!A!'. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD respectfully requests an order of this court approving the renovation activities described in Exhibit'~' and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By ____ ,.-a-+-----~1-'-\"'------ M. Ill (76060 Att ski Coun ial Sch On April 13, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 248200-v1 2 Ms. Ann Brown ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Brian Brooks Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 248200-v1 ~ ~ 3 EXHIBIT I A FACILITY NEEDS TO IMPLEMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL~OGRAM Robinson Hi'3h Item Amount  Construct new 2 classroom addition ... ... . ..... .. .... . $160,000  Convert Ex. CR 11 into 2 classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,000  Convert Ex. CR 12 into 2 art labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,000  Renovate Ex. Rm. 29 into a classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,000  Renovate Ex. Rm. 30 into a classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,000  Convert Ex. CR 27 ( choir room )into 2 classrooms . . . . . . . . $20.,.000 Sub-total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $200,000 Contingency, 10% ( +/-) . . .... . .... . ... '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10,000 Sub-total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $210,000 Architect fee, Misc. tests, etc., 8% ( +/-) ..... . ... . : . .... . . $15,000 Total ........ . . : . .. .. . ..... . ... .'. - : -: . . .. ... ..... .. .. $225,000 Mills University Studies High  Convert existing Media Center into additional Cafeteria Space and teacher Amount work room ..... . ... . .. . . . ............. . ..... . . ....... . $85,000  Construct new Media Center  . . ..... . ... .. ... . ..... .. .. $637,500 Sub-total .... . . . . . ...... . . .. ... . ... . .. .. .. . .... . ... . $722,500 Contingency, 10% ( +/-) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $72,300 Total . . ....... . ........ . . . .... . .... .. ... . .. _. ...... .. $794,800 .Total of Robinson High and Mills High .... . .......... . .... . ... .. ... $1,019,800 057  . . ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION R!C!JVa, APR 1 9 ZOOt ~~~OF --.vlll.1MIIUJJ IIJIJro- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAI NTI FF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS I NTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SUPPLEMENT TO SEPARATE MOTION OF THE PCSSD TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION MODIFICATION For its supplement to its renovation motion, the PCSSD states: 1. Attached as Exhibit \"A\" is a business case in support of the renovation motion which the PCSSD respectfully requests this Court to consider as part of its submissions in this matter. 249171-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 B -~,..::;...~----:-:-:-::::'='\"::-:~-..;;;:....---Jones Ill (76 r Pulaski C Special rict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April [1, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 249171-v1 2 Executive Summary: Implementation of Middle Schools Construction Pulaski County Special School District April 2001 The Pulaski County Special School District (District) currently has 24 elementary schools, each encompassing grades kindergarten through six; one existing middle school, Jacksonville Middle School; and six junior high schools, each encompassing grades seven through nine. The six senior high schools currently contain students in grades ten through twelve. After discussions, workshops, and community meetings, the District's Board of Directors voted at its May 9, 2000, meeting to approve a district-wide conversion to middle schools, effective for the 2001-2002 school year. This decision to pursue middle school conversion included construction for the Mills University Studies High School campus and the Robinson High School campus. Staff estimated that costs for facility remodeling would total $983,734.00. Background: The implementation of the middle school concept will not change student assignments, only the configuration of the existing junior and senior high schools. Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School, Jacksonville Middle School, Jacksonville Junior High School and Jacksonville High School will be the exceptions to the proposed conversion. Toward this end, the District contracted a general evaluation of all of its schools. The facilities study provided the Board with a blueprint of construction needs. At this time, the District anticipates that the conversion to middle schools can be accomplished by converting the existing junior high facilities to middle school campuses and s ending ninth grade students to the senior high school facilities. Existing facilities have been examined for this movement of students. Two sites would need renovation to accomplish the conversion: Robinson High School will require classroom space conversion and renovation. Mills University Studies High School will need additional cafeteria space and a new media center. Problem Statement: Increasing the capacity at the Robinson and Mills sites is recommended for a successful conversion to 9-12 grade high schools. Without the proposed construction, student capacity would be severely limited. Recruitment within and to those areas would also be hampered. Failure to increase the student capacity at these two campuses would result in overcrowding, discipline problems and displacement of students. In turn, this would result in increased student displacement, busing and negative school-community relations. EXHIBIT 249145-v1 J II I I I I I I I I I Alternatives: The alternative to this recommendation for construction would be to keep the campuses in their current configurations. This would cripple the ability to make the complete middle school conversion and conversion to 9-12 grade high schools. Action Recommended: By its vote on May 9, 2000, the Board of Directors approved a district-wide conversion to middle schools, to become effective for the 2001-2002 school year. The Board chose to delay the conversion of Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School to the middle school concept at this time. On March 13, 2001, the Board decided to delay the conversion of Jacksonville Middle School, Jacksonville Junior High School, and Jacksonville High School as well. Once the Board authorized the middle school concept, an examination of all secondary school facilities was conducted for student capacity. As a result of this examination, it was determined that addition construction would be needed at Mills and at Robinson High Schools. At Mills University Studies High School, a new media center is being built and the old media center would be converted into addition cafeteria space. These renovations will increase the capacity of the school media center and cafeteria. At Robinson High School, two additional classrooms will be constructed, the choir room would be divided and two dressing rooms will be converted into classroom space. This construction would increase the student capacity at Robinson High School by at least 250 students, both to accommodate the addition of the 9th grade and to provide for future desegregated growth. Objectives: The implementation of middle schools works to support the District's overall goals which includes the District's commitments to desegregation. Foremost, the creation of effective learning environments for all students support the District's goal of raising student achievement and successfully raising expectations. Students in sixth grade will have intensive use of technology and more opportunities to participate in co-curricular activities than is available in elementary schools. Ninth graders will enjoy increased opportunities for advanced academic pursuits and extra-curricular activities. Impact: Increased capacity will help to improve discipline, enhance recruitment efforts, and assist in maintaining racial balance at these campuses. It will also enhance student achievement and increase the opportunity for success of these students. Ninth grade students will benefit from the challenge of high school classes, increased curriculum opportunities and extra-curricular activities. 249145-v1 2 Student population at Mills for the current school year is 587 students for grades 10 through 12. Of that total, 343 students are white and 244 students are black. Present student capacity at Mills is 780. The projected student enrollment for 2001- 2002 school year, in grades 9 through 12, is 900. Of that projection, 483 students would be white, 417 students would be black. Student population at Robinson High School for the current school year is 435 students for grades 10 through 12. Of that total, 320 students are white and 115 students are black. Present student capacity at Robinson High School is 506. Robinson's projected enrollment for the 2001-2002 school year, in grades 9 through 12, is 638. Of that projection, 458 students would be white and 180 students would be black. Resources: The conversion to middle schools can be accomplished with few facility changes. Robinson High School and Mills University Studies High School have been identified as the only buildings needing immediate renovations. These costs are estimated to be $983,734. The construction at Mills will cost $766,680. Additional renovation at Robinson will cost $217,054 and will increase student capacity by about 250 students. Plan for Implementation: The Pulaski County Special School District will make the facility renovations required to accommodate a middle school conversion. At both Mills University Studies High School and Robinson High School construction started January 30, 2001. Estimated completion of construction is August 1, 2001. 249145-v1 3 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR. TROY A. PRICE GORDON S. RATHER, JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J . MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J, GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN ROGER D. ROWE JOHN D. DAVIS Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www.wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 mjonesCwlJ.com April 27, 2001 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY, JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J . MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNlfER S. BROWN C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY\" M. SUN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHERTY, Ph,O. LJcensad to practlca be/'orB the Unled Sla'9s Patent and Trademarl\u003c Office RECEJ.\\fED 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 APR 3 0 zom CIIIE81f -lllllQfflRIIS Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Enclosed are copies of supplement to PCSSD motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools and supplemental memorandum in support which are being filed today. MSJ/ao Encls. 251317-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ~~ M. S muues, Ill IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 3 0 20m Gffll(lf De~IIJIIDJRlli LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SUPPLEMENT TO PCSSD MOTION TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOLS AND REVAMPED HIGH SCHOOLS PCSSD, for its supplement to motion, states: 1. Contemporaneously with this supplement, the PCSSD is submitting for filing additional documents numbered 17 4 through 232 for the Court's review and consideration. 2. The numbering of this submission begins with the next number of the documents submitted February 16, 2001. In large measure, the documents are sequenced chronologically and several of them are discussed in the accompanying memorandum. 251097-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 '---  \"'  (7~ B ~ ---,, \\:::  ones Ill (76Q60) Pulaski'eounty Special ct CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April,ZJ, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 251097-v1 M. S~el Jo~es Ill ,.  ) ~ u 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENORS OF PCSSD MOTION TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOLS AND REVAMPED HIGH SCHOOLS Work on the implementation of middle schools has continued since the District's - original filing dated February 16, 2001. The supplemental document submission covers both documents generated since the first filing as well as supplies a handful of documents that were not available to counsel in February. Documents 174. and 175 represent the memorandum of understanding between PACT and PCSSD dealing with the placement of teachers in middle schools. Documents 176 through 181 represent a presentation made by Dr. Gloria Rousseau to administrators at the PCSSD which contains useful information concerning the process since January 2001. Documents 183 through 193 represent various committee reports and activities as do Documents 195 through 196. Documents 197 through 200 explain the formal Board policies which have been adopted and Documents 201 through 204 contain information regarding the middle school curri "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1703","title":"Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing compliance report and request for scheduling order; District Court, motion for withdrawal of appearance; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-03"],"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--21st Century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Little Rock School District","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School employees","School integration","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing compliance report and request for scheduling order; District Court, motion for withdrawal of appearance; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1703"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["22 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  - FILED .=,,A, _UE.S. DISTRICT COURT 1 RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR,O f 200f IN 11IB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT '., \\ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~A!\"fE~jW- Mqe~RJ.f~K, CLERK WESTERN DMSION  y -v 1 ~~ ~ bl'\u003e]/\\ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT * * Plaintiff: * * vs. r * Case No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. * * ECEIVED Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. * AR 2 200\\ * Intervenors, * OffiCEOf * OESEGRE~1lotl  KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. * * Intervenors. * ORDER The Pu1aski County Special School District moves the Court for an Order authorizing a special election to be held May 8, 2001. See docket entry 3400. The District states the proposed election is for the purpose of placing before the voters for approval a millage increase sufficient to finance an ambitious program of school fucility enhancement. There have been no responses or objections to the motion, and the Court finds that the motion should be granted. TIIEREFORE, the Court hereby grants the motion and approves the special millage election to be held in the Pu1aski County Special School District on May 8, 2001. dt SO ORDERED this _j_ day of March 2001. ~.\u0026-~ F JUDGE  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEPCLERJ\u003c'-.. ~ DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ..,OMPUAN3_ C; WITH RULE 58 ANO'OR 79(~ FRCP )R_ .  \u003cX~CJf.. IV ::'!:?- -~-_;.--~,- 3409 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 . , Qff.!;R RECEI\\.Y ~u PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MAR 1 ~ 200\\ OF.ICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING NOTICE OF FILING COMPLIANCE REPORT AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\") for its Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order states: 1. LRSD hereby files the attached Compliance Report in accordance with Section 11 of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). LRSD has substantially and in good faith complied with terms of the Revised Plan. A brief summary of each section of the Compliance Report is set forth below. 2. Good Faith. During the term of the Revised Plan, LRSD attempted to demonstrate its good faith by complying with its plan obligations. To manifest its good faith commitment for the future, the LRSD Board of Directors (\"Board\") on January 11, 2001, adopted a \"Covenant for the Future,\" in which the Board promised to continue fighting discrimination, providing equity and improving the academic achievement of all students. A key component of the District's success under the Revised Plan was the establishment of Campus Leadership Teams (\"CL Ts\") at each school. The CLTs provide the horsepower driving the District's efforts to improve student achievement. The District invested heavily in providing training to the CLTs and school principals in Total Quality Management (\"TQM\"). - All principals received intensive TQM training through the Arkansas Leadership Academy. The District's focus on quality leadership has not gone without recognition. In the fall of 2000, the District received the Quality Commitment Award from the non-profit group Arkansas Quality Award. This award recognized the District as an organization that has a plan and commitment to quality management. The District's development ofleadership talent should pay substantial dividends in the future. 3. Faculty and Staff. LRSD had a strong record in the area of faculty and staff even before adopting the Revised Plan. Even so, the District worked hard to recruit, develop and promote increased numbers of qualified African-Americans. Under the Revised Plan, the District increased the percentage of African-American administrators and teachers, and it increased the number of African-American media specialists, counselors, secondary core subject teachers, early childhood teachers and primary grade teachers. The District also began tracking the distribution of the most experienced and educated teachers in an effort to better ensure an equitable distribution of these teachers. 4. Student Assignment. In accordance with the Revised Plan, the District revised student attendance zones to allow students to go to their neighborhood schools to the extent possible. While this resulted in an increase in the number of racially identifiable schools and schools more than 20 percentage points from the district-wide percentage of African-American students, the increases were not dramatic. Moreover, the large number of alternative assignment choices available to students helped minimize any adverse effect resulting from the neighborhood school zone plan. This year twenty-percent of the District's students chose to attend a school other than their zone school. 5. Special Education. While African-American students remain disproportionately represented among special education students, a review of the District's programs, policies, and procedures revealed no vestiges of racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or other special needs programs. Furthermore, since 1998-99 the increase in the number of African-American students identified with disabilities has been in proportion to 2 their increase in the total student population. There has been only two percent growth in the number of identified students with disabilities since 1998-99, with the percentage of AfricanAmerican students remaining just about the same. The two percent growth correlates with the increase in total student enrollment over the same period, as well as an increase in the percentage of students qualifying for free/reduced lunch eligibility. 6. Discipline. The number of African-American students suspended decreased 20 percent from 1997-98 through 1999-2000. This was consistent with a 21 percent decrease in the total number of disciplinary sanctions. For the same time period, the number of students committing offenses decreased 16 percent. 1:hus, fewer student are committing offenses, and those that do commit offenses are less likely to commit a second offense. The behavior modification plans being implemented pursuant to the Revised Plan may account for this decrease. The decrease in discipline sanctions positively impacted parents' and teachers' perceptions of District schools. A survey of parents and teachers conducted during the 1999-2000 school year revealed that 93 percent of African-American parents and 95 percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that their child was safe at school. Ninety-one percent of both African-American and white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that their child has a feeling of belonging at school. Ninety-seven percent of African-American teachers and 96 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion indicated that they felt safe at school. 7. Extracurricular Activities. Extracurricular activities increased dramatically under the Revised Plan. The number of African-American students participating in extracurricular activities jumped from 2,335 to 5,203 from 1997-98 through 1999-2000. A large part of the increase in participation resulted from a \"no-cut\" policy in athletics for middle school six graders and the use of Supplemental Instructional Plans (\"SIPs\"). SIPs allow students who otherwise would be academically ineligible for athletics to continue participating in athletics while they attend tutoring to improve their grades. The District also organized an Activities Advisory Board to promote, support and enhance the activities available in the District. 3 The 1999-2000 survey of parents and teachers also reflected the District's success in the area of extracurricular activities. Ninety percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that activities were open to students. Ninety-three percent of African-American teachers and 95 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that students have opportunities for activities. 8. Advanced Placement Courses. New policies and procedures for placement of students in advanced courses greatly improved access and participation for all students, and especially African-American students. New programs have the potential of producing exponential growths in both participation and success in advanced courses in the next few years. The increasing number of African-American students participating and succeeding in advanced courses perhaps provides the best reason to be optimistic about the District's future. With regard to Advanced Placement (\"AP\") courses, the total enrollment of AfricanAmerican students increased from 471 in 1997-98 to 797 in 2000-01-an increase of 326 students or 69 percent. The total enrollment of white/other students in AP courses increased from 964 in 1997-98 to 1495 in 2000-01-an increase of 531 students or 55 percent. The total enrollment of all students in AP courses increased from 1435 in 1997-98 to 2292 in 2000-01-an increase of 857 students or 60 percent. The number of AP courses taught increased from 16 in 1997-98 to 20 in 2000-01; whereas, the average high school in the United States teaches only six AP courses. With regard to high school Pre-AP courses, the total number of high school students enrolled improved from 5065 in 1999-2000 to 5953 in 2000-01-an increase of 888 students or 15 percent. African-American student enrollment improved at a slightly higher rate-from 2341 in 1999-2000 to 2715 in 2000-01-an increase of 374 students or 16 percent. White/other student enrollment also improved-from 2724 in 1999-2000 to 3238 in 2000-01-an increase of 514 or 15 percent. With regard to middle school Pre-AP courses, African-American student enrollment grew 937 from 1999-2000 to 2000-01-an increase of 19 percent. White/other student enrollment in 4 middle school Pre-AP courses grew 1076 in one year-a 24 percent improvement. The total middle school Pre-AP enrollment grew by 2013 students-a 22 percent improvement. In contrast to the enrollment in the high school AP courses, where African-American enrollment was 35 percent of the total in 2000-01, the African-American enrollment in middle school Pre-AP courses was 51 percent of the total. In sixth grade Pre-AP/GT English courses there were 908 students enrolled in 2000-01 . At the high school level there were 261 students enrolled in English m AP in 2000-01 . If the current grade six students stay in the pipeline for advanced course enrollment, the English ill AP enrollment could improve 250 percent in a few years. The number of AP examinations taken increased from 422 in 1997-98 to 524 in 1999- 2000-an increase of24 percent. Although the percentage of students earning a \"3\" or higher on the AP examinations went down from 60 percent in 1997-98 to 52 percent in 1999-2000, the number of students earning a \"3\" or higher improved from 252 in 1997-98 to 268 in 1999-2000. With regard to the ACT, the most common college entrance exam taken by LRSD students, the number oftest-takers improved from 786 in 1997-98 to 1026 in 1999-2000 for an increase of240 or 31 percent. The number of African-American test takers improved from 410 to 570-an increase of 160 students or 39 percent. The number of white test takers also increased-from 268 in 1997-98 to 345 in 1999-2000-an improvement of77 students or 29 percent. African-American students improved their English scores from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17.4 in 1999-2000, their Science Reasoning scores from 17.2 to 17.4, and their average composite scores from 17.2 to 17.3. While small increases, they represent a substantial accomplishment given that test scores usually decrease when the number of test-takers increases. African-American students' willingness to move into more rigorous academic courses may reflect their belief that they will get the support they need to succeed. In the 1999-2000 parent survey, 88 percent of African-American parents who expressed on opinion agreed that their child received academic support. Eighty-six percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed with this statement. 5 9. Academic Achievement. The District completely revised its policies, procedures, and programs to facilitate and enhance academic achievement of all students, especially AfricanAmerican students. The District implemented new standards-based curricula, effective teaching strategies, aligned materials, and a re-designed and a comprehensive professional development program in fall 1999 and expanded in fall 2000 in English language arts, mathematics, and science, K-9. School year 2001-02 will see expansions into grades 10-12, as well as K-12 social studies and the beginning of fine arts program planning. Efforts included the addition of several new student support programs, many of which were funded through federal, state, and foundation grants. This District set high expectations for its students by raising graduation standards. Beginning in 2002, seniors must have a minimum of24 units to graduate, and beginning in 2004, they must have 26 units. In addition, the District published a \"Recommended Curriculum\" for high school students that includes eight advanced courses in the 28 units that students are encouraged to complete. The District secured several major grants as a part of its efforts to improve academic achievement. They are as follows:  A $3.4 million grant from the National Science Foundation to support improvements in mathematics and science;  A $7.8 million Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant from the United States Department of Education to support implementation of new programs aligned with the District's transition of the junior highs to middle schools;  Two multi-million dollar 21 st Century Learning Community grants from the United States Department of Education to develop and support after-school and summer programs to support student achievement;  A $250,000 planning grant from the Carnegie Foundation to support a year of planning for high school reform and improvements in student achievement. 6 An $11 million grant proposal was submitted to the Department of Education in December 2000 to develop magnet curricula at four southwestern Little Rock schools. One challenge the District faces in its effort to improve academic achievement is students arriving for kindergarten without the necessary social or learning skills. To meet this challenge, the District went beyond the requirements of Revised Plan in funding (with no assistance from the State) an early childhood program. The District implemented new four-year-old classes in 1999- 2000 and again in 2000-01. In 2000-01 there were 954 four-year-olds enrolled-234 more than the 720 required by the Revised Plan. In addition, early childhood enrollment included 254 children served in the HIPPY program; 23 infants, toddlers, and three-year olds at Metropolitan; 63 infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds at Rockefeller; and 18 three-year-olds at Washington-for a total of 1058. The District implemented new procedures and programs for early childhood education designed to improve children's kindergarten \"readiness\" level. Specifically with regard to reading and language arts, the District developed its PreK-3 Literacy Plan to guide implementation of new standards-based curricula, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments across all schools. The District invested heavily in professional development for all teachers and in the purchase of classroom sets of materials for students. Consistent with the Revised Plan, the District established a two and one-half hour block of time for the teaching ofreading and language arts in grades K-3. To measure success of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan, the District administers the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment in kindergarten through grade two. Both are informal reading inventories that are administered one-on-one. They are administered both in the fall and spring so growth can be measured. The results from the 1999 fall pre-test showed that white kindergarten students began with a score of more than two ( a score of two indicates readiness for the next grade level), as compared to African-American students whose fall pre-test score was less than one. Thus, white students began kindergarten with a higher level of readiness. On the spring post-test, the kindergarten class had the highest percentage of students scoring at or 7 above readiness (72.2 percent) of any of the three grades tested, perhaps as a result of the new Animated Literacy program in phonemic awareness that was introduced in fall 1999, along with the new ELLA strategies and materials. Both African-American and white students improved significantly from the pre-test to the post-test. On average, African-American kindergarten students' post-test scores were 43 percent of that of their white counterparts. First graders performed the poorest of the three grades tested in terms of the percentage of students scoring at or above readiness at the end of the school year ( 53. 6 percent), perhaps indicating the need for the Animated Literacy program for these students. All first graders improved, but white students improved the most, probably because the reading skills that they began the year with enabled them to progress faster. However, the average score for AfricanAmerican first graders was 65 percent of that of their white peers, suggesting a narrowing of the achievement gap that existed when the students entered the District. All second graders' scores improved significantly over the course of the year, just as they did in kindergarten and first grade, with 67.5 percent at or above the readiness level on the spring post-test. On average, African-American student's scores were 77 percent of that of their white peers, an increase from 43 percent in kindergarten and 65 percent in first grade. This again suggests that the District may be having success in narrowing the achievement gap which exists when students enter the District. With regard to reading and language arts in the intermediate grades, the District implemented new standards-based curricula, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments across the District in fall 1999, just as with the primary grades. The District emphasized Effective Literacy in professional development for intermediate grade teachers. While the District is still not where it would like to be, the results from the State Benchmark Exam taken by fourth graders showed substantial improvement. Scores improved from 32 percent at the proficient/advanced levels in 1998-99 to 42 percent in 1999-2000-an improvement of 31 percent. African-American students improved almost 10 points on the exam, 8 a 50 percent improvement, and white students improved four points, a seven percent improvement. The gap between the scores of African-American and white students narrowed six points in 1999-2000, from 42 points to 36 points. The rate of improvement of African-American students was 43 points higher than for white students. The District had many fewer grade four students performing at the lowest level in 1999-2000 than in 1998-99-a reduction of 13 percentage points or a 32 percent decrease. Additionally, fewer African-American students performed at the Below Basic level-a reduction of 16 percentage points or a 31 percent decrease. White students in the lowest level were reduced by seven percentage points for a 41 percent decrease. The gap between white and African-American students in the Below Basic level was 35 points in 1998-99 and was reduced to 26 points in 1999-2000. Reading scores also improved for fifth graders on the Stanford Achievement Test (91h Edition) (\"SAT9\") from 1999-2000. The average percentile score for all students improved five points, for African-American students improved five points, and for white students improved one point. Compared to the SAT9 scores from the fall of 1997, the average percentile score for all students improved five points, for African-American students improved seven points, and for white students improved four points. The achievement gap in reading narrowed from 46 percentile points in 1997-98 to 43 percentile points in 2000-01. Fifth graders' language scores on the SAT9 also improved from 1999-2000. The average percentile score for all students improved four points and for African-American students improved six points. Compared to the SAT9 scores from the fall of 1997, the average percentile score for all students improved four points, for African-American student improved seven points, and for white students improved one point. The achievement gap in language narrowed from 36 percentile points in fall 1997 to 30 percentile points in fall 2000. With regard to math and science, the District implemented new standards-based curricula, instructional strategies, and materials in K-9. The District funded these efforts in large part with 9 the grant from the National Science Foundation. Major investments occurred in professional development and in the purchase of new materials. The scores of fourth graders on the State Benchmark Exam provide a reason for optimism. The State administered the grade four State Benchmark Exam in mathematics for the second time in spring 2000. The District's scores showed significant improvements for all students (eight points), for African-American students (seven points), and white students (eight points). Although the gap widened one point between African-American and white students in 1999-2000 (from 45 to 46 points), the percentage improvement for African-American students was much greater than that of white students, 88 percent compared to 15 percent. The District's grade four as a whole saw fewer students performing at the lowest level in 1999-2000 as compared to 1998-99-a reduction of four percentage points or a seven percent decrease. Additionally, fewer African-American students performed at the lowest level-a reduction of five percentage points or a seven percent decrease. The gap between white and African-American students in the Below Basic level shrank from 50 points in 1998-99 to 45 points in 1999-2000. Fifth graders' mathematics scores improved slightly on the fall 2000 SAT9, with all students' scores up one percentile point and African-American students' scores up two percentile points. Compared to fall 1997 SAT9, the average percentile scores for all students improved one point and for African-American students improved four points. The achievement gap narrowed slightly from 1997-98 to 2000-01, from 36 to 32 percentile points. Tenth graders' SAT9 mathematics scores also improved. Their teachers had had initial training in a standards-based curriculum, and the students were the first required to take physics in the ninth grade. From 1999-2000 to 2000-01, the average percentile scores for all students improved four points, for African American students improved one point, and for white students improved six points. 10. Parental Involvement. The District already had a plethora of parent and community involvement policies, procedures, and programs when the Revised Plan was approved in 1998. Accordingly, the District directed it efforts to widening the outreach, focusing on the school level, and creating a more coherent leadership structure at the district level. The District began including parents and community representatives on CLTs, and the Board approved a Parent Program Restructuring Plan which consolidated all parent programs under the direction of one Collaborative Action Team. 11. Equitable Allocation of Resources. The District developed a unique method of reviewing equity in the allocation of resources. Each year the resource allocation review revealed no correlation between resources allocated to a school and the school's racial composition. Moreover, the District used the results of the review in making resource allocation decisions, such as allocating grant and Title I funding. 12. Guidance and Counseling. The 1999-2000 survey of parents revealed that 94 percent of all parents, both African-American and white/other, who expressed an opinion agreed that help and guidance was available to their child. This perception has proven a reality at least with regard to scholarship money received by African-Americans. Of the 301 scholarships awarded in the 1998-99 school year, 147 or 49 percent went to African-American students totaling $3,256,207 or 47 percent of the total dollar amount of scholarships awarded. For 1999- 2000 school year, African-American students received a total of 185 scholarships valued at $3,716,358. African-American students represented 56 percent of the scholarship recipients and received 58 percent of the total dollar amount of scholarships awarded. African-American females outpaced all other groups in the number received (105) and the dollar value of scholarships awarded ($1,967,654). 13. Cultural Sensitivity. Since the 1999-2000 school year, the District has been providing cultural sensitivity training through Dr. Terrence Roberts, one of the \"Little Rock Nine\" and a desegregation consultant for the District approved by the Joshua lntervenors. His workshop, entitled \"Learning to Cope with Differences,\" provides strategies for dealing with differences in race, ethnicity, gender, economics, disabilities, religion and other characteristics that 11 I can divide people and create unhealthy tension. The 1999-2000 survey of teachers suggests that the District has done well in this regard. Ninety-four percent of African-American teachers and 93 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that District administrators value diversity. Eighty-eight percent of African-American teachers and 92 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that personnel respond to cultural differences. 14. Compliance. Section 8 of the Revised Plan included a procedure for parties to raise issues related to the District's compliance. This procedure was invoked on only five occasions, with the last being in December of 1999. All of those issues were resolved without the necessity of court intervention. 15. The Revised Plan obligated LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to achieve certain outcomes, and it has done so. Although the Revised Plan did not obligate LRSD to achieve any particular outcomes, the Compliance Report includes information on outcomes which was used by LRSD to evaluate the programs, policies and procedures being implemented. 16. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provides: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001, indicating the state ofLRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in the Revised Plan. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, an order should be entered finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. 17. LRSD respectfully requests that the Court issue a scheduling order establishing a period not exceeding 20 days for parties to file challenges to LRSD's compliance pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan. This should be sufficient time given that the parties have known when this report would be filed since April 10, 1998, and that Section 8 of the Revised Plan 12 required parties to raise compliance issues \"as soon as reasonably practicable.\" See Revised Plan, Section 8.2.1. If any party files a challenge on or before the deadline established by the Court, LRSD respectfully requests that a hearing on the challenge be held before June 30, 2001, the end of the 2000-2001 school year. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this Court immediately issue a scheduling order establishing a period not exceeding 20 days for parties to file challenges pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan; that should a challenge be filed by a party, a hearing be held on the challenge before June 30, 2001; and that should no party file a challenge on or before the deadline established by the Court, that on June 30, 2001, this Court enter an order finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-~-i--- 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by handdelivery on March 15, 2001 : . Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-73 88 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodward 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 14 RECEIVED MAR 1 s 2001 Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report March 15, 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. RECEIVED MAR 2 s zam lllll\u0026EJ~ WfMONllURINQJ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE I, Tim C. Humphries, hereby move to withdraw my appearance as counsel on behalf of separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education in the above-captioned matter. I, Tim C. Humphries, am no longer employed with the Office of the Attorney General, and separate defendant - Arkansas Department of Education is now represented in this matter by Chief Barrister Sammye L. Taylor and Assistant Attorney General Mark A. Hagemeier of the Office of the Attorney General. WHEREFORE, I, Tim C. Humphries, respectfully request that this motion be granted and that the Court direct the clerk of the court to remove me as counsel for separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education. By: Respectfully Submitted, TIM C. HUMPHRIES1. Secretary of State's Office State Capitol, Room 256 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-3016 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tim C. Humphries, certify that on l_k of March, 2001, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postige prepaid, on the following person( s) at the address( es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 7220 I John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 I Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Timothy Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard 425 West Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim c:Humphries 2 I I I , ' . I i II J IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DJSTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVED APR 12 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFiCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for March, 2001 . Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney Ge 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on March 28, 200 l, I caused a copy of the foregoing doc "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1733","title":"Court filings concerning ODM report, ''Student Participation in Extracurricular Activities in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion for approval of special election, PCSSD Middle School Project, and PCSSD motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Standards","Education, Secondary","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School buildings","School management and organization","School employees","School facilities","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning ODM report, ''Student Participation in Extracurricular Activities in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion for approval of special election, PCSSD Middle School Project, and PCSSD motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1733"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["24 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Student Participation in Extracurricular Activities in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, motion for approval of special election; District Court, memorandum in support of motion to approve special election; District Court, supporting materials for forthcoming motion and brief on Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) Middle School Project; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools; District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools; District Court, two entries of appearance; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of change of address and telephone number  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I 1. i -I I I I I -I Iii I I I I FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT .EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS FEB O 2 2001 STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN EXTRACURRicu4~~1;~~ACK, CLERK . IN THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP CLERK Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor February 2, 2001 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Horace R. Smith Associate Monitor Polly Ramer Office Manager EDWARD L . WRIGHT (1003 - 1977) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1013 1001) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR . JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER, JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR. PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW aO WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 RECEIVE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371 - 0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 fE6 15 10m www . wlJ .com CHARLES C. PRICE OF COUNSEL CHARLES T. COLEMAN oct:lf'C.QC. ALSTON JENNINGS JAMES J, GLOVER rnu1. r RONALD A . MAY EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. II \u0026lf\\U'\\lODI\\IQ M. TOCO WOOD CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER ... ~~l11f\\ll 11\\\\111 1\\111 WALTER E. MAY ~IV GREGORY T. JONES Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 H. KEITH MORRISON mjones@wlj .com BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAODEN ROGER 0. ROWE JOHN O. DAVIS Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM February 14, 2001 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR. 00 TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY, JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN\" C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY\"\" M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHER'l'.Y, Ph .D.  Licensed only In Florida and Texas  Licensed to prac/ice before the UnNed States Patent and Trademark Office Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Enclosed are copies of motion for approval of special election and memorandum in support which are being filed today. MSJ/ao Encls. 234632-v1 Cordially, ~T, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ~a~u CELEBRATING 100 YEARS 1900-2000 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. MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIAL ELECTION The PCSSD for its motion, states: fEB 1 ~ no1 OffUJ:.]f lBIREGATiorunmm,11 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The PCSSD desires to conduct a special election on May 8, 2001. 2. The proposed election is for the purpose of placing before the voters for approval a millage increase sufficient to finance an ambitious program of school facility enhancement. 3. Exhibit \"A\" describes certain projects proposed for Phase I of this plan. - The proposed program is a result of the formal facilities study conducted by the District last year. 4. State law offers no impediment to the calling of this election as more fully explained in the accompanying memorandum. 5. This motion is presented to the Court for approval because of this Court's monitoring role regarding the financial affairs of the PCSSD. 232191-v1 WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this court approving the special election to be held on May 8, 2001. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On February ~2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each r - of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 232191-v1 2 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 232191-v1 3 J FEB-01-0J THU 04:36 PM FAX NO. l'lWPOSED BOND REFERENDUM SCOPE (PHASE 1) PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOLS ZON: I 0~1cs 1:lcmcnrary College S1olion l~kmcnr~ry Fuller Junior High (m~jor rcnov:ilion) Mills Univcrsi1y Studies High (major rcnovntion) ZONJ,;l NEW ELEMENTARY SCIIOOL (500) 13akcr l111e,,fatric1 Elcmcni:uy L:lndmark Elcmcnl.lry (major rcnnvnlir.,n) L:iw,011 Elcmcu!.lry (11uj,1r rcnova.lion) ItEPLACE ROil!NSON MIDDLE SCHOOL (SOO) Rnbu\\SOII IIif:ll ZON~J C1ys1al I lill E.lemcnbl)' NEW MAUMELLE /\\RE.A ELP.Ml!NTARY SCI-TOOi, (500) Pu1c Fores! Elcmcnlllry Oak Grove Elcrncnlllry (rcnovo1iun) llobiuson I::lcrncnl.lry NEW MJDDLTI SCHOOi, (S00) o~k Clmvi: J1111iur/Scnior 1-li,:h ZONE-4 Clinltln I::le111cn1ary Magncl Oakbl'ooke clcnic:uury (m~j11r ~-nnvarion) Slll'1'WOOJ Elcmculllry Sylvan llills ElcnicnLllry RI!PLACE SYLVAN llll.1.S MIDDLE SCHOOL Sylvan llilb Jligh (mnjor r1:nova1i0n) ZONES Arnold Drive Elcmcmruy Bayou Melo C'a10 r.lcmcntmy (rc11ov:11ion) DuprL'C F.lcmcnlary Tolkson F!h;mcnt:iiy Nnr1hwo11,l Junior High (1u.1jor renov:ilion) North Puh1.ski Hieh (major rcnov:itioo) ZONE6 Rl:.PLACF. JACKSONVlLU! fil.EMl!NTARY SCHOOL (600) Pinewood t::lcmcnt:iry Tuylor Rh:mcmn1y fockso11viUe Middle (shifl 1'\u003e nuw u.c) RHl'LACB JACKSONVJLI.I! MIODJ.Fi SCHOOL (1,000) 1~c:ksonvillc lligb ZON7 REPLACI! HARRIS bl .f.MENTAR.Y SCHOOL (3S0) Adkins Elc111cnl:iry Soon ElcmcnWy (rcnuvlion) Alrcnotivc Leurnins Ccnwr lllST.N.ICT Admini,ir:11ion fluillliue Adull T..wrnin, C'cmcr /\\11xiliary Scrvicc:s Moioltnancc / Warehouse 'rr;11s1,orlnti011  North Tr.in~pon.'lrlon  Soull1 TOTAL I EXHIBIT It li\u003c.:IIOOL TOTAL so S349,000 SS,411.000 $4,175,000 $6,900,000 $327,600 Sl,888,000 Sl,580,000 $11,300,078 $1,128,000 S49,000 S\u003ci,900,000 $225,000 Sl ,352,000 $387,000 $11,300,078 $973,000 $206,000 S1,929,000 $876,000 $700,000 $11,300,078 S9,370,000 $978,000 $358,000 $1,254,000 5426,000 $518,000 54,076,300 $6,49),000 $8,530,000 $1,071,000 S546,000 Sl,086,000 S13,810,094 SJ,258,000 SS,S00,000 S706,000 5668,000 so so so $0 $0 $386,000 $230,000 SllG,Sl!l,228 P. 02 ZONE TOTAL $!\u003e,9.lS,000 $23,123,678 521,186,078 S24,3:!l,078 $14,\\02,300 S26,3ill,094 SG,874,000 SGlG,000 $126,519,228 FEfl-Ol~Oi THU 04:36 PM FAX NO. fulaski County Special School Distritl 2/1/01 P11!aski County Special School District will ask voters for 3dditiona1 millage at a special election to be held in lhe Spring of 2001. Revenues gcncntcd from the millage will be used lo finance the constructing and equipping of new school buildings and making additions ond improvemt.\u003enls to existin: facilities. These additions and improvements are a current necessity of the DistricL Sorne of the most critical repair work needed in thcst! facilities will be complctud with these funds. As wdl, new construction which will t.ikc pL'lcc in high-growth areas will help to meet the present demand of incrca.~cd student enrollment ln order to satisfy these current needs of the Dis!dct, it is ncccssal)' to hold a special election to :isk patrons for lht!iT support. P. 03 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. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL ELECTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS This Court has had occasion to approve motions seeking to hold special elections several times during its involvement in this case. Most recently, this Court approved a special election in the Little Rock School District which was successful. During a time of dire financial circumstances, this Court approved a special election in the PCSSD which was held in 1992. The legislature has fundamentally changed the law since 1992. Under the old law, special elections were authorized only because of circumstances such as a natural catastrophe. Today, ACA 6-14-102 simply provides that: (d) The board of directors of any school district shall have the authority to request the county board of election commissioners to call a special election for the purpose of considering a rate of tax for additional millages for maintenance and operations or for debt service as authorized by Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 74, provided that: (1) All constitutional and statutory requirements for a special school election are met; and 232186-v1 (2) The date of the election is approved by the director. (Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-102(d)) The PCSSD desires to hold a special election on May 8, 2001, to place before the voters a proposed millage increase sufficient to commence an ambitious program of school facility improvements. Thus, the measure comports with the new provisions of 6-14-102(d). All other constitutional and statutory requirements for a special election will be met and it is anticipated that the Director of the Arkansas Department of Education will approve the date of the election. This motion is being submitted to this Court for approval because of this court's role in monitoring the financial affairs of the PCSSD. 232186-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On February 11, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 232186-v1 3 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR. TROY A. PRICE GORDON S. RATHER, JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J . MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE JOHN 0 . DAVIS VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Ann Marshall ODM 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www. wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Writer's Di rect Dial No. 501-212-1273 mjones@wlj .com February 15, 2001 Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Middle School Project Dear Ann: PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY, JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN* C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY-* M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J . DAUGHERTY, Ph .D.  Licensed only in Florida and Texas  Ucensed to practice before the Unffed States Patent and Trademark Offlce FEB l 6 20-l OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONiTORING I do not yet have a final approved version of the motion and brief I am submitting. However, I wanted to get the supporting materials to you today and ask that you flip through them. The main body of documents will be submitted with the motion and the first page is the PCSSD middle school curriculum course descriptions. That is followed, in chronological order, by the remaining documents I propose to submit directly to the Court. They cover the issues of student/parental involvement, teacher and staff training and frequently asked questions, parent surveys, parent meetings, athletics, and other topics. One of the notebooks I am submitting is the curriculum description for grades 6 through 12. I do not propose to submit that directly to the Court but will reference that it has been furnished to your office. The really thick notebook is the compilation of resource materials which the District has obtained, reviewed and relied upon through most of this process. It has been distributed to all buildings. Again, because of its size, I do not propose to submit it to Court but will reference that it has been furnished to your office. 234904-v1 CELEBRAT ING 100 YEARS 1900-2000 WR IGHT , LI N DSE Y \u0026 JENN INGS LLP February 15, 2001 Page 2 I will also furnish with the motion an additional copy of the Business Case and am submitting an additional one for your convenience. I should have mentioned that pages 001A through D are taken from the curriculum notebook and will be submitted to the Court. Please give me a call after you have had a chance to look some of this over as I need to get this motion filed. MSJ:ao Encls. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP \"--- amuel Jones, 111 CE LEBRATING 100 YEARS 1 900-2000 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903 1977) ROBERT S. LINO SEY (1913- 1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT . JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER , JR. TERRY L. Mr .:WS DAVID M. P ROGER A. ( . W C. DOUGLAS ORO, JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISOALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN . JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLESL. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9H2 WEBSITE: www . wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Wrller's Dlrecl Olal No. 501-2121273 mjonesCwlj .com September 27, 2000 JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMll!RLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR.  TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY, JR. KATHRYN A . PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK \"KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J . SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNlfER S. BROWN\" C. TAO BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY\"' M. SUN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. WEISENFELS ROBEIIT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J . DAUGHERTY, Ph.D. ' L.lcenad oni\\t., Ronda Md Tuu 'f \\ __ ,,. -,._,_.,,,,__,,,. __ i! -~\\\\ Vl':O r~ ~ , ., P_,. end T,_.,,..,. Offlce The Honorable Susan Webber Wright 600 West Capitol, Suite 302 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 ~ ~ \\~;_\\1 ~  0~t:-1\"-~ UESEGl\\r ;.,i~--- :\\i:'-~ 1' r,h ,, Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright: As the Court is aware, the PCSSD has for many months been studying the adoption of a middle school configuration. I enclose a copy of a business case, which the District has developed, which explains the District's plans in this regard. By copy of this letter to counsel for all of the parties and to Ms. Brown, I am furnishing a copy of the business case to each. MSJ/ao cc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. John Walker Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Stephen W. Jones Mr. Timothy Gauger Dr. Gary Smith 206060-v1 CELEBRATING Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP :~ I Jor:;;11I 00 YEARS 1 9 0 0 - 2 0 0 0 Implementation of Middle Schools Pulaski County Special School District September 2000 Executive Summary: The Pulaski County Special School District (District) currently has 24 elementary schools, each encompassing grades kindergarten through six; one existing middle school, Jacksonville Middle School; and six junior high schools, each encompassing grades seven through nine. The six senior high schools . currently contain students in grades ten through twelve. Evidence from medical science, psychology, and other areas is beginning to show that middle school students are passing through a very special, very critical period of their lives. The change from childhood to adolescence, we now see, is a tremendously important time of life. It is also often a terribly difficult time. Children from age 10 through 15 must endure more changes than they will for the rest of their lives. The middle school has to be unique, but it must also be transitional. It has to lead from the elementary to the high school and still do something special in the middle. With this philosophy in mind, the District has explored the middle school concept as a means to address the specific needs of the students in grades six through eight. After discussions and workshops, the District's Board of Directors voted at its May 9, 2000, meeting to approve a district-wide conversion to middle schools, effective for the 2001-2002 school year. The Board also stipulated that the Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School not be converted that year, though its staff would be trained along with other district personnel. The Board wanted to allow for the construction and opening of a new facility in this attendance area, as referenced in the District's current desegregation plan. A letter to the District's counsel was sent on May 25, 2000, asking him to file the appropriate documentation with the court. (See attached). . Staff estimated that costs for staff development, expanded student services, transportation and facility remodeling would total $1,111,428. (This accounting excludes the cost of construction of a new building in the Crystal Hill area). The Board believes that implementing the middle school concept in the District will create an academic and social environment that is developmentally appropriate for these adolescents and will promote achievement, improved student behavior, and more co-curricular activities for students. Background: I The implementation of the middle school concept will not change student as nments, only the configuration cif the existing junior and senior high schools. Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School will be the exception. Toward this end, the District contracted a general evaluation of all of its schools. This facilities study provides the Board with a blueprint of construction needs. At this time, the District anticipates that the conversion to middle schools can be accomplished by converting the existing junior high facilities to middle school campuses and sending ninth grade students to the senior high school facilities. * Existing facilities have been examined for this movement of students. Two sites would need renovation to accomplish the conversion: Robinson High School will require classroom space conversion and renovation. Mills University Studies High School will need additional cafeteria space and a new media center. Problem Statement: Implementing the middle school concept to provide developmentally appropriate environments for the success of adolescents is recommended. The recommendation, if approved, would be implemented in the 2001-2002 school year, with the exception of Oak Grove Junior/ Senior High School. The middle school concept will promote the District's objective tci raise student achievement and improve student discipline by establishing appropriate and effective learning environments for adolescent youth. Alternatives: The alternative to this recommendation is to keep the current grade configuration the same. However, the District strongly believes that the middle school concept provides needed academic, social and developmental advantages for students. Action Recommended: By its vote on May 9, 2000, the Board of Directors approved a district-wide conversion to middle schools, to become effective for the 2001-2002 school year. The Board also renewed its support for construction of a new middle school/junior high school facility in the Crystal Hill area, as is referenced in the District's desegregation plan. With the hope that this construction is allowed to go forward, the Board chose to delay the conversion of Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School to the middle school concept. Staff members prepared tentative recommendations for the Board to illustrate plans for. the middle school conversion. These recommendations included an examination of facility capacity, expanded student-services, proposed curriculum and extracurricular offerings, parent and com~unity involvement, and district-wide professional development. Once the Board authorized the middle school concept, staff and community members have coAiued to work in committees to address these specific issues. Plans have alsffl\u003eeen developed for continuing parent and teacher input in the process. Objectives: The implementation of middle schools works to support the District's overall goals. Foremost, the creation of effective learning environments for the students in grades six through eight will support the District's goal of raising student achievement and successfully raising expectations. Students in sixth grade will have intensive use of technology and more opportunities to participate in co-curricular activities than is available in elementary schools. Ninth graders will enjoy increased opportunity for advanced academic pursuits and extracurricular activities._ The conversion to middle school focuses the District's current use of facilities and resources to ensure that equitable opportunity is available to all its students. Impact: The creation of developmentally appropriate environments will improve discipline, enhance student achievement and increase the chance for success for these students. As sixth graders move to the middle school campuses, openings will be created in the elementary schools. This additional space will allow for additional pre-K classes, after-school programs, and increased recruitment opportunities within the District. Expansion costs at the elementary level will be reduced by this configuration. Ninth grade students will benefit from the challenge of high school classes, increased curriculum opportunities and extracurricular activities. Resources: The conversion to middle schools can be accomplished with few facility changes. Robinson High School and Mills University Studies High School have been identified as the only buildings needing immediate renovations. These costs are estimated to be $1 ,019,800. Costs for expanding students services, which include media, student-teacher advisory, counseling, health services, and transportation for extracurricular activities, is estimated to be $82,078. Professional development has been designed for district-wide education, as well as targeted needs for teachers and staff. Parents will be surveyed to identify needs, concerns, and expectations. Focus groups will be held at the local campuses to identify teacher and staff questions, concerns, and needs. Data from the focus groups and parent surveys will allow input from our internal and external publics into the planning and implementation process of middle schools. -Plan-forlmpi-ementatio1~------------------------- fj The Pulaski Co-unty Special School District will make the facility renovations required to accommodate a middle school conversion. The committee work done to date will be refined, and resulting plans will be implemented. Upon the opening of school in 2001-2002, students in grades six through eight will attend the middle school, and ninth grade students will attend the high school in their attendance area.   PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT May 25, 2000 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Sam: . 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Litt le Rock, Arkansas 72216 (501) 490-2000 The Board of Directors has approved the District's plan to adopt the middle school model, to become effective District-wide for the 2001-2002 school year. We need you to contact the court and file the appropriate documentation on our behalf as soon as is possible. In general, the plan will not change student assignments, only the configuration of the existing junior high schools and the senior high schools. We are confident that the adoption of middle schools will improve the delivery of services to this age group and will provide improvement in student achievement. ' Enclosed .;:ire the minutes. from the Board meeting, as well as information from the staff presentation. Please contact me if you need any other documentation or information. Sincerely, Theresa Wallent Director, Legal \u0026 Community Affairs . /tnw Encl. I I  I I I I I I Ill I I I I I I ,I I RECEIVED' FEB 16 2001 , OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MOiroRING PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT MIDDLE SCHOOL CURRICULUM 2001-2002  COURSE DESCRIPTIONS GRADES 6-8 001a . . . EDWARD L. WRIGHT I 1003- 1\"77) ROBERTS. LINDSEY I 1913- 1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER, JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR. PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J . MULDROW N.M. NORTON WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR. TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY, JR. KATHRYN A . PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J . SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN C. TAD BOHANNON JgA~M:E=S~ J::. GfLO ~V~E~Ri ~AN REC\u003c., EIVED EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER www .wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A . MAY M. TODD WOOD MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY .. M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAODEN ROGER 0 . ROWE FEB 2 0 2001 Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 mJones@wlJ .com ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J, DAUGHERTY, Ph.D. JOHN 0 . DAVIS OfFICE OF February 16, 2001  Licensed only in Florida and Texas - Licensed to practice before the Un#ed Stales Patent and Trademarl\u003c Office DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Brian Brooks Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED FEB 2 O 7nn1 ftWCEOF ~ -1{6 Enclosed are copies of PCSSD motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools and memorandum in support which are being filed today. MSJ/ao Encls. 235155-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP CELEBRATING 100 YEARS 1 9 0 0  2 0 0 0 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 BE~ . ij\\l\\!e() DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. nS.\"' ii W ~ MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. FEB t fr 7nm ifflCEOf -lGREGATIOti MON\\lORHIG PCSSD MOTION TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOLS AND REVAMPED HIGH SCHOOLS The PCSSD for its motion, states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. This Court approved a middle school plan for the LRSD as part of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 2. On September 27, 2000, the PCSSD submitted its comprehensive Business Case to this Court, the ODM and the other parties in this case, which Business Case is attached hereto as Exhibit \"A\". 3. During the spring of 2000 and commencing to this day, the PCSSD has proceeded carefully and thoughtfully toward this proposed conversion. Submitted with this motion is a comprehensive bound set of materials which are arranged chronologically and which have been numbered for the convenience of the Court. 4. These materials, other documents and highlights of the District's efforts since this planning effort began are included within this submission. 234946-v1 5. All of the foregoing matters are more thoroughly explained in the accompanying memorandum. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD requests that this Court lend its approval to the District's plan to establish middle schools and high schools for grades 9 through 12. 234946-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On February fl,, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Brian Brooks Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 234946-v1 3 EDWARD L. WAIGHl C,903-1177) IIOHRT S. LINDSEY (1113-1911) ISAAC A. SCOTT . JII. JOHN G. LIL GOIIDON S. RHHEII. JII. lRRY L. M~ .'NS DAVID M. P A OGE A A.\u003c. OW C. DOUG LA\u003e 0110. JII. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLI .. M SPIVEY 111 LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PIIICE CH .. RLES T. COLEMAN , ~~~~= t: ~~~~~~R, JR. CH,.RLEIL. SCHLUMBEIIGER WALTER E, MAY GIIEGORY T. JONES H. KEITH UORIIISOII HTTINA l . BROWNSTEIN WAL TEA McSP,.DDEII ROGER D. ROWE N,_NCY BELLHOUSE M .. Y WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKA "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1709","title":"Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, notices of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project managment 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":["2000-09/2001-01"],"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--21st Century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, notices of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project managment 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/1709"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["33 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FILED EAsTMk 5 N gi,ii~1,g ~~~~SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION SEP 11 2000 ~~:M\\3/W~\u0026t~2tERK DEPCd!RK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff: * vs. * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., * * Defendants, * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * ORDER RECEIVED SEP 1 2 2000 OfflCt Ur OESEGRE~l\\ON MONITORING Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (''MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 1999-7000 school year. 1 Without objection, the Court hereby approves the budget as submitted. When the budget for the 2000-2001 school year is final, the MRC should submit it to the Court for approval. A. IT IS SO ORDERED this _LL day of September 2000. ~~2 ~'~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMP~C~ WITH RULE 58 ANC'.WOR !9(a) FRCP 0N -//-Oo __ IV _vt;:: - -- 1 The MRC communicated the final budget to the Court in a letter dated July 28, 2000. For a copy of the letter, see docket no. 3389, attachment. ---- - ----- I - I .IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED OCT 2 - 2000 ~o-mnEO-F  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for September, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Att e eneral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2000 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVED NOV 1 2000 OFF/Cf Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE' s Project Management Tool for October, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General TIMO Assistant Atto neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2000 information available at Septernbef 30, 2000, the ADE calculated the ===:a:F.,.;u::\"n\"'\"d\"'i=ng for FY 00/01 sul:fect to eriodic adjustm~\"nts, B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION nc;.\\D~i v g;;,u DEC 1 2000 OfflCEOf IJESEGREGAllOM MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE' s Project Management Tool for November, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARKPRYOR Attorney General Assistant Atta e General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2000 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUN1Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE' s Project Management Tool for January, 2001. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Atta ey General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1720","title":"Court filings: District Court, second amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, third amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, fourth amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to withdraw portions of motion to modify student assignment plan; District Court, order; District Court, notice of deposition; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project managment tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2000-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School enrollment","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, second amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, third amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, fourth amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to withdraw portions of motion to modify student assignment plan; District Court, order; District Court, notice of deposition; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project managment tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1720"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["32 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  RECEiVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 2 2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SECOND AMENDMENT TO PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD, for its second amendment to motion for protective order states: 1. The District filed its motion seeking a protective order on July 28, 2000. The District filed its first amendment to motion for protective order on July 31, 2000. 2. Attached as Exhibit A-2 is the latest FOi request, received by the superintendent. As the Court can note, this request seeks copies of all FOIA requests presented to the District over the last three years. 3. On September 30, 1999, Joshua submitted a request to the District via Ms. Mildred Tatum seeking copies of all FOIA requests presented to the District over the last two years. Thus, as the Court can see, the District 193769-v1 continues to receive, in many instances, the same request from Joshua to which it has previously responded within the past twelve months. WHEREFORE, the District prays for the relief it has previously sought and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 37i-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 - By '- )  PulasJ4 C nty Special f S ct CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August_!_, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served as follows on each of the following : Via Facsimile on: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via U.S. Mail on: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193769-v1 2 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193769-v1 3 JUL-31-00 MON 02:50 PM JOHN W. WAT.KER HALl'li WASHTNGTON \\RK aun~F.TTF: SHAWN CUTT.OS Dr. Gary Smith Superintendent of Schools FAX NO. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATioRNl!:Y AT I.Aw 1723 BnoATJWAY LI'M'T.B RocK, ARKANSAS 72206 T~:r.~:l'HONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 37 4-4187 Via lland Deliveay July 31, 2000 Pulaski County Special School District 925 Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Dr. Smilh: P. 02 RECEIVED JUL 3 1 ZQGO This request is pursuant to the Arkansas :Freedom of Infonnation Act. Would you please provide the following for review, inspection and copying: CACI l) copies of all FOI A requests presented to the District over the Ja:;t three years; 2) copies of all invoices submitted by lhe District in response for FOJ A copies. r will be available to review your responses on f riday, August 4, 2000. EXHIBIT l IJ-.;,z 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. THIRD AMENDMENT TO PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RECEIVED AUG 2 ZDOD OFFICE OF OfSEGREGATION MmJJTORiUB PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD defendants, for their third amendment to motion for protective order state: 1. Attached as serial Exhibit A-3 are copies of Joshua's latest FOi requests. All are addressed to Dr. Smith, two are dated August 1, 2000, and the third is dated July 31, 2000, although all were received on August 1, 2000. 2. The request dated July 31, 2000, is of particular significance. It contains 43 numbered requests, some of which have multiple subparts. 3. Several of the requests evidence an ulterior motive prompting the request. For instance, the July 31, 2000, letter requests job postings, list of all applicants, name of all applicants interviewed and rating forms for a warehouse supervisor, a custodial supervisor, a head custodian for Homer Adkins - Elementary School, a carpenter helper's position, a painter, a lead custodian for 193848-v1 Bayou Meto, a lead mechanic, a custodian for the administration building, a custodian for Robinson Elementary, a laborer for the Transportation Department, together with secretaries and paraprofessionals. It is respectfully submitted that none of the information demanded could reasonably implicate the issues of the pending requests for Central Office reorganization or the proposed reassignments to new Bates Elementary School, neither could they reasonably implicate implementation issues that might be raised in the future concerning Plan 2000. 4. As the Court can see from the dates furnished in the July 31 correspondence, many of the positions were posted more than one year ago. 5. The filing of the District's motion for protective order seems to have accelerated Joshua's request for records via the Arkansas FOIA. As previously noted, the earlier threat of disruption has now turned into actual disruption itself. 193848-v1 WHEREFORE, the PCSSD defendants renew their request for relief. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 We8t Cc1pitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August _L, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served as follows on each of the following : Via Facsimile on: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via U.S. Mail on: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193848-v1 3 AuG-Ji-uU IUt ud:JJ n~ 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM JoaN W. WALKER, P.A. ATrORllllY AT LA.w 1723 BIOADWAY Lmu: RooK, Aluv.NBA.8 7:1206 TELEPHO?\\'i (501) :!7,4,$758 FAX (1501) 37Hl87 RECEfVED JOHN W. WALICll RALPH WASHINGTON MARX BUltNE1'I'E SH.t\\WN CHI.WS Or. Gary Smith Superintendent of School, Pulaski County Special School Oisirioi 925 Dixon Road Little Rock, All 72206 Dear Dr. Smith: Via Fac1bnile  4900483 July 31, 2000 I, , .., 1 r,'..10 7.uOJ This request is pursuant to the Ar~u Freedom otlnformation Act. Would you please provide the following for review, Inspection and copying: - a copy of the Irnplen1ematio11 Plan for PCS SD Plan 2000 - job po$ting1, list of all applicants, name of all applicants interviewed and rating forms inclucilng the rating received for each applicant interviewed for these positiona: 1) MIS Operations \u0026 Proaramming - 7/21/2000 2) Assistant Prinoipal - Jacksonville Jr. High. 7-264 2000 3) Secondary A4si1tant Principal - 7-14--2000 Jacksonville Middle Mills High North l1ulaski Oak Grove Jr./High Robinson Jr, Sylvan Hills High 4) 21111 Century Community Leaming Center Program Coordinator 5) Director ofMaimenance Services. 7-12-2000 6) Direwtor ofTrP!'.!pcrtation  7-6-20(1 7) Computer Sttvlee Technician .. tS-6.2000 8) Administrative Assistant - Security \u0026 Safely - 4-7-2000 9) Principal - Baker  6--6-2000 10) Director of Support Staft'Peraonnel - 6-6-2000 11) Guidance Secretary Sylvan Hilla Jr. - 5-22-l0OO 1::2) Pupil Accounting Supc,visor  4262000 13) Director of Purchuirig- 12-1-99 14) Sp~ia.l Education teacher-Jacksonville Jr. - 4-25-2000 1.5) Warehoue Supervisor - 7-14-99 16) Custodial Supervisor - 7-99 ---- --------------- EXHIBIT I /l-s ALlG- Ji-uU tGt ~d:J J rlM CACI 5013744187 WALK~R LAW FIRM 17) Seere~ry for Safety \u0026 Security - 18) Head Cu~todian  Homer Adkins - 2-14-2000 19) Information Services Specialist  20) Carpenter Help position - 2-9-2000; l-11 2000 21) Director of Technology Services - 12-2-99 22) Painter- 11-1199 23) Payroll Specialist - J 1-8-99 24) Secretary Safety\u0026. Security- J 1-1-99 2S) Lead Custodian -Bayou Meto - 2-21-99 26) Lead Me\u003c:banic  l llCi-98 27) Paraprofessional - Harris Elementary 9-23-99 28) Eneri)' :M.anaaer Position - 9-l 99 921 P03 29) Maintenance Custodian for Administrative Bldg. - 8-13-99 30) Secretary - Special Ed - 8-6-99 31) Lead Custodian - Robinson Elementary  7.3 099 32) Administrative Asst. - Trinipo111tion - 8-2-99 33) Director of Transportation 8-4-99 34) 8 HoUJ' Laborer Transportation 7-29-SlSl 35) Jacuonvill Middle - 6-23-99 36) Oak Grove Jr./Sr . 6-23-99 37) As\u0026t. Supt. Business Affairs - 2-3-2000 38) Director of'Legal Afflun - 12-8-99 39) Principal  Lawson Elementary  9-29-99 40) Director of Accountability~ 9-29-99 41) Asst. Principal - Landmark  7-1-99 Baker Lawson 42) Principal- Landmark 7-1-99 43) Elemenury Asst. Principal - Arnold Dr. Batel College Station Oakbrooke Oak Grove I will be available to rm~ your respon~s on Friday, Augwt 4, 2000. AUG- 01-00 TUE 08:53 AM 5013744197 l.RKER L~ FIRM ,JOHN W. WALK.BR ~ WASHINGTON BUl\\NKTTt 8 WNOHILDS Dr. Gary Smith Superintendent of School, JOHN W, WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1728 BROADWAY LrmR ROCIC, MXANBAll 7ll206 TEUPHONE (601) S743758 FAX (601) S14-4187 Via Fncsimilt  490-0~83 August 1, 2000 Pulaski County Special School District 92S Di,;:n Road Little Rock, All 72206 Dear Dr. Smith: '322 ?02 RECEIV'.ED I,'u'U.., 1 I understand that you have agreed to provide to us a copy of the Board agenda booka and other supporting for each of your Board's meetings in the future, Would you also ,imultaneously share your BoardGrami, or will you require a Freedom of Infonnation request for each one? Thank you for your cooperation, Sincerely, JWW:js cc: Theresa Wallont AUG-01-00 TUE 08:54 AM FAX NO. ?. GS 50137441 87 Wl=U\u003cER ~F(J FIRM 922 F'03 ~G 01 0~ 0'3:03 JOHN W, WALK!ilR IULPK WA8HlNOTON MARK BURNETTE BKAWN CHILDS Dr. Gary Smith Superintendent of Schools JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTOIINIY AT I..\\W 1728 BROADWAY Lt't'l'UI ROCK, Aluwl.w 72206 TZU:PH0N8 (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-~ 187 Via Facsimile  490-04'3 Auguat l, 2000 J\u003eulasJci County Speci~ School District 925 Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Dr. Smith: RECEIVED 1.uG 1 2oou Th.is request is punuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Act. Would you please provide for review, inspection and copying the following: J) requisition requests for office equipmen1, furniture, other materials and supplies for yourself and all Senior adrninJatrators (Assistant Superintendent,, Director of Accountability and Legal Affairs, and other Director\u0026) that have beon made for the period of June 1, 1999 to present: 2) all expenses reports (and requisitions) Including car~ car allowances, beeper,, mobile phonc:s, credit cards, etc. incurred by yourself' and Senior administrators for the period of June 1, 1999 to present; 3) bids submitted in response to request number 1 and 2; and 4) minute$ of the Board approving items 1, 2 and 3. Would you please make this information avPilable by Friday, Augoat ~. 2000. CACI 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. FOURTH AMENDMENT TO PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AUG 2 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD defendants, for their fourth amendment to motion for protective order state: 1. Attached as Exhibit A-4 is Joshua's latest FOi request directed to Ms. Wallent. 2. As nearly as we can interpret this request, it first asks for written instructions provided secretaries as regards responding to Joshua's FOi requests. We understand that if there are no written guidelines for responding to these requests that Joshua wishes to depose each secretary. 3. The PCSSD defendants respectfully submit that taking the depositions of secretaries regarding whether or not there were written FOi response instructions and, if not, what their oral instructions were transcends the 193901-v1 scope of discovery permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the PCSSO defendants request that no such depositions be permitted. WHEREFORE, the PCSSO defendants pray for the relief previously requested and as supplemented above. Respectfully submitted , WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 060) aunty Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August _j_, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served as follows on each of the following: Via Facsimile on: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via U.S. Mail on: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193901-v1 2 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193901-v1 3 AUG-01-00 TUE 01:14 PM FAX NO. P. 04 :;ll0l.l.('l4ltff WHu\u003c.t:t\u003c LHW 1-lt\u003crl HL..b ~l ' \\dlj l 41~b JOHN W, WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNll:T1'E SHAWN CHILDS Ms. Theresa Wallent JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. A'M'ORNZY Ar LAw 1728 BROADWAY UTl'LE ROCK, AR.KANSAS 72206 ' , TEt.EPHONI (~01) 874-8758 FAX (501) 314,4187 Via Facsimile AUS:,'\\ISt 1. 2000 Director of Legat and Community Affairs Pulaski County Special School District 925 Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 Pear Ms. Wallent: RECEIVED AUG 1 ZOOCl This is a follow-up to the FOlA request for written communication from and b~ween Dr, Smith, Dr. Fox, senior administrators and others. This request also includes written correspondence where there has been a written evaluation done of any subordinate employee, In addition, r would like to have any written instructions provided to secretaries regarding requests for written correspondenca and files. If there are no written instructions, I would be interested in taking the depositions of all the secretaries of your Senior stuf\u00264ministrators, l r.walt your response. NIW:js ec: Mi, Sam Jones Ms, Ann Brown --- _ ,., __ Sincerely, EXHIBIT I RECEIVED AUG 4 2000 OffiCEOF IIIGREGATIOff MOITOAING :  . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION TO WITHDRAW PORTIONS OF MOTION TO MODIFY STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN The PCSSD, for its motion states: 1. On June 23, 2000, the PCSSD moved to modify its student assignment plan in respect of Landmark Elementary School and the new Bates Elementary School. Beginning at page 5 of the brief which accompanied the motion, the PCSSD explained that it was also seeking permission to shift the art and music specialty program from Landmark to new Bates for the 2001-2002,, school year. 2. The PCSSD now desires to withdraw that portion of the motion seeking Pf:lrmission to shi~this program for the 2001-2002 school without prejudice to raising the issue again at a later date. 194183-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 B ~~:;..__-r.--,--~~~o=)------ ty Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August ,2,-2000, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway - Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504- Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 194183-v1 2 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 194183-v1 M I 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 3 2000 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, * * * vs. * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHf, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * ORDER RECEIVED AUG 2 5 2000 Oiif',Cftlf OE\u0026Bffiflffl: MONITIJRlNW Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 1999-2000 school year, The MRC communicated the final budget to the Court in a letter dated July 28, 2000 (attached). The letter also contains a proposed budget for the 2000-2001 school year; however, the Court will address the proposed budget in a separate Order. The Court will allow the parties to and including 10 days from the date of entry of this Order to object to the MR.C's final budget for 1999-2000. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order iroving the budget. IT IS SO ORDERED this ,A3 day of August 2000. ~J,~lt;w CIIlEF JUDG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET LN GOMPLIANC: Wl.~RULE 58 ANDJO~a) FRCP ! ?N~ ,i: 0V BY - Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 1 01  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} July 28, 2000 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302  Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright:  .\"., At its July 14, 2000 special-called meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal    motion and 5-0 vote (the Pulaski County Special School District representative was not present but later voted the District's approval via telephone), approved the interdistrict  magnet schools' actual budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1999-2000 school yec:U\" (Draft 1 ). FINAL 1999-2000 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount budgeted, $21,351,086, is based on a per-pupil expenditure of $5,597.00, calculated from an average third-quarter enrollment of3,814.79 . students. This budget reflects an increase of$470.00 per student over the . 1998-99 budget, with the fol;1rth year of the five-year proposed program improve~ ... ment plan included. This final 1999-2000 budget reflects actual figures and takes  into account the variables (teacher retirement and heajth insurance changes\u003e\" that' ' were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in June, 1999 .  \u003c: ''.. This :finai budget also reflects costs associated with the additional seats  . . -.. ,.. ,. ,, . i  ', ... which were added during the Little Rock School District's grade configurati~m{:: :  '.' . :,:;. ,,,~y~f f~;C .::0:: 2 : : 0 2:. 0 :~~,eo~i  .  '.5~:}xi~I;::,l}i ,(  . -\u003e: :;,:,;' ,prtammously approved the proposed budget for the six original St1pulat10n magnet , .: '.\u003c;--: . ,:t;,;.1_:~,!.{\\~ ::1i-:;.~'.ir~:; \"  , '\". tj, ... ~,\" J,; .  ' , ,  .  , J\"\"' ''f:   ., ' J , .. :,. t'~ ;r l  -: ... . schoolsforth~2000-200l'schoolyear.  .  , ;,_ -~-;\\\\;,: :.:\"t:f/\\'. '.'t'  ,   :: ' .. .:\\:-1.,':.t\\fp::~.:;~ ;' .. . , PROPOSED 2000-2001 STiPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET ,.~..... t;  I  -:, -'i/: ., . , ,;, . ,, .~~ The total proposed budget for the 2000-2001 school year is $22,500,211, which. ' - results in a per-pupil expenditure of$5,898.00 and an increase of $30i .OO over/;_ :. ..  .,  the 1999-2000 actual budget. Salary negotiations are in progress, and it should~ :    ' noted that these negotiations may have an impact on the 2000-2001 proposed, : /_  :: budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit :    1,:    .. this budget with the recognition that some flexibility may be necessary. -  \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\"  .. , .,. , ', ,. . , ... , . ':: _;/.;t , .. .al.;,  ( '.\u003e~ .t~//~\u003c:,:~~'  i --~,,.. ,.,...: .;;'Jtt;\\,    I , ~: 'tJtils\u003e\u003e( The Honorable SusanWebher Wright . . . ' . . . -2- \\.l ,  Magne~-Review 0?~ r~~trulfy requ~-~~ tii~' Court's. r.eVIe~ ~n~-~~~~i~y~~f-the 1999-2000 fiilaliz.ed budg~t, as 'Y~ll as tlie proposed 2000-2001 b~dget;-l?othflttach~d :_ herewith.    , '  - :  '~:. .,   -  -- -, ., 'h , .~t?  . ~ ,-._,; ,. ... ' ..' .. ,: . _1.:).' .. : ,i::\\ ...  .. ~~',: .. ;, ... :. ... ~--~~--\\:':,1~':-:./-:'!\u003e  The ~etJ~:~~ew_ Cominitt~ is_f ~IDpi~~-fo ~t~iE)~g.m~.~~l!l~~q~f9.f ie-'. origiilal ~et~schobls. We~ CQnt~uM~;.v.vor~ ~tlie.hg~disti,ict as we:'efj ercise sttjngent oveijig):ii 9f the magnet ~hQ\u003cSJsf oodgt?f ~ ah. effort io \"iichlev ait~.e~ , _\u003e . ., efficient ttiimage~nt and cost: coii~V\u003c?- th~:gr~t~st e:irte,nt po~sibI~~ -C:, / -  ..... . . ' .,_ .... ;..  . . . . . smc~r.eiy, ,  t~: Yiutc1.11t~ Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson ~etRevie:w comttrittee cc:, ' .., .. ,. .: . '- \\~... ,;' ,-, -~ , '!:' ~ --~ .... '. ~  I ':\"' ' 't -~'~:-( .. ~ ::' 'i\\;~_; ':. ;, ?'',. . . .  .  t,,, : :}(::'..:: 1 ,'._._;~,..- _ :__._:,:_~:'-_;_~_,:._:_:::;:_-:__-, :. :,_;,._:_i_.:~,:_:::-~_:,;'.'.~.-.:_._~_:_ ;:;f './. ,,\\, -:\\ - ? : .\\}?r~i-. -;~ -~ ~. ., , . .-~ ', ,.... ,_:: . ~ .-.~ .  f)'.'!t ?,1ff~~tt . . . rt~~\u0026~FM~~~~f-:1~:::::::::::::::::::::::: :::~: ::::n::!~:~:.:.: ::;~~: :::~f::::~::: CERTIFIED 01 Princioal 6.0 $423,711 6.0 $441,017 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $540,287 10.0 $572,704 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Soecialists 40.2 $1 ,638,478 40.2 $1,736,787 04 Counselors 13.4 $592,038 13.4 $627,561 05 Media Scee. 6.5 $288,210 6.5 $305,502 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 1.0 $35,443 1.0 $37,570 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign LanQ. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 7.6 $349,156 7.6 $370,106 10 Soecial Education 9.2 $340,504 9.2 $360,934 11 Gifted 5.4 $227,711 5.4 $241,374 12 Classroom 190.8 $7,180,546 188.8 $7,611,379 13 Substitutes 0.0 $196,924 0.0 $206,000 14 Other-KinderQarten 15.0 $621,745 16.0 $659,050 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 305.1 $12,434,753 304.1 $13,169,982 15 Secretaries 20.4 $517,493 21.4 $568,543 16 Nurses 6.0 $223,684 6.0 $237,105 17 Custodians 30.0 $431,533 30.0 $457,425 18 Information Services 1.0 $51,156 1.0 $54,225 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 $165,698 6.0 $175,640 20 Other-Aides 35.0 $405,160 35.0 $429,470 21 Fringe Benefits(20' ~  $3,599,572 ~  $4,022,814 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 98.4 $5,394,297 99.4 $5,945,223 TOTAL (10-20) ~ j $17,829,050 ~  $19,115,205 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ j $454,368 ~  $485,060 SERVICES t--23--t-T-ra_v_e_l- -------~-,:-\"\"::' \".\"':'\" .'\":./,.,t--------$-2_9. .,..9 _3_7~, .,,..,\".\"':'\" :,\".',:.,'.\\,..1----$,-4_1_ ,4_50--1 (30) 24 Maintenance Aareements ~  $0 ~ : $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 25 Other ~  $393,895 ~ i $187,123 TOTAL (30) ~ i $878,200 ~ i $713,633 26 Princioal's Office ~  $419 ~ i $1,750 27 Reaular Classroom ~ i $632,772 ~  $503,452 28 Media ~  $45,163 ~ : $46,900 29 Other ~ : $25,424 ~ : $20,797 TOTAL (40) ~  $703,778 ~ : $572,899 30 Eauioment ~  $369,502 ~ i $452,387 31 Buildino Reoair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL(50) ~ i $369,502 ~ $452,387 33 Dues and Fees ~ : $33,474 ~  $17,500 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ i $33,474 ~ i $17,500 TOTAL (30-60) ~ j $1,984,954 ~  $1,756,419 TOTAL (10-60) 403.5 $19,814,003 403.5 $20,871,625 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) ~ : $1,537,083 ~ j $1,628,587 :\u003c\u003e\u003e i)iS.AANOJ'.O.lAt)!H?t : ~  ) t $.~f;)$.'Ul$.$i ~  ) j/ $~ZOOPi~1l: Stipends $21 ,871 $37,400 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $1 ,411,708 $1 ,487,687 Vocational $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $33,000 $33,000 Gifted Proorams $504 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $32,000 Readino $500 $500 Science $0 $0 Enolish $1 ,500 $1,500 Special Education $4,000 $4,000 $0 $0 xxxxxx $0 $0 xxxxxx $0 $0 Total Line Items $1 ,537,083 $1,628,587 e.~fJiii111:c6st:::ri::i,:,:::,::iin i:n:::j !lil!M!on:::,: ni:n,::2000.--01::::,u:: 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 3,814.79 3,814.79 Total Costs $21 ,351,086 $22,500,211 P~rJ!ib.1t:(i~t:niun:::n:t ,,i:: ::: :::::n,:i,n:iiJ$.=s-91:: :i::n,::::::i:i::$.i:i;8~t:: fjl~~immw.~m~ffimM~ffl-~illl!l!lil!!l!!illl1l !llllill :::::: :i:::::::::.::~::::::::::: :::'rtE\\i: :::::1::i~::it~:::::1:1 CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $69,272 1.0 $ 73,428 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $56,669 1.0 $ 60,069 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 03 Specialists 7.0 $293,910 7.0 $ 311 ,544 04 Counselors 2.0 $87,214 2.0 $ 92,446 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $47,376 1.0 $ 50,219 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 1.0 $35,443 1.0 $ 37,570 07 Music $0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. $0 $0 09 Vocational $0 $0 10 Special Education 1.3 $62,744 1.3 $ 66,509 11 Gifted 1.0 $43,999 1.0 $ 46,639 12 Classroom 32.6 $1,165,224 31 .6 $ 1,235, 13 Substitutes $18,609 $ 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $171 ,635 5.0 $ TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 51.9 ,052,095 51 .9 $2,176,495 15 Secretaries 2.0 ,286 2.0 $ 36,344 16 Nurses 1.0 $37,591 1.0 $ 39,846 17 Custodians 4.0 $57,275 4.0 $ 60,712 18 Information Services 0.2 ,528 0.2 $ 9,039 19 Paraorofessionals-Other $0 $0 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $93,153 7.0 $ 98,743 21 Fringe Benefits(20 ~ . $603,562 ~ : $648,855 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.2 $834,396 14.2 $893,538 TOTAL (10-20) ~ ' $2,886,491 ~ : $3,070,033 22 Utilities ~  $57,485 ~ : $61,400 23 Travel ~ : $6,356 ~ : $10,000 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other ~  $16,038 ~ i $26,025 TOTAL(30) ~ $79,879 ~  $97,425 26 Principal's Office 27 Regular Classroom ~ . $86,038 ~ : $67,403 28 Media ~ . $6,572 ~ : $7,000 29 Other ~ : $3,490 ~  $5,050 TOTAL (40) ~ . $96,101 ~ i $79,453 30 Equipment ~  $86,476 ~  $108,560 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) ~  $86,476 ~i $108,560 33 Dues and Fees ~  $6,258 ~ : $2,500 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ $6,258 ~  $2,500 TOTAL (30-60) ~ $268,714 ~ $287,938 TOTAL (10-60) 66.1 $3,155,205 66.1 $3,357,971 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~ $217,044 ~ i $228,001 U/ i)d~AA'tilP.iT-O.T:A1;i)/HHH fflffii' i))/$:3\\:31ZZ4it nitxibtii i)f:)\";S$$;~72i :w,~,)t~:~~~:?::::::u::::::::::::: :::1:n::A~~~1::u::::: 1:u:p;tjpp~~::::::: J~(i!ii~ij-!HJ::nt::::::u:::::r::::ur 1999-00 2000-01 Stipends $9,891 $10,000 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $201,576 $212,425 Vocational $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 Gifted Programs $151 $151 Plant Services $4,569 $4,569 Reading $71 $71 Science $0 $0 English $214 $214 Special Education $571 $571 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $217,044 $228,001 P~f ~~P.i~:9.~fi!1::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::d~~~~~:::::::: u:::::~99H~1.::::::::; 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 544.71 544.71 Total Costs $3,372,249 $3,585,972 P~!~~Pi~!.~~t:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::1:::$.~!1:~j!! :::::::::::::u:~~~~ij1! ~:~1~~~~~l~~~mq~~~RMtr~:r::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::~.:. ::::,:,:,:::~::::::: :!~+~::: ::,:::~~:.:~~,:::::,: CERTIFIED 01 Princioal 1.0 $65,840 1.0 $ 69,790 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $51,989 1.0 $ 55,108 03 Soecialists 8.0 $314,459 8.0 $ 333,327 04 Counselors 2.0 $72,367 2.0 $ 76,709 05 Media Soec. 1.5 $61,802 1.5 $ 65,510 06 Art-Perf./Prod. $0 $0 07 Music $0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. $0 $0 09 Vocational $0 $0 10 Soecial Education 1.5 $38,627 1.5 $ 40,945 11 Gifted 1.4 $56,496 1.4 $ 59,886 12 Classroom 21 .3 $683,203 21 .3 $ 724,195 13 Substitutes $28,558 $ 30,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 5.0 $185,552 5.0 $ 196,685 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.7 $1,558,893 42.7 $1,652,155 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $61,721 3.0 $ 65,424 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $36,340 1.0 $ 38,520 17 Custodians 4.0 $55,669 4.0 $ 59,009 18 Information Services 0.2 8,528 0.2 $ 9,039 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $0 $0 20 Other-Aides 11 .0 $107,386 11.0 $ 113,829 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ $479,870 ~  $ 542,901 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.2 $749,514 19.2 $828,724 TOTAL (10-20) ~ - $2,308,407 ~ : $2,480,879 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ - $49,101 ~ ! $52,300 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ $5,151 ~ : $12,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aareements 25 Other ~ $14,934 ~  $13,055 TOTAL (30) ~ $69,186 ~ ! $77,355 MATERIALS, 26 Princioal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom ~ - $118,231 ~  $56,046 (40) 28 Media ~ - $8,911 ~ : $9,500 29 Other ~ - $3,904 ~ : $3,000 TOTAL (40) ~ : $131,046 ~  $68,546 CAPITAL 30 Eauioment ~ - $49,822 ~ ! $41,802 OUTLAY 31 Buildina Reoair, etc. ~ $0 ~ : $0 (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) ~ $49,822 ~ ! $41,802 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ~ $5,154 ~ ; $2,000 (60) 34 Other TOTAL(60) ~ $5,154 ~ ! $2,000 TOTAL (30-60) ~ $255,209 ~ : $189,703 TOTAL (10-60) 61 .9 $2,563,615 61.9 $2,670,582 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~  $205,684 ~' $223,951 Stioends $4,277 $12,000 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $195,985 $206,533 Vocational $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 Gifted Proarams $147 $144 Plant Services $4,442 $4,442 Readino $69 $69 Science $0 $0 English $208 $208 Special Education $555 $555 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $205,684 $223,951 J~ei:J~~i)!liC9$~:n::,:::,::::n:::::::n::,:: :::::n::,:$~9.~I):::::::: ::::::::~P~iHHi:. 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 529.60 529.60 Total Costs $2,769,300 $2,894,533 1F.1et:P.~Pft,co~t::,1:u::1:::1::::::n::::,::: :::::::::::::,::::is;~~:: .,:,:::::,:::,:u:$.SA$$:: ~:1,,~~~illlifm~ffimM~ffl~ffi~J~::ilillililllllil:iilil11l l::::::1 ::::::::::::::~::::::::::: :::+r~:l: ::::::::~~:flt~:::::::: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,456 1.0 $ 68,323 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $46,301 1.0 $ 49,079 03 Specialists 6.8 $239,142 6.8 $ 253,491 04 Counselors 1.0 $48,372 1.0 $ 51 ,274 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $49,380 1.0 $ 52,343 06 Art-Perf./Prod. $0 $0 07 Music $0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. $0 $0 09 Vocational $0 $0 10 Special Education 2.0 $78,541 2.0 $ 83,253 11 Gifted 1.0 $36,021 1.0 $ 38,182 12 Classroom 13.5 $501,102 13.5 $ 531,168 13 Substitutes $13,155 $ 14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $126,118 3.0 $ 133,685 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 30.3 $1 ,202,588 30.3 $1,274,799 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.4 $29,738 1.4 $ 31,522 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $33,314 1.0 $ 35,313 17 Custodians 3.0 $46,030 3.0 $ 48,792 18 Information Services 0.2 8,528 0.2 $ 9,039 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $0 $0 20 Other-Aides 5.6 $40,981 5.6 $ 43,440 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $338,590 ~ : $392,172 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 11.2 $497,181 11 .2 $560,278 TOTAL(10-20) ~ : $1,699,769 ~  $1,835,077 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ : $27,159 ~ i $29,660 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ : $4,646 ~ : $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aoreements ~  $0 ~ : $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 25 Other ~ : $10,739 ~  $13,818 TOTAL (30) ~ : $42,544 ~ : $48,478 26 Principal's Office ~  $0 ~ : $1,000 27 Reoular Classroom ~ : $46,173 ~ : $40,000 28 Media ~ : $2,257 ~ : $3,500 29 Other ~  $2,740 ~ : $334 TOTAL (40) ~ : $51,170 ~ : $44,834 30 Eauipment ~ - $19,503 ~ : $8,497 31 Buildino Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) ~ - $19,503 ~  $8,497 33 Dues and Fees ~ $6,977 ~  $1,000 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ $6,977 ~ ; $1,000 TOTAL (30-60) ~ $120,194 ~ ' $102,809 TOTAL (10-60) 41 .5 $1,819,963 41.5 $1 ,937,886 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~ - $108,028 ~  $113,686  :t=)J~AAND.:tO.'tAk)))) ~  /(:)$.1(927:~92H xmio( )))~~05Mu,2 .. W@rn~:~tit::::n::t:\\:H\\: n::::::HAi::'t~~n:::::n: }1/ P#iDP~~::j:jj\" :~~~l:/:\\:\\J:H\\/t/HH/: 1999-00 2000-01 Stipends $0 $0 Other Obiects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $105,120 $110,777 Vocational $0 $0 ~~~ ~ ~ Gifted Programs $79 $79 Plant Services $2,383 $2,383 Readino $37 $37 Science $0 $0 Enolish $112 $112 Special Education $298 $298 )00()()()( )00()()()( Total Line Items $108,028 $113,686 tPer:~ij11:c;o~t::::::::i:::iti:::::::i:i: 1:::::::1~~9.~a:::::1:1 :::::i::~PQP~~ :ni:::: 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 284.06 284.06 Total Costs $1,927,992 $2,051,572 p~:Fc'uomoo~t:ri:::i:::::i::::::::: 1:::1::::::::i::$.Ekl\u0026.1: ::i:::::i:i:u~iz:i ~~~1~il1if~\u0026l~ffll~ITT~ffi~~illlllilllillillll:i:ililii ::::w:: l:::::::l:l:W~~:::::l:l:l: ::~~w:: rn:::::~~:.t:rn:::::::: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $76,612 1.0 $ 81,209 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $46,301 1.0 $ 49,079 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Specialists 5.0 $221 ,42 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1724","title":"Court filings concerning PCSSD's motion to approve modification to student assignment plan, ODM report, ''Achievement Disparity between the Races in the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)'', and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2000-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School enrollment","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning PCSSD's motion to approve modification to student assignment plan, ODM report, ''Achievement Disparity between the Races in the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)'', and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1724"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["23 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, opposition to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to approve modification to student assignment plan; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Achievement Disparity between the Races in the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, first supplement to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  RECEIVED JUL 7 2000 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL n 6 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK.,C LERK By .. WESTERN DIVISION  DEP CCERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. OPPOSITION TO PCSSD'S MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATIONTO STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN DEFENDANTS The Joshua Intervenors oppose the PCSSD's Motion to Approve Modification to Student Assignment Plan. The basis for the Joshua Motion is as follows: 1. The proposed Motion to Approve Modification to Student Assignment Plan was not presented to the Joshua Intervenors and the other parties until it was filed with the Court. This is a deviation from the desegregation plan requirement. It is important to note that the Office of Desegregation of the Pulaski County District has had no contact directly or indirectly with counsel regarding this matter and counsel is therefore left in the position of being uninvolved in the evolution of the modification. The Intervenors are also unaware that the district has shared its proposed modification proposal with the educational advisors to the district particularly, Dr. Steven Ross, which brings the Joshua Intervenors to point No. 2. 2. The proposal does not indicate how the modifications will strength the delivery of education to the affected children and how it will contribute to the remediation of preexisting and well-entrenched patterns of educational disparities between majority and minority students. In fact, the proposal is silent on tile educational benefits to the students. 3. The district indicates that it proposes to save money by making the modification to the student assignment plan. The purported business case does not delineate the amount of money ti-mt is involved in its proposal nor the amount of saving which would be effectuated. It suggests that by reduction of busing, it would reduce cost. But there is no demonstration that busing will actually be reduced. The map presented as Exhibit 1 to the motion is very general and does not set forth the geographical areas of any of the schools. Therefore, it is impossible to accurately ascertain the transportation impact upon students which brings us to the next point. 4. The text of the PCSSD brief shows (at 3) that the district proposes to implement option 3 set forth on Exhibit B. The Landmark school would be 75% white and the new Bates 70% black. Prior to the new construction, the three schools (Landmark, Old Bates, and Fuller) ranged from 42- 5 7% black. The district proposes a range of 25-70% black. Thus, new construction would promote segregation. That brings us to the next point. 5. The district argues in page 3 of its brief that these racial imbalances can be improved but its presents no plan for that improvement nor any date nor responsible authority for insuring that these schools will not become racially identifiable. 6. The proposal is patently racial because it proposes to shift white students from the majority African American school to the predominately white Landmark school and it proposes to shift African American students from predominately white Landmark school to the predominantly African American Bates school. The district simply cannot justify this racial assignment by noting that it will shift some programs from Landmark to Bates. Those shifts have not been documented nor discussed with Joshua nor have they been approved by the Court. Furthermore, shifting programs from one school to another cannot meet or satisfy the district's obligation to desegregate  in full. The Joshua Intervenors again observe that there has been no educational program presented to the Court which would insure that the educational advantages available to children in the southeast quadrant of the school district will be equal to those in the north west quadrant. The schot\u003el district has not developed under the new administration any vision regarding improvement of educational opportunity for students in the southeast quadrant any of its schools. 7. The district makes reference to other matters under consideration such as moving schools in the southeast quadrant to the middle school concept. But those proposals have not been developed and are therefore are not being responded to by Joshua at this time. To respond to speculation would be an exercise in futility. WHEREFORE, the Joshualntervenors respectfully oppose the proposal of the school district to substantially change the racial identification of the Landmark and Bates schools. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request a hearing on the subject, after reasonable opportunity to engage in discovery, and after such hearing, they respectfully request that the proposed modification be rejected. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFlCATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foreging has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this day of July, 2000. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Mr. Tim Humphries Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arknasas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY To,vers 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I Ms. Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . Walker Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor ACHIEVEMENT DISPARITY BETWEEN THE RACES F I INTHE !L,E~ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EAsr~~N~1~1t'Mc~ A~R~~sAs July 12, 2000 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Norman W. Marshall Associate Monitor JUL 1 2 2000 ~~{AES W. McCORMACK. CL!::~K Dt:P C.::.~ Polly Ramer Office Manager I  1 1 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 V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER The PCSSD defendants, for their motion state: R ,HJl 3 1 2000 OrFICE Gr DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Attached as serial Exhibit A are multiple FOIA requests received by the PCSSD and certain of its personnel during the past two weeks. Attached as serial Exhibit B are FOIA requests received from Joshua by the PCSSD generally dating from the Fall of 1999. 2. The PCSSD respectfully submits that Joshua is improperly utilizing the Arkansas FOIA as a substitute for the discovery specified by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Certain of the information sought pursuant to Joshua's FOi requests is irrelevant to the issues scheduled for hearing on August 9, 2000, or to any other issues which could reasonably arise in this litigation. 4. The current requests are often oppressive, burdensome and annoying. 193297-v1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ~UL 31 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOfJITORING MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part that: Upon motion by a party ... accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending ... may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: (1) that the disclosure or discovery not be had; (2) that the disclosure or discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place; (3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery; (4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters; Attached to the PCSSD motion, as serial Exhibit A, are copies of many of the FOi requests that have been served by Joshua since this Court entered its order scheduling 193040-v1 - this matter for hearing on August 9, 2000. Any perusal of the FOi requests makes it apparent that Joshua is seeking to utilize the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act in lieu of the discovery rules specified by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act is codified beginning at ACA 25-19- 101. 25-19-105 provides in pertinent part that: (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided by this section or by laws specifically enacted to provide otherwise, all public records shall be open to inspection and copying by any citizen of the State of Arkansas during the regular business hours of the custodian of the records. (b) It is the specific intent of this section that the following shall not be deemed to be made open to the public under the provisions of this chapter: (8) Documents which are protected from disclosure by order or rule of court. While the PCSSD is not seeking to protect certain records from disclosure, it is - seeking an order of this Court which harmonizes the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Arkansas FOIA for purposes of this litigation. While the public policy considerations underpinning the Arkansas FOi are sound and are not challenged by this motion, what is questioned is the propriety of substituting the FOi for traditional discovery. The public's right to know is one matter; however, the attempted conversion of a sunshine law into a truncated and oppressive discovery weapon is quite another. For the reasons that follow, this Court should enter an order consistent with the relief sought herein. 193040-v1 2 Certain of the information sought is irrelevant to the issues scheduled for. hearing on August 9, 2000, or to any other Issues which could reasonably arise in this litigation The August 9 issues The issues scheduled for hearing on August 9, 2000, are the PCSSD proposal to reorganize the assistant superintendentships for personnel and desegregation and a PCSSD proposal to modify some student assignments to the new Bates Elementary School. Although it will be obvious to the Court from examination of the FOi requests that Joshua has plans to bring Plan 2000 compliance issues to the Court's ultimate attention, those are not currently the subject of the August 9 hearing. Indeed, as the Court can see from examining Joshua's letter of July 19, 2000, Joshua has necessarily - elected to invoke the 30-day \"complaint\" procedure specified in Plan 2000. The PCSSD will respond to the complaint letter in the time allocated under Plan 2000. Thereafter, assuming that Joshua remains dissatisfied with the PCSSD response, Joshua will have the option to invoke the dispute resolution process specified with the Department of Justice. If, in fact, this dispute resolution process proves unsuccessful, then, but only then, may Joshua seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The foregoing is offered to illustrate the fact that even if Joshua is serious about ultimately raising compliance issues before this Court, the interim process will necessarily take some time and it is respectfully submitted that no hearing could be reasonably scheduled for such issues until some time this fall. Accordingly, the PCSSD believes it is reasonable to propose that Joshua's current FOi requests be reasonably limited to the discreet issues currently set for hearing, and that in respect of all other 193040-v1 3 - issues, that Joshua be ordered to utilize the traditional discovery techniques as specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The current requests are oppressive, burdensome and annoying Any fair reading of the current FOi requests demonstrate that the requests are not all bottomed upon \"the public's right to know\" as envisioned by the Arkansas FOi. Neither can Joshua point to anything within the Arkansas FOIA which authorizes its use as a litigation tactic calculated to disrupt school district operations, seek information, such as thank you notes, get well cards, and anything \"in writing\" or \"all writings\" whatever they may be. Rather, the breadth and unbridled scope of the requests strongly suggests an ulterior motive; i.e. to keep administrators and staff from their regular jobs and to watch them jump through the hoops created by Joshua's requests. The Federal rules contain reasonable deadlines for discovery compliance which permit documents to be produced in a manner that is not disruptive to normal business and educational activities and responsibilities. The Arkansas FOIA, on the other hand, requires an almost instantaneous response which, when coupled with the volume of materials requested by Joshua, threatens chaos and disruption. The PCSSD suggests that this is an unwarranted perversion of the Arkansas FOi not calculated or contemplated by the Arkansas Legislature. Many of the FOi requests duplicate matters previously furnished to Joshua pursuant to FOi requests and duplicate requests for information routinely furnished to Joshua as part of PCSSD's desegregation philosophy Included as serial Exhibit B are FOi requests dated generally from 1999, to which the PCSSD then responded. At a minimum, the PCSSD should not be 193040-v1 4 put to the trouble of regurgitating again that which it has previously furnished Joshua within the last twelve months. Further, many of the requests implicate reports to the Board and the ODM which have been routinely generated during the last ten years and just as routinely, furnished to Joshua including, for instance, the annual PCSSD affirmative action reports, discipline reports, special education reports and other similar reports well know to the ODM and to this Court. It seems no great request that Joshua be ordered to discipline itself to the extent that it first ascertain whether or not it already has the information requested before blindly seeking it again and again from the PCSSD. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the PCSSD requests an order of this Court granting the relief sought herein. 193040-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 - By \\..- ;T-- ~ . ;-1--n- _,,, ' .._ . ( .______ M. Sa_!J)tlel ones Ill _(760,60) . . Attorneys f Pulaski C~ Special spt,ool Di ict '-_/ 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July2:\u0026ooo, a copy of the foregoing was served as follows on each of the following: Via Hand Delivery Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via U.S. Mail: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower  425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193040-v1 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER The PCSSD, for its first supplement to motion states: RECEIVED AUG 1 2000 i.HH10F OESE~OO-,mJ MmJITORIMG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Attached as Exhibit A-1 are FOi requests, received by Dr. Smith, all dated July 28, 2000. These requests were actually received on July 31, 2000. 2. These two requests supplement Exhibit A to the District's motion for protective order filed July 28, 2000. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD defendants renew the relief sought in theirmotion for protective order dated July 28, 2000, and for all proper relief. 193567-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July :3(, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served as follows on each of the following: Via Facsimile on: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via U.S. Mail on: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown QOM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193567-v1 2 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193567-v1 3 i I i I I I i  I  ! JUL-31 -00 MON 07:36 AM FAX NO. t' , Uc'./Uli 5013744187 WALKER ~AW FIRM 909 P02 JU.. 28 100 17 : 15 JOHN W, WALXZll RALPH WASHINGTON MAllX BUllN!TTI SHAWN CHILDS Dr. Gary Smith Superintendent of Schools JOHN W. W~R, P.A. ATrOa.-.lY kr LAw 1723 BIOADWAY J.rrrLI R0CK, AilnNSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (i,01) s7,-S7118 FAX (~01) ~14-4187 Via Fac,imile - 490-0483 July 28, 2000 Pulaski County Special Sehool Dinrict 92S Dbcon :Read Little Rocle, AR 72206 Dear Dr. Smith: RECEIVED JUL 3 1 2000 This request is pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom 0lnfotmation Act. Would you please providl;l i!ll writings (lneoming and outaoins) thai ha-ve talcen pl~ between you, Dr. James Fox, ~ -Billy Bowles, Dr. Ruth Herta, Mr. Gary Miller, Mr. Eddie Collin11 Dr. Jerry Welch, Mr. Jim Johnson, Dr. Don Henderson. Ml. Beverly Williams, Ms. Manha Asti, M$. MttciJ Chapman, Mr. David Hendrix, Ms. Theresa Wallent and anyone else with desegregation responsibility since July 1, 1999, It also includes writing, (incoming and outgoins) of any kind whether they arc rcgardinn peraonnel, student assignment, educational initiative\u0026, tranaporta~on. pay, proposals to the Coun. as well a.e any other mauers. ThiJ req1,mt also includH cmalla and ecmputer files. I would abo like to have access to the notet (incoming and outgoing) of yourself and those of Dr. Fox, Mr. Bowlea, Mt. Collins, Mr. Miller, Dr. Herts, Dr. Weloh, Dr. Henderson, Ms. Williams, Ms. Ast~ Ma, Chapman, Mr. Hendrix, Mr. Johnson and Ms. WaJJent, a.s they relate to the proposals that ha.ve been considered for presentation to the Court or to the school board in reference to the school desesreaation plan. I would ippreciato this infonnation not later than Wednesday, August 2, 2000. Would you also please provide the following: (l) list of applicants for the Director of Secondary Education position; (2) a. copy of the Elomentary/Seconduy School Civil Rights . Compliance Report/Individual School keport: I\u003e 102 from the U.S. Department of :Education/Civil Rights; (3) Minutes of the Steering Committee meetings relli.tive to education plans of Dr. Steven Ross; (4) all numbered memorandums ofth.: above referenced lndividua1s from July J, 1999 to present; (5) e-mail addresses ofalt the abov~ referenced individuals; (6) responses from principal\u0026 to Eddie Collini regardina ms letter ofAl-lS\\'st 2, t 999 regarding Disclplittary Management Plan; (7) Annual Disciplinary Summaey for all schools; (8) Incoming and outgoing type-written and hand-written writing\u0026 of all secret.uies of the above ~fcrenccd indrviduGJ1; (9) resportaes from all parties referenced to in your March 13, ZOOO letter relating to plan ZOOO; ( 1 O) copies of rriemo books from all lndlviduaJ.1 referenced to above; ( 11) a I.QPY of the written report of all annual reviews regarding speci\u0026l ed~tion to Martha Asti; (12) copies of revised elementary and secondary student handbooks; and (12) list ofrecipi,nta (race and EXHIBIT I fi-1 ~ - - - ---- -- ---- --  JUL-31-00 MON 07:37 AM FAX NO. 5013?44187 ~LKER LAW FIRM 909 P03 t', U3/U4 Jl..1... 28 '00 17:1~ sender) who were honored durlOi the SAT lncentivc Award program duritli 1999-2000 school year. Caro CACI JUL-31-00 MON 07:37 AM rAX NU. 501374418? W~R LAW FIRM JOHN W, WALKER, P.~. '311 P02 r', U4/ U'i J\\.L 29 '00 17:43 AT'l'ORNIY AT LAW 1,2s BitOADWAY R Ee E 1v ED L1TJ1,! RoCIC, AluwlsAS 72206 TELEPHONE (601) 874-3758 JOHN W, WALKiR JW..PH WABHlNOTON MARK BURNE'l'Tt SHAWN CHILDS FAX (501) 974-4187 JUL 3 1 2000 Via Facsimile - 490-0433 Dr. Gary Smith Superintendent of Schools Pulaski County Special Sr.boo[ District 91.5 Dixon Road Little Rock. AR 72206 Dear Dr. Smith: July 28. 2000 This request is pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom oflnformation Act. Would you please provide for review, inspection and oopyine the following: 1) a copy of the ADI! TAG Monitoring Repon dated February, 2000; 2) a copy otthe 2000-2001 Student Handbook approved by the Board of Education; 3) all writing, (incomina and outsoine) regar~ing pupil personnel (discipline and student assignments and enrollment) including notes, e-mails, computer files, numbered memorandums, ete. between yourself, Dr. Jam.es Fox, Mr. Bi~y Bowles, Dr, Ruth Herts, Mr. Gary Miller, Mr. Eddie Collins, Dr. Jerry Welch, Ms. Beverly Williams, Ms. Martha Ast~ Ms. Marcia Chapman, Mr. David Hendrix, ~. Theresa Wallent, Mr, Doug Lin.gton, Ms. Georgia Norris, Ms. Ann ____ (Bddie Collins Secretary) or any other person in Pupil Personnel with the responsibility of receiving and/or inputtina pupil persoMel data. Please make this information available by Thursday, Auewt 3, 2000. Sincerely, CACI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT (;OURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVED AUG I 2000 LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Off!CEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for July, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARKPRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attom neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY . I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2000 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1711","title":"Court filings concerning Court approval of administrative reorganization, ODM report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District (LRSD)'', and PCSSD motion to approve modification to student assignment plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2000-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School employees","School administrators","School discipline","Student suspension","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Court approval of administrative reorganization, ODM report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District (LRSD)'', and PCSSD motion to approve modification to student assignment plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1711"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["42 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for Court approval of administrative reorganization; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District (LRSD)''; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to approve modification to student assignment plan; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to modify student assignment plan; District Court, opposition of the Joshua intervenors to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for Court approval of administrative reorganization; District Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for Court approval of administrative reorganization; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN O 5 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAME]W.~McO RMJACK, CLERK WESTERN DMSION By '\\ t l (\\ /\\A V ~  ' - .... ~ DEP filRi\u003c'- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. I, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * lntervenors. * ORDER Before the Court are the proposed budgets for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.1 Without objection, the Court finds the proposed budgets should be and are hereby approved. -f'l\"-- IT IS SO _ORDERED THIS s._ DAY OF JUNE, 2000 i ~,t~21t C FJUD ' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 Docket no. 3361. rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COUPLJ/tN7! WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(1) FRCP JH 0~ ~Qp BY zzt\u003e . _ 3. 3 6 4 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) RO BERTS. LINDSEY ( 1913-1991) IS.A.AC A. SC OTT. JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX . JR , GORDON S. RATHER . JR . TERRY L . MATHEWS OAVIO M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JEN NINGS , JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KA THLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHAR LES C. PRICE CHARLES T . CO LEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E . MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNST EIN WALTER McSPADOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Waiker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501) 376 -9442 WE BSITE : www .wl j .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TOCO WOOD Writ er's Di rect Dial No . 501-212 -1 273 m1ones(llwlj .com June 9, 2000 TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY. JR . KATH RYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVtN W. KENN EDY JERRY J . SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUAR T JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. WEISENFELS ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T . ALLEN Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 JUN 1 2 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING , Enclosed is a copy of PCSSD's Motion for Court Approval of Administrative Reorganization which is being filed today.  MSJ/ao Encl. 182475-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD's MOTION FOR COURT APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION 1. Attached to this motion as Exhibit A is a Business Case dated June 9, 2000, supporting the combining of the responsibilities of the current offices of desegregation and pupil personnel. The specific reasons prompting and supporting this request are set forth in the Business Case. 2. In 1992, the PCSSD proposed a reorganization that, among other things, would have combined the responsibilities of the Offices of Desegregation and Pupil Personnel. The matter was litigated, but before it became necessai y for the Court to rule, an unexpected infusion of funds permitted the PCSSD to abandon this reorganization at that time. 3. The issue eventually was adjudicated in the context of a request for attorney's fees. In an Order dated December 1, 1992, this Court held that: [t]he Court finds that this reorganization was not so fundamentally in violation of the goals of the settlement plan that the Court would have reversed it. On the other hand, this Court would have permitted this reorganization to go forward with the understanding that the Court would 182441-v1 continue to monitor compliance with the settlement plan and would order a different organizational structure only if the new one proved unsatisfactory. 4. The PCSSD now, of course, operates pursuant to a new plan which does not contain the same rigid administrative hierarchy as the previous plan. 5. The district believes that it would be prudent, among other organizational changes it is making, to now effect the same reorganization that was proposed and evaluated by this Court in 1992. 6. This matter will be presented to the PCSSD Board of Directors on Tuesday, June 13, 2000. The Administration expects that the Board will approve the reorganization. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court approving the reorganization as described herein. 182441-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By -:-:-~..,,,---:- nes Iii (7 ulaski C t 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 9, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 182441-v1 .amueloneslll 3 Pulaski County Special School District Business Case June 9, 2000 Submitted to Judge Susan Weber Wright 1. Executive Summary: Pulaski County Special School District seeks to consolidate the positions of Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel and Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation into one new, blended position entitled Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Personnel. This administrative change will allow for greater accountability, efficiency of operation, as well as cost savings for the District. 2. Background: . The Assistant Superintendents for Pupil Personnel and for Desegregation will both retire from the District on June 30, 2000. These positions have compatible areas of accountability and responsibility for equity and student affairs . within the District. These positions share an affinity that the District wishes to build on. Streamlining these positions into one area of responsibility will be an efficient way to address the Issues of accountability and equity faced by the District. 3. Problem Statement: Pulaski County Special School District has been experiencing decreasing enrollment, triggering declining State funding levels. Reductions In personnel are being carried out to provide revenue for employee raises in 2000 - 2001. Besides the elimination of fifty-four (54) teaching positions, the Superintendent is proposing eliminating five (5) district office and three (3) assistant principal positions. In his proposed reorganization, he proposes streamlining operations with fewer people and reconfigured job responslbllltles. 4. Alternatives: Since personnel salaries make up over eighty percent (80%) of the operating budget and remaining expenses are largely fixed costs, Increasing salary costs In-a condition of declining revenues leaves two other alternatives, in addition to the proposed action. First, the District could continue current overstaffed parameters and pay for raises out of fund reserves (savings) which amount, at present, to about $8 million. Gradually, the fund reserve would be depleted, causing deficits and leaving the District In a precarious financial state. The second alternative would be to deny employees raises, including experience steps and cost of living adjustments. I EXHIBIT jJ 5. Action Recommended: Because both the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel and Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation are retiring June 30, 2000, there is a propitious opportunity is being afforded to consolidate the two positions into one new one entitled Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Personnel. 6. Objective: To reduce one assistant superintendent position and to save $105,000 per year by merging the two divisions. A. Goal Support: The functions of the pupil personnel and desegregation divisions have a clear affinity and significant interface. Attendance zoning, majority -to-minority issues, transfer requests, and minority student and personnel recruitment are major examples. The two connected areas can more effectively produce results to advance the goals of the District and Plan 2000 in a consolidated division. B. Benefits: . Benefits to the District would be in accountability, streamlining, efficiency of operations, reduction of administrative overhead, and the resulting cost savings. 7. Impact: The Impact on District programs will be positive, as the administrative accountability will be more concise. In the same manner, the District's desegregation plan, Plan 2000, will not suffer any negative consequence of this action and will, in fact, also be more efficiently managed. 8. Hesourcec: The two divisions will be merged. Existing personnel will be available as will the financial resources of these divisions. Reconfiguration to afford more productivity and proficient use of resources will be the result. Recurring cost savings of $10~,000 per year will be yielded. 9. Plan for Implementation: The Superintendent will bring his proposal to the Board of Directors at the June 13, 2000 meeting. With the Board's approval and the Court's acceptance, the plan will be Implemented as soon as is expedient. 2 Margie L. Powell Associate Monitor DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT June 14, 2000 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor PoJly Ramer Office Manager IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN 2 6 ZOOQ OfFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN The PCSSD, for its motion states: 1. The PCSSD proposes to modify certain student assignments within the southeast sector. 2. The proposal is fully explained in the accompanying memorandum brief and the exhibits and business case attached to this motion. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an Order of this Court approving its proposed modification of student assignments in the southeast sector. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 .:. By 'i(,1, ~u..d- ~ '~ ~,4.JIJ,., -, 6J,Ju;b_ M. Samuel Jones 1(76060) l'1 16 , '\\ Attorneys for Pulaski County Special 1 'iJ School District 185439-v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 2-3 , 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 185439-v1 2 SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 30, 1999 - HIGH SCHOOL SCHOOL CAPACITY Jacksonville 1025 Mills 780 North Pulaski 900 Oak Grove Jr./Sr. 935 Robinson 506 Sylvan Hills 998 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SCHOOL CAPACITY Fuller 945 Jacksonville Middle 800 Jacksonville Junior High 800 Northwood 964 Robinson (2-rooms devided) 486 Alpha Academy 300 Sylvan Hills 925 - ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCHOOL CAPACITY Adkins 370 Arnold Drive 420 Baker 330 Bates 768 Bayou Mete 660 Cato 576 Clinton 833 College Station 340 Crystal Hill 820 Dupree 465 Fuller 526 Harris 525 Jacksonville 785 Landmark 568 Lawson 325 Oak Grove 476 Oakbrooke 500 Pine Forest 556 Pinewood 523 - Robinson 450 Scott  280 Sherwood 460 EXHIBIT Sylvan Hills 456 TMoullrereslol nT aylor 455700 I 4 OLD BATES White Black Total SALINE CO. STUDENTS White 62 Black 3 153 199 57% 352 LANDMARK White 224 58% Black 163 42% Total 387 OPTION 1 OPTION 2 Landmark Landmark minus minus Wrightsville Wrightsville plus Arch Street White 214 75% White 275 Black 71 25% Black 107 Total 285 Total 382  72% 28% ---- ARCH ST. STUDENTS White 61 -- Black 36 OPTION 3 Landmark minus Wrightsville plus Arch Street \u0026 Saline Co. White 337 75% Slack 110 25% Total 447  -----~~---~-O-L~D ~FU-L-L-E-R~ ----, - ,,,_ Whitt! 161 43% ----- ', --------+-------+----1 ----.,,. .,. Blaclc 217 - - -- Totz,I 378 57% \\ ,,' WRIGHTSVILLE , , ' STUDENTS White 11 Black 92 Total 103 NEW BATES White 314 43% Black 416 57% Total 730 OPTION 1 OPTION 2 :?T!ON 3 New Bates New Bates ~Jaw 3a~=s plus plus J/us Wrightsville Wrightsville .'iriQ ntsiilia minus minus Arch Street ,J..rr;h .3:r;at 3 S8linJ C;:i. White 325 39% White 264 36 \\1'/hite 202 30~',, Black 508 61% Black 472 64% Slack --169 70% Total 833 Tota l 736 Total Oi 1  1. PCSSD BUSINESS CASE FOR MODIFICATION OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN JUNE 23, 2000 Executive Summary: The PCSSD seeks to modify certain aspects of its student assignment plan respecting Landmark and new Bates Elementary Schools in the southeast sector to reassign certain students closer to their neighborhoods and to reduce the amount of transportation for those students. The particulars of the reassignment are reflected in Exhibit 8 to the motion, which accompanies this Business Case. 2. Background: Last year this Court approved the construction of the new Bates Elementary School and the transfer of the student bodies from old Bates and Fuller Elementary School to new Bates. Since the Court's decision, and as construction of new Bates has proceeded, interest has increased in the affected communities to effect a reassignmenL of certain students to schools closer to their homes. - 3. Problem Statement: The reassignment proposed projects that new Bates would have an initial student body that would be 70% black and 30% white. At the same time, the proposed reorganization would reduce transportation, assign more students to schools closer to their homes and likely assist the District in reacquiring students who have left the District. The problem, thus, becomes essentially one of a balancing act and selection from among competing priorities. 4. Alternatives: One alternative is to simply retain the status quo and make no reassignment proposals. The alternatives are set forth and explained in Exhibit 8. This action would be detrimental to both children and their parents by requiring larger bus routes. 5. Action Recommended: The impetus for this move has come from the African American Community. Because the District believes that the projected opening enrollment percentages can be ameliorated over time and that the number of students attending schools in the southeast sector could ultimately grow, that the proposed reassignment should be implemented in the interest of children, particularly the black children in Wrightsville who - would otherwise be bused away from their neighborhood school (new Bates). EXHIBIT 185373-v1 I 6. Objective: To accommodate the desires of many in the community to have their students assigned to the closest available elementary school and to reduce transportation without departing unreasonably from the District's student assignment goal. 7. Impact: The reassignment should save the District money in terms of transportation, should promote parental involvement in the schools, should promote additional voluntary transfers and should result in re-attracting students to this area who have previously left the District. 8. Resources: The proposed reassignment should reduce transportation costs in an amount not yet quantified. ;. 9. Plan for Implementation: The District's Board of Directors, on June 15, 2000, approved this rezoning subject to discussions with Joshua and approval by the Court. If approved, the District proposes to implement all aspects of the reassignment for the upcoming 2000-01 school year with the exception of the shift of the arts and music programs from Landmark to new Bates which would not occur until the following school year when the District anticipates it will have implemented the middle school concept district-wide. 2 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. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD MOTION TO MODIFY STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN Introduction 11Ece1:veo -JUN '2' 6 -~ioOb OfflCEOf, ______., i~ \\BEGRESATION 'MONIT-ORINU PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Last year this Court approved the closing of Bates and Fuller Elementary Schools and the transfer of their student bodies to the new Bates Elementary School located off 145 Street, just west of the Community of Wrightsville in the southeast sector of the PCSSD. (Docket #3281 ). As the new Bates School nears completion, pressure has mounted from the community to consider changes in the student assignment pattern for new Bates and Landmark Elementary. Pursuant to a motion proposed by the African American Board Member representing the greater Wrightsville area and virtually all of the southeast sector of the district, the District's Board of Education voted recently to propose certain student assignment rearrangements and to submit those to Joshua and the Court for consideration. The proposed changes, and the reasons for them, are fully explained in the business case (Exhibit \"C\" attached to the motion) and in this memorandum. 184914-v1 Background As part of the territorial exchange ordered in this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ordered the transfer of the Granite Mountain community from the LRSD to the PCSSD. This transfer, together with the transfer of the southwest Little Rock area to the LRSD, created a land-locked, majority black area of the PCSSD which the parties have consistently referred to throughout this litigation as the southeast sector. In the wake of the territorial transfer which left the PCSSD short of elementary seats, the PCSSD acquired the old Timex facility as an emergency measure, converted it to an elementary school, and opened it as Bates Elementary with an enrollment in excess of 800 students. Since that date, the enrollment of \"old\" Bates has dropped to 41t 352 students, of whom 43% are white and 57% are black. During the same time period, the PCSSD has seen the enrollment at Fuller Elementary shrink to 378 students, of whom 161 are white and 217 are black. (Exhibit \"B\" attached to the motion). As previously noted, the Court has approved the transfer of these two student bodies to the new Bates Elementary School. The current capacity of old Bates is 768 students and that of Fuller Elementary is 526 students. (Please see Exhibit \"A\" attached to the motion). Landmark Elementary, with a current capacity of 468 students, had an enrollment last year of 387 students, of whom 224 were white and 163 were black. Of the white enrollees, approximately 51 are white students recruited from north of the river for the school art and music specialty programs. 184914-v1 2 The Proposed Changes As Exhibit \"B\" reflects, there are three areas of student population proposed for reassignment. They are a mostly white area currently assigned to Bates hereafter referred to as the Arch Street students. A group of predominantly white students, heretofore assigned to Fuller, will be referred to as the Saline County students. A group of predominantly black students from the Wrightsville area, and proximate to the new school, will be referred to as the Wrightsville students. They are currently assigned to Landmark. Although it will statistically impact initial racial balance projections, the PCSSD proposes to shift the Saline County and Arch Street students from new Bates to Landmark and to assign the Wrightsville students from Landmark to new Bates. The - initially projected enrollments occasioned by these shifts project Landmark to be 25% black and new Bates to be 70% black. However, for reasons that will be explained hereafter, the District genuinely believes that these percentages can be rather expeditiously improved and that the immediate and proximate impact is to benefit children of both races and reduce unnecessary busing. The Wrightsville Students These students are located, geographically, on the far east side of the southeast sector. Until the early 1990s, these Wrightsville students were all schooled in the neighborhood at J.C. Cook Elementary School. After it burned, the decision was made not to rebuild and these students were shifted to Landmark. If no change is made, the same students will be transported twice daily past the new Bates Elementary School en - route to Landmark. To eliminate this prospect, and to substantially reduce the 184914-v1 3 - transportation burdens on these students, the PCSSD believes it to be educationally sound to reassign these students to new Bates which, in the context of the geography of the PCSSD, would act as a neighborhood school for the Wrightsville students. The Arch Street Students These students are located, geographically, on the west side of the southeast sector. Most of these students attended Baseline Elementary when it was part of the PCSSD. After the territorial shift, they were necessarily reassigned to new Bates. While the assignment to old Bates did not create a substantial transportation burden for these students, their continued assignment to new Bates would. Because this group o( students largely mirrors the racial composition of the PCSSD as a whole, and because :::.. their assignment to Landmark would represent a somewhat reduced transportation obligation for them, the PCSSD believes it to be educationally sound for these students to be assigned to Landmark Elementary. The Saline County Students These students are located, geographically, on the far west side of the southeast sector. Prior to the desegregation plan, these students were assigned to Landmark Elementary as their closest school. In an effort to racially balance Fuller Elementary, these students were reassigned during the late 1980s to Fuller Elementary School, a considerable distance from their homes. To partially replace the Wrightsville students proposed for reassignment to new Bates, to reduce the transportation obligation for the Saline County students, who would otherwise be bused from the west to the east side of the sector, and to hopefully recoup some of the student losses that the District has 184914-v1 4 experienced from the Saline County area, the PCSSD believes it to be educationally sound to transfer the Saline County students from new Bates to Landmark. The Landmark Specialty Students The PCSSD is also seeking permission to shift the art and music specialty program from Landmark to new Bates for the 2001-2002 school year. Even without the specialty students, Landmark is projected to be comfortably within the student assignment ratios for the PCSSD. The PCSSD further believes that new Bates would prove an attractive alternative to the specialty students since it would provide a shorter and more convenient transportation trip and would house the specialty students in a brand new school. All of these specialty students are white. Their transfer to new Bates would significantly reduce the initially projected minority enrollment at the school and, over time, the PCSSD believes that the transfer of the program would increase the number of white transfer students electing to attend the school, thereby annually moving new Bates closer to its ultimate racial balance goals. Because the sixth graders will be at the new Bates for the 2000-2001 year until the sixth grade is shifted to what will be Fuller Middle in 2001-2002, the transfer of the specialty program needs to be delayed until space opens up. By delaying the movement of this program until 2001-2002, the PCSSD should have ample time to educate and persuade the specialty students and their parents that movement of the specialty program to new Bates is a sound educational move. 184914-v1 5 The Long Term As this court is aware, the PCSSD proposes to shift to a middle school structure district wide beginning with the 2001-2002 school year. Little Rock has already completed this reorganization and the Court has previously approved the middle school concept in PCSSD's Jacksonville area. (Docket #2647). The PCSSD believes that the middle school concept, combined with the shifting of the Saline County students to Landmark and the reconstitution of the art and music specialty program at new Bates, will ultimately result in an increased white enrollment in these southeast sector schools. Except for the middle school concept, nothing about the current proposal will modify the feeder pattern to Fuller Junior High School and Mills High School. Neither will any of the proposals contained, herein, affect the current student assignment effort at College Station Elementary. It is also worth mentioning that the shift of the Fuller Elementary student body to new Bates will bring with it the string orchestra specialty program currently provided at Fuller Elementary. The PCSSD believes that the reconstitution of the art and music program from Landmark at new Bates, combined with the move of the string orchestra program from Fuller Elementary to new Bates, and the institution of a full-time physical education curriculum, will work a synergy making these programs even more attractive to white students from north of the Arkansas River since those interested in music in all of its dimensions will have more opportunities for this experience at new Bates if the PCSSD proposal is approved. 184914-v1 6 For all the foregoing reasons, PCSSD prays for an order of this Court approving its motion to modify student assignment plan. 184914-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By V . J~~ 'f:f i-~6..J, ~ M. Samuel Jones 7(i666oj ( q7( 5\u003c-J) Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On JuneZ..3 , 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 184914-v1 8 - -- REC.EIV~D bJi__;--:[) EAST~ffN ~if ~,hl ~~~~SAS JUN 2 J 2000 JAMES 'N. McCGRMACK, LERK By: _____ _,,D.,...E\"\"P-,-.C\"LE-.-RroK JUN 2 8 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V CASE NO. 82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS OPPOSITION OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR COURT APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION The Joshua Intervenors oppose the defendants' motion. First, there were no discussions as contemplated by the desegregation plan between the parties prior to this matter having been presented to the Court. See Letter from Mr. Jones to the Court dated May 24, 2000 as Exhibit A; Letter to the Court from undersigned Counsel dated June 12, 2000 as Exhibit B. Second, there is no brief attached to the motion as required by the local rules. Third, the business case does not address desegregation issues nor does it address how the changes will effectuate the desegregation commitments of the revised desegregation plan. Fourth, the business case is one which purports to save the school district money and nothing else. It does not address the desegregation staff nor define the work duties and responsibilities of those individuals. There is not a proposed job description of the new position that has been shared with Joshua. Indeed, there are myriad problems that should have been considered in the normal course of addressing desegregation issues that have not been addresse\u0026' by the proposal. These matters could have been dealt with as contemplated by the desegregation plan had the administration not sought to evade the Joshua Intervenors and had they not sought to denigrate Joshua's role in the desegregation process. Fifth, the Superintendent for Desegregation had a responsibility in the past for oversight of the Pupil Personnel Department and other departments, at least to the extent of identification of potential problems, which impeded desegregation and to make recommendations to the Superintendent directly. The current proposal is unclear, at the least, about what the duties of the position are or will be in the future. Sixth, the combination of the two positions will mean the elimination of two black - administrators from the major administrative hierarchy of the District. There is no reference to the process that the District will use to fill positions and it was, therefore, highly suspect that the District will fill the two vacated positions with white administrators who have already been selected. Seventh, to this date. Neither the Superintendent nor his major administrator, Dr. James Fox, have had any meetings whatsoever with counsel for Joshua Intervenors regarding any issue. As stated earlier, it is Joshua's opinion that they are uninformed and uncertain to the desegregation initiatives and commitments that have been in place in the District for years. (See Joshua's previous brief to the Court regarding the District's Motion to Approve Revised Desegregation Plan). Because of the uncertainties of the Defendants' proposal and how it will impact desegregation, and because Defendants' by p "}],"pages":{"current_page":12,"next_page":13,"prev_page":11,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":132,"total_count":413,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":412},{"value":"StillImage","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":135},{"value":"Oklahoma. Supreme Court","hits":34},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":16},{"value":"United States. Supreme Court","hits":7},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":5},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":5},{"value":"Freeling, S. P. (Sargent Prentiss), 1874-1937","hits":4},{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":3},{"value":"Van Leuven, Kathryn, 1888-1967","hits":3},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":2},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":163},{"value":"School integration","hits":160},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":136},{"value":"Race riots--Oklahoma--Tulsa--History--20th century","hits":132},{"value":"Tulsa (Okla.)--Race relations","hits":132},{"value":"Tulsa (Okla.)--Social conditions--20th century","hits":132},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":130},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":129},{"value":"Police misconduct--Oklahoma--Tulsa","hits":126},{"value":"Police--Oklahoma--Tulsa","hits":126},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":113}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Gustafson, John A.--Trials, litigation, etc.","hits":129},{"value":"Fisher, Ada Lois Sipuel, 1924-1995--Trials, litigation, etc.","hits":34},{"value":"Freeling, Sargent Prentiss, 1874-1937","hits":21},{"value":"Van Leuven, Kathryn, 1888-1967","hits":10},{"value":"Seaver, W. F., 1849-","hits":9},{"value":"Brown, Oliver, 1918-1961--Trials, litigation, etc.","hits":5},{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":5},{"value":"Brown, Oliver, 1918-1961","hits":3},{"value":"Seavers--Trials, litigation, etc.","hits":3},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Heller, Christopher","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Gustafson, John A.","hits":129},{"value":"Fisher, Ada Lois Sipuel, 1924-1995","hits":33},{"value":"Freeling, Sargent Prentiss, 1874-1937","hits":21},{"value":"Brown, Oliver, 1918-1961","hits":6},{"value":"Adams, E. A. (Eugene Avery), 1886-1968","hits":1},{"value":"Briggs, Harry, -1986","hits":1},{"value":"Ferguson, John H. (Judge)","hits":1},{"value":"Marshall, Thurgood, 1908-1993","hits":1},{"value":"Plessy, Homer Adolph","hits":1},{"value":"Robertson, J. B. A. (James Brooks Ayers), 1871-1938","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Brown versus Board of Education","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":240},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":232},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":232},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":168},{"value":"United States, Oklahoma, Tulsa County, Tulsa, 36.15398, -95.99277","hits":132},{"value":"United States, Oklahoma, 35.49209, -97.50328","hits":35},{"value":"United States, Kansas, Shawnee County, Topeka, 39.04833, -95.67804","hits":7},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432","hits":4},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Texas, 31.25044, -99.25061","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":232},{"value":"Oklahoma","hits":167},{"value":"Kansas","hits":7},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":5},{"value":"Texas","hits":2},{"value":"Alabama","hits":1},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":1},{"value":"Georgia","hits":1},{"value":"Louisiana","hits":1},{"value":"New York","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1921","hits":129},{"value":"1946","hits":37},{"value":"1947","hits":37},{"value":"1948","hits":37},{"value":"2011","hits":30},{"value":"1997","hits":29},{"value":"1996","hits":25},{"value":"2002","hits":19},{"value":"2001","hits":18},{"value":"1998","hits":16},{"value":"2010","hits":15},{"value":"1999","hits":14},{"value":"2003","hits":12},{"value":"2000","hits":11},{"value":"2004","hits":10},{"value":"1954","hits":9},{"value":"1995","hits":9},{"value":"2007","hits":9},{"value":"2005","hits":8},{"value":"2009","hits":8},{"value":"2006","hits":7},{"value":"2012","hits":7},{"value":"1951","hits":6},{"value":"1953","hits":6},{"value":"2008","hits":6},{"value":"1923","hits":5},{"value":"1955","hits":5},{"value":"1957","hits":5},{"value":"1949","hits":4},{"value":"1950","hits":4},{"value":"1952","hits":4},{"value":"1956","hits":4},{"value":"1958","hits":4},{"value":"1959","hits":4},{"value":"1960","hits":4},{"value":"1961","hits":4},{"value":"1962","hits":4},{"value":"1963","hits":4},{"value":"1964","hits":4},{"value":"1965","hits":4},{"value":"1966","hits":4},{"value":"1967","hits":4},{"value":"1972","hits":4},{"value":"1974","hits":4},{"value":"1994","hits":4},{"value":"1896","hits":3},{"value":"1917","hits":3},{"value":"1920","hits":3},{"value":"1938","hits":3},{"value":"1939","hits":3},{"value":"1940","hits":3},{"value":"1941","hits":3},{"value":"1942","hits":3},{"value":"1943","hits":3},{"value":"1944","hits":3},{"value":"1945","hits":3},{"value":"1968","hits":3},{"value":"1969","hits":3},{"value":"1970","hits":3},{"value":"1971","hits":3},{"value":"1973","hits":3},{"value":"1975","hits":3},{"value":"1976","hits":3},{"value":"1977","hits":3},{"value":"1978","hits":3},{"value":"1979","hits":3},{"value":"1980","hits":3},{"value":"1981","hits":3},{"value":"1982","hits":3},{"value":"1983","hits":3},{"value":"1984","hits":3},{"value":"1985","hits":3},{"value":"1986","hits":3},{"value":"1987","hits":3},{"value":"1988","hits":3},{"value":"1989","hits":3},{"value":"1990","hits":3},{"value":"1991","hits":3},{"value":"1992","hits":3},{"value":"1993","hits":3},{"value":"1772","hits":2},{"value":"1773","hits":2},{"value":"1774","hits":2},{"value":"1775","hits":2},{"value":"1776","hits":2},{"value":"1777","hits":2},{"value":"1778","hits":2},{"value":"1779","hits":2},{"value":"1780","hits":2},{"value":"1781","hits":2},{"value":"1782","hits":2},{"value":"1783","hits":2},{"value":"1784","hits":2},{"value":"1785","hits":2},{"value":"1786","hits":2},{"value":"1787","hits":2},{"value":"1788","hits":2},{"value":"1789","hits":2},{"value":"1790","hits":2},{"value":"1791","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1493","max":"2017","count":1304,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"judicial records","hits":413},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":45},{"value":"affidavits","hits":16},{"value":"briefs (legal documents)","hits":5},{"value":"correspondence","hits":3},{"value":"memorandums","hits":3},{"value":"decisions","hits":2},{"value":"forms (documents)","hits":2},{"value":"government records","hits":2},{"value":"legal documents","hits":2},{"value":"petitions","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":232},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":38},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":7},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":2},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":232},{"value":"Tulsa Race Massacre Collection","hits":132},{"value":"Ada Lois Sipuel v. Board of Regents University of Oklahoma, 1948-","hits":33},{"value":"Records of the Supreme Court of the United States 1772 – 2007","hits":6},{"value":"New insights in the American civil rights movement: South Carolina Council on Human Relations records","hits":2},{"value":"Eugene Avery Adams Papers, 1892-1968","hits":1},{"value":"Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History: The Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":232},{"value":"Oklahoma. Department of Libraries","hits":166},{"value":"United States. National Archives and Records Administration","hits":7},{"value":"Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History","hits":2},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":2},{"value":"Dwight D. Eisenhower Library","hits":1},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":1},{"value":"Tarlton Law Library","hits":1},{"value":"United States. National Archives and Records Administration. Atlanta Branch","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":407},{"value":"Collection","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":413}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}