{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1676","title":"Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; 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":["1999-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","School discipline","Students","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; 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/1676"],"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":["36 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.  MAY 11 1999 - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONlTORma IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, No. LR-C-82-866 ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY t O 1999 JAMES1W. M\\CORMACK, CLERK By: \\_ ,~ U ['\\ MO ,y' OEP CLERK Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") to increase the MRC office budget from $150,000 per year to $185,000 per year effective with the 1998-99 school year. The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court by the chair of the MRC in a letter dated January 6, 1999 (attached). After reviewing the matter, the Court is inclined to approve the request. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals established the MRC in 1987 to supervise the operations of the six magnet schools in the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"). The District - Court later allocated $150,000 per year to fund the operations of the MRC and its office. The 3261 Court determined that the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of Education - (\"ADE\"), should pay $75,000 of that allocation and each of the three Pulaski County school districts should pay $25,000. The MRC has never presented its office budget to the Court for annual approval; instead, the MRC staff has reconfigured line item allocations each year to total $150,000 and the MRC members have approved that budget each year. In the letter submission, the MRC chair explained that, over the years, normal inflation in the price of goods and services has strained the committee's $150,000 budget. Additionally, notes accompanying the budget explain that the restructuring of LRSD schools to accommodate the middle school initiative has required some substantial changes in the magnet schools. These changes necessitate an increase in advertising and recruitment costs, because brochures and other recruitment materials must be redesigned, printed, and distributed. The MRC further requests that the budget increase to $185,000 be shared by the ADE and the three districts in the same proportions as in the past, increasing the state's share (which is one-half) to $92,500 and each district's share (which is one-sixth) to $30,833 .33. The letter submission asserts that four MRC members voted for the increase, one abstained, and one was absent. In August of 1998, the MRC approved a budget for the 1998-99 school year for the usual total of $150,000 in an apparent failure to foresee the need for increases in the same year. The need for additional funds to flow quickly to the MRC leads the Court to believe the request for a budget increase to $185,000 for 1998-99 should be approved. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to approve MRC' s request for an increase in its 1998- 99 budget from $150,000 to $185,000. The Court will allow the parties until and including May 2 24, 1999, in which to object to MRC's request. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order providing that within one week, each of the parties is to pay the MRC the amount of money that represents the difference between what the parties have already paid for the 1998-99 MRC budget and the expanded 1998-99 MRC budget hereby approved. IT IS SO ORDERED this J'-day of 1.--- 1999. IA?.,\"'~ '-BfIBFm(}\"\"\"-t UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET 1H XMPUA~ woi; ~if 58 ANDIOR ?9(1) fRCP )N b -I .. !Y .1C ~ 3 ?~{~j~~if~ .nna Grady Crear Executive Director ' C January 6, 1999 . 7 (501) 758-01156 ' , I\", r  I. ;~;~;.~~j~~~~tt~:: ~.-  ii; I _..\"S, , .,_~ ,./~--; ,.-- . :..- -:- -: .... :.\"'-~  .' *~ - ', -2- January 6, 1999 ~.. , I ~ :(.;'~ { - contribution $92,5001$7S,OOO, plus the additional $17,5001. The $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 231. lnaeose in the budgeted amount for the Magnet Review Committee. If you should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely, ~~f Magnet ReYiew Committee .  . cc: ..;.,. ,. j J \"\\ .. , -~ : ;i  ? .; EXPENDITURES 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ AQ1.!AL ~ ~ 8MQUNT FRINGE BENERTS 9,500 14,173.16 12,800 20,819.94 lndudes Social Security, Medicare, Teacher Retirement, Life Insurance, Health Insurance and Dental tn the approved budget, this figure was Input at a lower rate, due to the anticipated changes in teacher retirement, insurance, etc. The new figure most accurately reflects the costs for this line item. PRQFES~IQNAL ~ TECHNI~ Sc\u0026Yl!:ES 11,800 16,925.68 12,000 1s.ooo Utilization of persons or organizations to provide specialized services. This category indudes costs of the lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Evaluation Annual Report, and the monthly travel allowance provided to the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. - Because of additional professional services required as a resuh of providing updated recruiting tools /e.g., creative layout and design for brochures, radio/TV ads, etcJ and the Website master ad design which reflect changes in magnet schools, including new prindpals, updated curriculum, and the middle school transition, an increase in this line item is expected. MAJNTENA~E QF tQUleMcNT ~ VEHICLES 1,600 733.45 1.400 l,650 This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier, the phone system and the IBM Personal Typing System in the MRC Office. Because of contrad cost increases since the equipment is over ten years old, an increase in expenses is expected. - - MRC EXPENDITURES !Continued) Poge2 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ ACIIJAI. ~ ~ ~Q!.!MI RENTAL QE LANO ANO ~!.!!LOI~ 14,256 14.256 14,256 14.256 Monthly rent for the MRC Office is Sl.188.0011.296 square feet) and will remain that amount. TRAVEL QUT OF [)ISJRICT 6,000 7,984.05 3,500 6.000 This line item is used to send MRC members to the International Magnet Schools of America Conference and the NCSD Conference each year. The re~ amount is requested to bring travel funds back to the 1991-98 budgeted amount. POSTAGE 2.000 2,492.25 2,500 2,500 lndudes postage necessary to respond to parent inquiries. bulk mailings for recruitment purposes, and all other moilouts as necessary for the operation of the MRC office. No change in amount is requested. TELEPHONE 3,500 3,418.31 3,500 *4.225 lndudes monthly billings and long distance charges. Internet access monthly charges. and FAX expenses. The Internet access hos been added to the MRC's computer system. and the telephone/communication costs wil go up in this category. - MRC EXPENOOURES IContinuedl Poge3 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 \"1998-99 ~ ACil.!Al. aJ.!.C2QfI RfY!ill2 AMOUNI ADVERTISING 23,600 25,658 .35 23,595 36,900 The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students to magnet schools and M-to-M transfer. with new prindpals in place in several of the magnet schools. new curriculum information to be distributed, and the middle schools transition taking place. a reconfiguration of all advertising brochures, M-to-M flyers, videos and any other materials requiring modification is necessary. PRINTING ANO BINDING 2,800 2,560.25 1,200 3,200 This category ties in with - advertising expense. Even though the MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs, such as application forms for magnet schools for enroll-ment. ore handled by outside agencies. Again, this amount has been increased to handle large proieefs related to advertising the changes in the schools' make-up, new prindpa/s, and curriculum changes. - MRC EXPENOOURES !Continued) Poge4 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ ACil.!AI. .eJ.!.QQfI ~ AMQUNT QTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 3,000 5,025.68 2,000 4,000 lndudes any outside help necessary to finish a job for the MRC Office. This will also indude the cost for our fiscal agent. oue to increased meeting adiYities, Magnet Fair expenses. all other recruitment fundions, and contrad labor for incidental i\u003cJbs, this amount has been increased from the 1997-98 budget. SUPI\\IES 1,800 1,872.36 1,500 1.405.06 Materials necessary for the operation of the Magnet Review Committee Office. PERIQDICALS 616 604.78 500 595 Used to purchase media of interest to the MRC and its activities le.g .. Education Week. Arkan~s Democrat-Gazette, Arkan~s Times, Magnet Schools of America materials!. Also includes MSA yearly membership fee to obtain a reduced rote for the MSA Conference in the spring. The amount requested hos been adiusted to keep in line 'Mfh the 1997-98 actual expenses. MRC EX?ENQIIURB IConttnuedl 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 a.u..coo: ~ a.u..coo: CAPIT Al Olffi.AY 1,500 733.45 500 This category is used for any major expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such OS a copier, computer. or office furniture. with the approved 1998-99 budget in August, the MRC was planning not to make any major purchases for the office. The copy machine and the telephone system are over ten years old. Some expenses are anticipated for this category. TOT AL EXPENDITURES 81,972 96,437 .77 79,251 SALARIES ~ ZQ.7~9,00 7Q749 TOTALS 150,000 167. 186.77 150,000 NOTE: Salary increases will be determined later in the year. ofter final negotiations ore completed. and district salary increases ore established. At that time, it will be determined if. and how much. an increase can be incorporated into the budget. Page5 1998-99 ~ AMO!.!NI *3,700 114,251 70,749 185,000 ... IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STA TE RECEIVED MAY 1 2 1999 OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE DAMAGES For their motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) (the \"Districts\") state: 1. On February 18, 1997, this Court found that the state changed its method of funding the teacher retirement program to the detriment of the districts and in violation of the settlement agreement. This Court made the same finding with respect to the health insurance matching program on April 22, 1997. On July 1, 1998 the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's decisions with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance and directed this Court to decide what relief would be appropriate for the districts. 2. After a hearing, all of the other parties agreed to accept the state's proposed methodology for calculating damages. That methodology is set forth in Court's Exhibit 504. See - Exhibit A to \"Motion for an Order Directing the State to Distribut the Districts' Undisputed Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Damages,\" filed February 9, 1999. 3. On February 9, 1999 the districts asked the Court to order the state to pay the undisputed amount shown in Exhibit 504 for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years. On March 4, 1999, this Court entered the requested order. The districts' efforts to reach an agreement with the state for payment for the 1998-99 school year and future years have been unsuccessful. The districts must therefore seek an order from this Court requiring those payments. 4. Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the state should be ordered to reimburse the districts each year on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current state minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made in June of each year using current year actual participation numbers. - For the 1998-99 school year, the state should be ordered to immediately pay the districts the amount necessary to bring it into compliance with this paragraph. The districts have agreed that the total amount of damages calculated according to the methodology set forth in Court's Exhibit 504 should be distributed each year as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD and 10% to NLRSD. 5. There remain issues to be resolved by this Court, including the issue of prejudgment interest and the issue of whether the state should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by the other school districts in the state. It is not necessary for the Court to resolve those issues at this time in order to provide the relief the districts seek in this motion. 2 I , WHEREFORE, the districts pray that the state be ordered to immediately pay the districts' damages for the 1998-99 school year calculated in accordance with Court's Exhibit 504 subject to an adjustment in June, 1999; and, using the methodology in Court's Exhibit 504, to reimburse the districts in future years on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current year state minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made each June based on current year actual participation numbers; and that the districts be awarded interest, costs, attorneys' fees and all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501-371-0808 Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 3 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501-375-1122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 11 th day of May, 1999: 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 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 4 1 Margie L. Powell Associate Monitor DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS IN THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT M.i\\Y l ::J 1999 May 19, 1999 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Coun Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor 'A ' ;:- ... I\\' ., ... .J 1v,~~ ; ; ,. -~c0c., _. , ,....,, c -- .  - .. ~J7,:1 \\\\,,.1(\\ . -.\" , By: I - -  1(\\ Polly Ramer Office Manager IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 2 7 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et aL DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO THE DISTRICTS' \"MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE DAMAGES\" In this motion the Districts ask for immediate payment of their teacher - retirement and health insurance damages for the 1998-99 school year. To date those payments have not been made, and no \"immediate\" payment should be ordered, for two reasons. First, no calculations for FY 1999 payments can be made, even under the meH1.0dology set fort.'h in Court's Exl-dbit 504, because the information necessary to calculate the retirement and health insurance \"remedy'\" for FY 1999 is not yet available and will not be available until at least the end of FY 1999. The methodology set forth in Exhibit 504 requires, among other things, each District's and the total statewide health insurance costs for all school districts for the entire fiscal year. For FY 1999, this information will not be available until some time after the fiscal year has concluded. Further, the methodology set forth in Exhibit 504 also requires that retirement and 1 health insurance costs attributable to ODM employees for the entire fiscal year be excluded from the calculation. To date LRSD has not provided that information to ADE for FY 1999, and that information will not be available until after the fiscal year has ended. Second, this Court has before it issues concerning the calculation of the appropriate \"remedy'' that should be resolved before any further payments to the Districts are ordered. In addition to the Districts' baseless claims that they are entitled to prejudgment interest and to \"damages\" that would result in payments to them in excess of 100% of their retirement and health insurance costs, the Districts are apparently still not satisfied with the source data that forms the basis of the calculations set forth in Exhibit 504. See the Districts' \"Motion for an Order Directing the State to Distribute the Districts' Undisputed Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Damages,\" filed February 9, 1999, in which the Districts state that they believe Exhibit 504 \"should be revised a second time to reflect better information obtained by the Districts concerning their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs.\" In short, the Districts continue to dispute various issues concerning the appropriate \"remedy'' and no further payments should be ordered until those issues have been resolved by this Court 2 Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant A y General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on May 25, 1999, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by first class U.S. Mail on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M.SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN l 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG 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 May, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Att e General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED ST ATES 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 Arl\u003cansas 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 May 31 , 1999 Based on the information available at April 30, 1999, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 98/99, subject to periodic adjustments. 8. 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_1686","title":"Court filings: District Court, motion for extension of time by Knight intervenors to response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, reply of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to the Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; 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":["1999-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Knight Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School districts"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, motion for extension of time by Knight intervenors to response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, reply of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to the Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; 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/1686"],"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":["52 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.  ... 1q ... ,~ , , 1 \\':1  ' ' '  . ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT}Df ~SAS WESTERN D~I't)i'r - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT gg APR -S lit1 I I '\"'.; PLAINTIFF JAME3 Vf. MCC~! ff:;~.r\u003e  .-1  .. VS. NO. J!;:i-~g:zls6~0fr, T. :::. BY- -0...,.E.,,..Pl.i.\",,i. ':' CU:b PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME BY KNIGHT INTERVENORS TO RESPONSE TO PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION AND POST APR UNITARY COMMITMENTS OFFICE OF . . . DESEGREGATION MONlTDRIMG Kathenne Knight, et al., Intervenors, by and through theIT attorneys, Roacheff - Law Firm, for their Motion, states: 1. The Motion of PCSSD for release from Federal Court supervision and post unitary commitments was received in this office on Tuesday, March 30, 1999. On that date and before the mail had run, counsel for these Intervenors had left for depositions in Helena, Arkansas on March 31 and April 1, 1999. Upon returning on April 2, 1999, Intervenors counsel actually received and read the PCSSD Petition. 2. All three Districts' employee organizations (LRCTA, NLRCTA and PACT) were off work\u003c April 2, 1999 through the Easter weekend. Therefore, it is impossible for these Intervenors to respond in the time allowed if they do so choose to respond. skp9 l 2.500.doc WHEREFORE, these Intervenors pray that the Court grant a seven (7) day extension of time, within which to file any response to the PCSSD Petition and for all other relief to which they be entitled. Respectfully submitted, :o, :_ ~ .Ct~..4u. ~ - - - - ---- --- Richard W. Roachell, #78132 Roachell Law Firm 504 Lyon Building 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon the following this 5th day of April, 1999. Mr. John Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 skp9 I 2.500.doc M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Ste 2200 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 -~-r ~kansas 72'f\\  ~ \\' --~ \" lc .. J..r..\\..\\- Richard W. Roachell FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS e omc1: 1J~ DESEGREGATION MOWOH\\NG IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR O 6 1I \"'j'\"j'\"J JAMES w. ~AMACK, CLERK By: \\) \\ l,1,,J :\\ 1\\ C I ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL * DISTRICT No. 1, et al., * * Defendants. * * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * * lntervenors, * * * KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., * * lntervenors, * ORDER The motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension oftime until and including April 20, 1999 in which to fiie a response to the PCSSD petition for reiease from federai court supervision is hereby granted. The Knight Intervenors' motion for an extension oftime to file a response to PCSSD's motion is likewise granted and they, too, shall have until and including April 20, 1999 in which to respond to PCSSD's motion. !TIS SO ORDERED this (;.Aday of cf 4, f_ I 999. ~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COUPUANJE vm-~ RULE se AND/OR 79(a) FACP m :f: ~ ~ z:'.'.1' ev.-e_t:_ ___ DEP CLERK u.fo!bfcPuAr EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS APR 161999 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK ey: -------=~::-,-::-,,.,., LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAI~~~ilfAK V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. , RECEIVED APR 19 19B~ omce=.o;r DfSf61111TJCN MO'Ntfffifll@ DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors' Response to the PCSSD Petition for Release From court supervision and Post-unitary commitments The PCSSD has renewed its effort to secure the entry of an order \"declaring that the PCSSD has earned unitary status and releas[ing] [the district] from further court supervision.\" The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court: ( i) deny .. _ the specific relief sought by the PCSSD, (ii) treat the totality of the new PCSSD submission, in accord with its terms, as a request to substitute a new plan for the current plans, and (iii) declare that the new plan can be approved as a revised settlement agreement, except for its provisions defining the duration of the court's jurisdiction by reference to an arbitrary date rather than by reference to sustained, adequate compliance with the plan's terms. The current petition, of course, omits some important prior 1 I I I I I I I I I history. First. On October 14, 1997, the PCSSD filed an almost identical \"Petition for Release from Federal Court Supervi si on.\" l Secon d . . On Decem be r 2, 1997, th e Jos h ua Intervenors filed their opposition to the petition, setting forth the legal standards deemed to apply to its resolution and discussing the various facets of the system's operation, which the district had addressed. Third. The -Joshua Intervenors undertook written discovery and took numerous depositions. Fourth. The court conducted a three-day hearing on the petition in the period June 29 to July 1, 1998. Fifth. After the hearing, the Joshua Intervenors and the PCSSD each filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as comments on the submission of the other party. Sixth. On September 28, 1998, upon learning of renewed settlement discussions, the court denied the petition without prejudice, and cited the system's right to refile the petition should settlement efforts fail. Seventh. The system has refiled its petition. This history and the congruence of the two versions of the petition shed light on what need n2t: be done at this time. That is, there is no need to conduct new discovery, have a new evidentiary hearing, or file again contentions regarding the content of the 1998 hearing and relevant aspe~ts of th record. 1 The  current document differs in only two ways, substantively. The second paragraph and the attachment concerning the so-called post-unitary commitments are new. At pages 27-28, in the discussion on discipline, a chart which appeared in the first version of the petition has been omitted. The reason for this omission may be that the chart was deemed to depict the racial disparities in discipline too graphically. 2 Intervenors have already addressed the relevant legal standards and the evidence showing that due to inadequate implementation of the current plans, the PCSSD has 11 [not] earned unitary status [or] release ... from further court supervision. 11 Intervenors rely upon their prior submissions, filed on December 2, 1997 (opposition), September 1, 1998 (proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law), and September 16, 1998 (comments on PCSSD findings and conclusions). But for the PCSSD's inclusion in its Petition of what it labels \"Pulaski County Special School District Post Unitary Commitments\" (March 9, 1999), Intervenors could rest on the foregoing argument. The commitments document requires a response, however. Indeed, it provides a vehicle to improve upon the poor record of implementation revealed by the proceedings following the filing of the first version of the petition. Provisions concerning the continuation of this court's jurisdiction are a central feature of the commitments document. The submission is~ a compilation of policies and practices to be followed after this court's jurisdiction ends. The language to which intervenors refer is as follows (at 8-9): A. scope of This Cominitment (1) This Commitment shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Pulaski County Special School District with the following exceptions. (a) The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case \"Settlement Agreement\" as revised on September 28, 1989; 3 (b) The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; (c) Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; (d) The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and (e) Orders of the district court and the court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections (a) through (d) above to the extent not inconsistent with this Commitment. N. continuing Jurisdiction (1) General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this commitment during its term, as described in Parts N, P and Q. Nothing in this Commitment shall affect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Commitment in the manner required by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. (2) Process for Raising compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court to exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the Joshua Intervenors shall follow the procedures set forth below. [Sub-parts (a) to (c) omitted] (d) If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by the Department of Justice, Community Relations S~rvice, the Joshua Intervenors may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. The court may fashion relief. (e) Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, PCSSD shall be free to implement the programs, policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with this Commitment. o. The scope of compliance Issues The compliance issues subject to enforcement in accordance with Section N. shall include. the PCSSD's implementation of the terms of the Commitment, as well as the standards supplied in accordance with this Commitment ... 4 Q. unitary status The PCSSD believes that it has earned unitary status. Upon execution of this Colllillitment, the PCSSD will petition the court for the district's immediate release from court supervision, subject however to the terms of this Commitment. Provided, however, that the PCSSD shall continue as a party litigant until its final claims against the state defendants and parties as well as those against LRSD have been fully and finally adjudicated. In short, the commitments document sets forth the anticipation of the PCSSD that the court's jurisdiction will continue and addresses the manner in which that jurisdiction will be invoked, as well as the types of compliance issues which may be raised. Furthermore, the substantive portions of the document further identify the areas of potential court activity by setting forth provisions addressing discipline (at 3), multicultural education (at 4), school facilities (at 4), school resources (at - 5), staff (at 6), personnel (at 6), student achievement (at 6 and attachment), etc. The court, intervenors respectfully submit, should treat the commitments document as what its terms show it to be -- a request by the PCSSD to substitute a new plan as the basis for the system's remedial obligations. Respectfully, the court should rule that the motion could be granted, if the terms of the commitments document (revised plan) were modified so that the duration of the court's jurisdiction depended upon the quality of implementation rather than an arbitrary time period. (This topic 5 is discussed below.) 2 Substitution of the new plan would be beneficial. A review of its substantive features reveals a focus upon areas shown by the hearings last summer to require a renewed and more-targeted emphasis, such as discipline, facilities and student achievement . 3 While briefer than the current plans, the plan identifies many specific remedial activities. The system would be required to focus its monitoring efforts on the steps required by the new plan, develop a plan to do so, and identify the persons responsible for implementation of particular features. See page 7, N.(l). There would be no impeding of ODM monitoring. The system would continue to provide the data which ODM has used for many of its reports. See pages 7-8, N.(3). ODM could also test compliance with the various specific activities promised by the district. Lastly, intervenors feel certain that the PCSSD would respond positively to ODM re~ests to participate in the various projects identified in the proposal. Intervenors' approach finds support in the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order in this case of April 10, 1998, approving the joint motion of the LRSD and these intervenors for a revised plan for the LRSD. At a general level, the order evidences that the earlier plans are not cast in concrete. 2 The need for approval by the court was and is obvious. The PCSSD could not expect to invest the court with jurisdiction and delineate the scope of that jurisdiction, unilaterally. 3 See \"The Joshua Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ... ,\" 9-1-98, at 8-14 (discipline), 14-18 (facilities), and 23-38 (student achievement). 6 This court approved the LRSD revision as \"an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between the LRSD and Joshua\" (at 3), or, alternatively, as \"a modification of the 1990 Plan\" (at 5). The former approach, relying upon the standard set forth in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990), may be deemed applicable here. See Mem. Opin. and Order at 3-5 (standard applied). The PCSSD has put forward a new consent decree or settlement agreement and the Intervenors have indicated, in this response, that they agree to its approval, with one exception dealing with the duration of the court's jurisdiction. This court, as explained in the opi nion last year dealing with the LRSD revision, can not pick and choose among the parts of the parties' proposal. Mem. at 4. It may identify those parts deemed to warrant approval, suggest modifications, and leave it to a party or the parties to demonstrate that the court's objections have been satisfi~d . .Ig. The reasons why the provisions with which each party agrees should be approved are as follows. The law strongly favors such agreements. Isl- at 3. ODM monitoring can continue unimpeded. Mat 5. The revised proposal \"is not manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face.\" Isl- at 5. Indeed, the revision \"furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties.\" .Ig. at 7. This leaves the matter of the duration of the commitment. The commitment provides in Part N.(l) that this court 7 shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this commitment during its tern, as described in Parts N, P and Q. (emphasis added). Part P. provides: The Term of the commitment The term of this conunitment shall begin upon court approval and shall terminate as of June 30, 2001. The last part of the agreement pertinent in assessing the duration of the court's jurisdiction, as proposed by the PCSSD, is Part N.(3), which reads: (3) Notwithstanding Part 2, invocation by June 30, 2001 of the process described in Part N shall be regarded as timely invocation of the entire process. Under these provisions, as a .totality, the term of the court's jurisdiction could extend beyond June 30, 2001, if the Joshua Intervenors had invoked the Part N.(2} process for raising compliance issues before that date. In this event, the term would depend on any period of relie_f., after June 30, 2001, entered by the court, to compensate for any earlier period of noncompliance. Nevertheless, the duration of jurisdiction would not necessarily be measured by the adequacy of compliance. And that is objectionable to intervenors. Three sources, two from this case, support intervenors' argument that the duration of jurisdiction should be geared to the attainment of sustained and adequate compliance. First. In LRSD v, PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th cir. 1990), in the opinion first approving the settlement, the court alluded to the need of the parties to \"scrupulously and diligently carry out the 8 ,---------------------- - - --- - - - ----- -- -- -- -- settlement plans and the settlement agreement .... \" Second. In the key decision addressing the duration of jurisdiction, outside the realm of agreed plans, the Supreme Court in Freeman y. Pitts, 118 L.Ed.2d 108, 134-35 {1992), identified one relevant factor as 0 whether there has been full and satisfactory compliance with the decree in those aspects of the system where supervision is to be withdrawn; ... \"Third.The revised plan for the LRSD allows the Joshua Intervenors to secure the continuation of the plan by demonstrating, before it expires, that the LRSD has not substantially complied with its terms. The LRSD is to submit a written report, addressing overall implementation, to facilitate consideration of the matter. In summary, in each instance, the focus is upon strong - compliance with substantive standards. Jurisdiction does not end - after an arbitrary time period, without regard to the quality of implementation. conclusion The Joshua Intervenors respectfully -request that the court: (1.) deny the petition of the PCSSD seeking a declaration of unitary status and a release from court supervision, for the reasons expressed by the intervenors in their submissions in response to the earlier version of the PCSSD petition; (2.) declare that the commitment document is acceptable as an amended settlement agreement, except for the provisions concerning the duration of the court's jurisdiction, to the extent that the duration of the court's jurisdiction does not 9 - . turn on the achievement of sustained, adequate compliance; and . ~ (3.) allow the parties to correct the defects in the commitment document (revised agreement) and refile it for approval. Rob rtPressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. # 405900 Respectfully submitted, Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ark. # 405900 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 JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR . GORDON S. RATHER, JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M . POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JIit. 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 NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY 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: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 WEBS ITE : www .wl j .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Wr i ter's Oi recl Dial No . 501-2121273 mjones(l)wlj .com April 30, 1999 TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY. JR . KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J, SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON DONS. McKI NNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRI STI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES 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. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 OFFICE OP DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed is a copy of Reply of PCSSD to the Joshua lntervenors' Response to the PCSSD Petition for Release from Federal Court Supervision and Post-Unitary Commitments which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 100174-v1 Cordially, 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. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS REPLY OF PCSSD TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION AND POST-UNITARY COMMITMENTS UNITARY STATUS Several comments are in order concerning the Joshua response. In opposing a declaration of unitary status, Joshua asserts that it has \"[a]lready addressed the relevant legal standards and the evidence showing that due to inadequate implementation of the current plans, the PCSSD has [not] earned unitary status ... \" Joshua Response, page 3. (emphasis added). The PCSSD submits that this is not at all what the evidence showed. At most, the evidence showed that in certain areas the PCSSD had not achieved the ambitious statistical outcomes it sought through implementation of its plan. There was no showing of any material failure of implementation in any respect. Indeed, the Board member witnesses called by Joshua testified only generally that they did not believe the PCSSD 100117-v1 was \"ready\" for unitary status, but none testified concerning any specific failure of plan implementation. The statement quoted in paragraph 1 is at the least a tacit acknowledgment by Joshua that the focus of the Court's analysis is properly plan implementation, not statistical outcomes or statistical achievements, however important they are as educational and social issues. This is still a lawsuit which must be evaluated by legal standards. Indeed, all parties understood the role of the Court when they executed the releases of all claims which state in pertinent part that: \"This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans.\" [Court Exhibit No. CX417 at pages 1 and 2] Joshua's acknowledgment, when coupled with another recent development, should make the legal path for this Court clear. This Court approved the \"new\" Little Rock plan in an order dated April 10, 1998. A portion of the Little Rock plan approved specifically states that: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD .shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. LRSD Revised Plan at page 14, note 2 Further, as part of the analysis the Court made to approve the revised Little Rock plan, this Court noted: More importantly, however, there are certain goals in the 1990 Plan which are out of date for the current situation that exists in the LRSD and other specific, rigid goals in the 1990 Plan which expert testimony indicates may never be met, 2 regardless of the amount of effort and good faith put forth by the LRSD. (Citing the goals concerning achievement disparity) Order at page 6. CONTINUING JURISDICTION Joshua presumes that unitary status will be denied, that the 1990 plan would continue in effect unless replaced by the \"Commitment\" and therefore this Court should treat the Commitment as a proposed new plan. On the other hand, the PCSSD is seeking a termination of federal court supervision except in the financial areas and as otherwise specified in the revised Little Rock plan and in the PCSSD Commitment. Of course, this Court could decline to exercise jurisdiction over the unilateral PCSSD Commitment if it so chooses. To the extent any party might urge such - relinquishment as a \"change\" in the PCSSD submission, it will agree to that change. Inviting the Court to retain jurisdiction was seen by the PCSSD as further evidence of its good faith view of desegregation issues and as such as a further matter for the district court to consider in assessing formal relinquishment of supervision, particularly as regards the 1990 plan and declaring the PCSSD unitary in respect of that plan. At the same time, the PCSSD Commitment would institute a new process of dispute and compliance resolution calculated to avoid the necessity of district court intervention except as a last resort. (Please see Commitment at pp. 8-9) THE DURATION OF THE COMMITMENT Again, in the context of asking the Court to treat the PCSSD as a plan - amendment, Joshua complains that the ending date of the PCSSD Commitment, June 30, 2001, is too brief and that the term of the Court's jurisdiction, as envisioned by Joshua, should not necessarily end when the Commitment expires. 3 The term of the PCSSD Commitment is identical to that of the LRSD Revised Plan, both ending at the end of the 2000-2001 school year. Indeed, the PCSSD Commitment is slightly longer extending until June 30, 2001, and, as observed by Joshua, susceptible to extension, as a practical matter, if Joshua demonstrates or claims non-compliance before June 30, 2001 . Interestingly, the April 10, 1998 order approving the Revised Plan of the ,LRSD is entirely silent as concerns the duration of that Plan and voices no concern about it whatsoever. Since the LRSD Revised Plan and the PCSSD Commitment operate basically in the same fashion as concern jurisdiction and the term of the Plan and Commitment, Joshua's arguments and concerns in this regard as respects the PCSSD - are simply unwarranted and unnecessary. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the PCSSD should be declared unitary and its Commitment approved as part of that declaration and for all proper relief. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By_~~~:::J...~:...C==:=._--- 6060) County Special 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 3a , 1999, 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 5 , e RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 Offif,HJ ~MUlfflRIIG ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS Mark Pryor Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 April 30, 1999 Mr. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR ;72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Spedal School District No. 1, et al, LR-C-82-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Brown: Enclosed for your files and information, please find copy of the Notice of Filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for April, 1999 that I have caused to be filed this date. Enclosure Sincerely ~~ Carol Robbins Secretary to Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ I - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 OffiCEOF DESf6REGATJON MDNfTDRJNB 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 April, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARKPRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney 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_1696","title":"Court filings: District Court, the districts' reply in support of motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion for extension of time","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":["1999-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School districts","School employees","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, the districts' reply in support of motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion for extension of time"],"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/1696"],"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":["47 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 \\ VS. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL l\\1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL THE DISTRICTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE MAR 3 1999 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORINS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' UNDISPUTED TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE DAMAGES I. ADE Not A Party to Settlement. ADE contends that this Court should not compel it to make any payment to the Districts until all remedy issues are resolved or until ADE becomes a party to a settlement. This contention is without merit. With PCS SD dropping its objection, all the parties are in agreement that the Districts are entitled to at least the amounts shown on Revised Exhibit 504. There is no reason why this amount should not be paid to the Districts as soon as practicable. The Districts need this money to fund obligations tied to the payment, in particular LRSD teachers' salaries. While resolution of the remaining remedy issues may increase the amount ADE owes the Districts, resolution of those issues will not decrease ADE's liability. Moreover, a separate order directing ADE to pay to the Districts the amounts it undisputedly owes them should avoid entangling these payments in an eventual appeal. The Court could then by separate order to resolve the questions of whether the Districts are entitled to receive the same percentage of their costs as other districts in the state and whether the Districts should receive prejudgment interest. Regardless of which way the Court rules on these issues, an appeal is likely. \"-, \\ However, no party could appeal an Order directing ADE to pay the Districts the amounts that all parties agree is the least that they are owed. Therefore, given the Districts' immediate need, the Court should order ADE to pay the Districts the amounts shown on Revised Exhibit 504 as soon as practicable. II. Section 11.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Section 11.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement should be considered by the Court in determining the Districts' remedy. ADE suggests that the Districts are making this contention for the first time. However, NLRSD raised Section 11.F. during the liability phase, and it was the subject - ofa footnote in the Eighth Circuit's decision in this case. See LRSD v. PCS SD, 148 F.3d 9556, 964 n.2 (8th Cir. 1998). While not the basis for liability, the Districts contend that the Court should not adopt a remedy which violates Section 11.F. The remedy proposed by ADE would violate Section 11.F. because it would result in the Districts being paid less for teacher retirement and health insurance than other school districts in the state. III. Prejudgment Interest. The Districts' claim for prejudgment interest does not rest entirely on 28 U.S.C.  1961 as suggested by ADE. The Districts have cited to the Court ample authority for an award of prejudgment interest in this case. Even so, ADE argues that prejudgment interest should be denied because ADE' s liability was not \"reasonably capable of assessment.\" This is not true. Tristan Green testified that the he \"borrowed\" the methodology now proposed by ADE from the methodology used 2 by ADE to determine the amount of Educational Equity Trust Funds received by school districts. See June 6, 1999 Transcript, p. 176 and Court's Exhibit 492. All of the numbers used to calculate the Districts' damages under ADE's methodology have been readily ascertainable. However, ADE '-, refused to pa~ the Districts until ordered to do so by the Eighth Circuit. As the Eighth Circuit stated, \"the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change.\" Id., 148 F.3d at 968. One adverse effect of the funding change has been an almost four year delay in payment, and the Districts should be held harmless for this delay through an award of prejudgment interest. WHEREFORE, the Districts pray that the State immediately be ordered to pay the Districts the amounts set forth on Revised Exhibit 504 within ten days of entry of the Court's Order or to show cause why payment cannot be made within ten days; that the Districts be awarded prejudgment - interest on said amounts pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1961; that they be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees expended herein and that they be awarded all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Mr. M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol F:IHOMEIFENDLEY\\LRSD\\des-tea,rep-\u003clis.wpd 3 Little Rock, AR 72201 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Comm'ercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Ca~itol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: F:IHOME\\FENOLEY\\LRSD\\d\u003csterep-dis.wpd 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I cytify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. Mail on this31j,...day of March, 1999. Mr. John W: Walker \\ JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:IHOMEIFENDLEY\\LRSO\\dcslnrtp-dis.wpd (hand-delivery on 3-4) 5 - -  FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS Oi  vr tlQ WESTERN DMSION MARO 4 1999 DiS\u0026RtG~11ua tiAOt\\10il LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ~~~ES if :J~~;~.~~7~K OEP ClfRK - * Plaintiff, vs. * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL * RECEIVE DISTRICT No. 1, et al., * * Defendants. * \",.J, . R ~ i999 * * off\\CE Of \\~ MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * f\\H\u003et~Rffi~1\\0~ M0~\\'00\\1 .~  * Intervenors, * * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * * Intervenors, * ORDER On July 1, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit handed down an opinion on the issue of funding of retirement and health insurance for teachers and directed this Court to decide, in the first instance, exactly what relief is appropriate. See Little Rock School Dist. v. North Little Rock School Dist., 148 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 1998). The Court stated as follows: The three Pulaski County School Districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be a double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless again~t any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. The appellants suggest that this effort will necessarily involve speculation. Admittedly it cannot be exact, but we believe that the District Court can make a reasonable and informed estimate. 148 F.3d 956, 968. The Eighth Circuit's mandate was filed in this Court on August 17, 1998, and the parties subsequently submitted papers setting forth their respective views on the matter. A hearing on this issue was held on January 6, 1999, following which the parties filed posthearing briefs on the issues raised at the hearing. Before the Court is a motion by the three Pulaski County school districts - Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), and the North - Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") - for an Order directing the State of Arkansas to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages [doc.#3245]. On February 23, 1999, the State, by and through the Arkansas Department of Education (\" ADE\"), responded in opposition to the districts' motion, and the districts, on March 3, 1999, filed a reply to ADE's response. Having considered the matter, the Court hereby grants the districts' motion. There is no dispute to be resolved as to the appropriate methodology for determining the districts' damages with regard to teacher retirement and health insurance - all parties agreeing on the ADE's proposed methodology - and all parties are in agreement that the districts are entitled to at least the amounts shown on Revised Exhibit 504, which total $20,380,490.00. While it is true, as noted by the ADE, that there remain issues to be 2 resolved, including the issue of prejudgment interest and the issue of whether the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State, the Court agrees with the districts that there is no reason why the undisputed amount shown in Revised Exhibit 504 should not be paid to the districts as soon as possible. As noted by the districts, resolution of the remaining issues may increase the amount the State owes the districts (a question on which the Court expresses no opinion at this time), but resolution of these issues will not decrease the State's liability. Accordingly, the Court grants the districts' motion for an Order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages [doc.#3245]. The Court will resolve the remaining issues. in due course. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this Order, the State of Arkansas make payment to the three Pulaski County school districts in the amount of $20,380,490.00, to be distributed as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD, and 10% to NLRSD. d~ Dated this ..:.J_ day of March 1999. UNITED STATF.S DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTEAEI) ON DOCKET SHEET IN CC1MPw.e-N ~T~ RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ~N 3~ ~1 BY_~~~---- 3 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1803- 1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1813-101) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN O. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HEH\"tY KIMBERLY WOOD T\".CKER RAY F. COX, JR. GORDON S. RATHER. JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWHL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS IUFORO, 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. CHARLESL. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY 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: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 3769442 WEBSITE : www.wl j .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Writer's Di rect Dial No . 501  212  1273 mjonesQwlJ .com March 25, 1999 TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY. JR . KATHRYN A . PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON DON S. McKINNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KR I STI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVEO 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 MAR 2 4 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG Enclosed is a copy of PCSSD Petition for Release from Federal Court Supervision and Post-Unitary Commitments which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl.  93678-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP t-__ '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 SCHOOLREcev8:n DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. ~M ~- ' ,. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MAR 2 4 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION AND POST-UNITARY COMMITMENTS INTRODUCTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD believes that it has earned unitary status. It asks this Court to examine the record that has been made, to hold a hearing, if necessary, on those issues, if any, which might be legitimately in controversy, and to ultimately enter its decree declaring that the PCSSD has earned unitary status and release it from further court supervision. Upon the entry of this Court's decree, the PCSSD commits to do those things and to maintain those activities described in Exhibit A to this petition that being the Pulaski County Special School District Post Unitary Commitments. Exhibit A was distributed to the parties on or about March 5, 1999, and no comments of any kind have been received. In this petition, the PCSSD will briefly revisit the background of this case, will set - forth the controlling law, will examine the determinations of other courts from around the 91963 I - country which have declared other districts to be unitary, and will then apply the facts of this case to the controlling legal principles. BACKGROUND This action was filed on November 30, 1982 by the LRSD against the PCSSD and others.1 Liability was adjudicated against the PCSSD and others on April 10, 1984 and a consolidation of the three school districts in Pulaski County was ordered. Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (hereafter the Court of Appeals), en bane, affirmed most of the findings of liability of the district court, but reversed the court ordered consolidation and prescribed a different remedy. The Court of Appeals ordered that the boundaries of the LRSD would become those of the city of Little Rock as they then existed. The Court of Appeals also ordered - the transfer of the Granite Mountain community from the LRSD to the PCSSD. As a result of these transfers, the PCSSD lost 36% of its tax base, one-third of its schools, and 25% of its students. In the same opinion, the Court of Appeals ordered all three districts to develop desegregation plans that would distribute students in a way such that each school would have approximately the same racial balance as each district had as a whole. Significantly, the Court of Appeals specifically held that the remedy it then ordered was a complete remedy for the constitutional violations of which the PCSSD had been found guilty; specifically those violations relating to annexations and deannexations, segregated housing, school siting, student assignments, special education, 1 The LRSD supports the PCSSD in its petition for unitary status. 91963 2 - transportation, emplo~ment of faculty and administrators, and black participation in school affairs. Thereafter, other proceedings occurred, both before the district court and the Court of Appeals, culminating in 1989 in the Settlement Agreement and an agreed upon desegregation plan for each school district. While the present PCSSD Plan was not finalized in all of its particulars until April, 1992, the PCSSD has operated since 1989 under substantially the same plan. Thus, the PCSSD will highlight for the Court its efforts and activities since 1989 which it believes warrant a finding of unitary status. THE APPLICABLE LAW In 1992, the United States Supreme Court discussed the issue of unitary status in Freeman v. Pitts, 112 S. Ct. 1430 (1992), explaining that: [A]s we explained last term in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S._,_, 111 S. Ct. 630,636, 112 L. Ed. 2d 715 (1991 ), the term \"unitary\" is not a precise concept: \"[l]t is a mistake to treat words such as 'dual' and 'unitary' as if they were actually found in the Constitution .... Courts have used the term dual' to denote a school system which has engaged in intentional segregation of students by race, and 'unitary' to describe a school system which has been brought into compliance with the command of the Constitution. We are not sure how useful it is to define these terms more precisely, or to create subclasses within them.\" It follows that we must be cautious not to attribute to the term a utility it does not have. The term \"unitary\" does not confine the discretion and authority of the District Court in a way that departs from traditional equitable principles. 112 s. Ct. at 1443-44. The Freeman court further explained that: [1] Proper resolution of any desegregation case turns on a careful assessment of its facts. ~. ~. at 439, 88 S. Ct., at 1694. Here, as 91963 3 in most cases where the issue is the degree of compliance with a school desegregation decree, a critical beginning point is the degree of racial imbalance in the school district, that is to say a comparison of the proportion of majority to minority students in individual schools with the proportions of the races in the district as a whole. This inquiry is fundamental, for under the fonner de jure regimes racial exclusion was both the means and the end of a policy motivated by disparagement of or hostility towards the disfavored race. In accord with this principle, the District Court began its analysis with an assessment of the current racial mix in the schools throughout DCSS and the explanation for the racial imbalance it found. 112 S. Ct. at 1437. The PCSSD will comply with this requirement, as did the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1996 in the Wilmington case when it affinned the district court's declaration of unitary status in Coaljtion to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education of the State of Delaware, et al .. 90 F.3d 752 (3rd Cir. 1996): A critical starting point in identifying vestiges of discrimination is the degree of racial imbalance in the school districts. This inquiry is fundamental, because under the fonner de jure regime, a racial exclusion was both the means and the end of a policy motivated by disparagement of, and hostility towards, the disfavored race. The Court's 1968 opinion in Green squarely addressed this issue, noting that \"[t]he pattern of separate 'white' and 'Negro' schools ... established under compulsion of state laws is precisely the pattern of segregation to which Brown I and Brown 11 were particularly addressed.\" ~. 391 U.S. at 435, 88 S. Ct. at 1693. However, the ~ Court also made clear that in examining the problem of racial imbalance in our schools, we are to look \"not just to the composition of student bodies ... but to every facet of school operations - faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities.\" J.Q..; see also Swann. 402 U.S. at 18, 91 s. Ct. at 1277 (the Green factors are \"among the most important indicia of segregated system.\") Because compliance with~ factors is a condition precedent to unitary status, we will survey each of those factors here. 90 F.3d at 760. The PCSSD will likewise assess the Green factors especially as each of them is - addressed in its Desegregation Plan. The Wjlmjngton Court also commented upon 91963 4 ,. - federal court supervisien in general. Addressing the Supreme Court's decision in Jenkins. the WjJmjngton Court noted: Given the Court's recent assertion that federal supervision of local school districts \"'was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination,'\" Jenkins._ U.S. _115 S. Ct. at 2049 (quoting Dowell, 498 U.S. at 247, 111 S. Ct. at 637), we underscore that the phrase \"to the extent practicable\" implies a reasonable limit on the duration of that federal supervision. Indeed, to extend federal court supervision indefinitely is neither practicable, desirable, nor proper. 90 F.3d at 760. The Wilmington Court further explained that: This equitable remedy and, by definition, its jurisprudential legitimacy, were meant to have a limited lifespan. The remedy was designed to serve only as an implement for monitoring and guidance, not as a permanent substitute for state and local school boards, or r*84] indeed, for the state legislature. Thus in our zeal to insure maximum educational opportunities for all Delaware school students, the federal courts must bear in mind that the responsibility for administering the schools ultimately belongs to locally elected officials. Indeed, we must acknowledge that although it has been proper for us to supervise multiple generations of students in the service of unassailable ideals, in the process we have also denied multiple generations of elected officials the freedom to participate fully in representative government. 90 F.3d at 779. Additional legal principles and teachings from other cases will be set forth as appropriate infra as particular topics are addressed. THE LAW OF THIS CASE The Court of Appeals, in its 1990 decision, reaffirmed the 1985 en bane court's decision that the previously mandated territorial exchanges were the remedy for all of the interdistrict violations. It explained that: 91963 We also held, however, agreeing in this respect with the District Court, that interdistrict violations of the Constitution had occurred, and that an interdistrict remedy was accordingly required. We directed the District 5 Court, on remaRd, to adjust the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD in two respects: (1) by transferring the Granite Mountain area from LRSD to PCSS0; and (2) by expanding LRS0 so that the new boundary line between it and PCSSD would be the city limits of the City of Little Rock, as they then existed. We further held - addressing the question of student attendance within each of the districts - that \"each school district as reconstituted shall be required to revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district.\" Litt! Rock School District v, Pulaski County Special School District. m. 778 F .2d at 435. Our opinion included a number of other directions with respect to magnet schools, student-attendance arrangements, and other matters. The District Court held that LRSD would automatically expand whenever the city annexed new territory, so that LRSD would always be contiguous with the city as it existed from time to time. We reversed. We held that the remedy contemplated by our en bane opinion was intended to be a complete cure for all interdistrict violations that we had found. The en bane opinion, we said, prescribed \"a full and sufficient correction of wrongs done in the past,\" including all interdistrict violations. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921. F.2d 1371, 1377 (8th Cir. 1990) It is significant to note that many features of the PCSSD Plan, the lnterdistrict Plan, and the Plans of the other school districts were not specifically mandated as remedial devices by the Court of Appeals. For instance, the six interdistrict schools, while subsequently embraced by the Court of Appeals, were never mandated as part of any prescribed remedy. For that matter, the Court of Appeals never specifically mandated that the PCSSD pursue affirmative action in hiring and in staffing its schools and other operations. Indeed, it held in 1985 that the territorial transfer was the remedy for, among other things, violations in the areas of special education, transportation, and employment of faculty and administrators. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 434-435 (8th Cir. 1985). 91963 6 To be sure, these topics and others are prominently featured in the Plan. Some are among the ~ factors to be discussed later. However, because they were not specifically mandated as part of any remedy, issues arise such as burden of proof as to compliance and will be discussed fully infra. THE GREEN FACTORS I. RACIAL BALANCE AND STUDENT ASSIGNMENT The guidelines for racial balance in all three districts were initially addressed and laid down by the en bane Court in 1985. It explained then that: In constructing a desegregation remedy, a court may not rigidly require a particular racial balance. Pasadena Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 436-38, 96 S. Ct. 2697, 2704-06, 49 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1976); Milliken 1,418 U.S. at 739-40, 94 S. Ct. at 3124-25; Swann, 402 U.S. at 22-25, 91 S. Ct. at 1279-81 . Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the awareness of the racial composition of a school district or school districts is a useful starting point in developing an effective remedy, and thus the limited use of racial ratios is within the Court's equitable discretion. Swann, 402 U.S. at 25, 91 S. Ct. at 1280. Thus, the Supreme Court has approved a remedy imposed by the district court requiring that all schools in the school district be roughly within the same racial balance. Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449,455 n. 3, 99 S. Ct. 2941, 2945 n. 3, 61 L. Ed. 2d 666 (1979): Swann, 402 U.S. at 23-25, 91 S. Ct. at 1279-80. Our Court has consequently approved the use of flexible ratios in desegregation remedies on numerous occasions ... In any event, in this case, we have closely tailored the remedy to the violations and we are not requiring a particular racial balance in each district (Citations omitted.) LRSD V. pcssp, 778 F.2d at 433. 91963 The en bane Court then articulated the guideline applicable in this case: 4. After the boundaries between LRSD and PCSSD have been adjusted, each school district as reconstituted shall be required to revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district. Consistent with ear1ier district court orders with respect to these schools, school districts may, where necessary, be pennitted to depart from this remedial guideline in that school 7 enrollments niay over- or underrepresent blacks or whites by as much as one-fourth of the remedial guideline for either race. We see no reason why, on this record, the variance should exceed this level. [Emphasis added.] 778 F.2d at 435: Ultimately, of course, the current PCSSD Plan was examined by the Court of Appeals which approved the student assignment goals agreed to by all of the parties. The Court of Appeals explicitly approved the student assignment goals of the PCSSD and the other parties interpreting them as follows: So far as racial ratios were concerned, the Plan included the following goals:  13. With the exception of Bayou Meto, the goal of the plan shall be to achieve a minimum black student enrollment of 20% by the end of six years in all PCSSD schools .... 14. With the exception of Bayou Meto, it is hoped that the dynamics of the plan will result, by the end of the implementation period, in all PCSSD schools being within the range of plus or minus 25% of the then prevailing district-wide average of blacks by organizational level. However, at a minimum, at the end of the implementation period, no PCSSD school shall have a black enrollment which exceeds the then prevailing black ratio, by organizational level, in the Little Rock School District. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d at 1378-79. As will be explained further, the PCSSD believes it has satisfied, for a period of years, the racial balance and student assignment components of its Plan. Before specifically examining the racial balance outcomes in the PCSSD, it is useful to examine the racial balance outcomes that pertain in Freeman v. Pitts, in which a declaration of unitary status was affirmed even upon facts dramatically different than the outcomes found in the PCSSD. As the Supreme Court explained in Freeman: 91963 8 Racial balance is not to be achieved for its own sake. It is to be pursued when racial imbalance has been caused by a constitutional violation. once the racial imbalance due to the de jure violation has been remedied, the school district is under no duty to remedy imbalance that is caused by demographic factors. Swann, 402 U.S., at 31-32, 91 S. Ct., at 1283-84 (\"Neither school authorities nor district courts are constitutionally required to make year-by-year adjustments of the racial composition of student bodies once the affirmative duty to desegregate has been accomplished and racial discrimination through official action is eliminated from the system. This does not mean that federal courts are without power to deal with future problems; but in the absence of a showing that either the school authorities or some other agency of the State has deliberately attempted to fix or alter demographic patterns to affect the racial composition of the schools, further intervention by a district court should not be necessary\"). If the unlawful de jure policy of a school system has been the cause of the racial imbalance in student attendance, that condition must be remedied. The school district bears the burden of showing that any current imbalance is not traceable, in a proximate way, to the prior violation. 112 S. Ct. at 1447. It is instructive to set forth the outcomes of the DeKalb County schools as summarized by the United States Supreme Court. Concerned with racial imbalance in the various schools of the district, respondents presented evidence that during the 1986-1987 school year DCSS had the following features: (1) 47% of the students attending DCSS were black; (2) 50% of the black students attended schools that were over 90% black; (3) 62% of all black students attended schools that had more than 20% more blacks than the systemwide average; ( 4) 27% of white students attended schools that were more than 90% white; (5) 59% of the white students attended schools that had more than 20% more whites than the systemwide average; (06) of the 22 DCSS high schools, five had student populations that were more than 90% black, while five other schools had student populations that were more than 80% white; and (7) of the 7 4 elementary schools in DCSS, 18 are over 90% black, while 10 are over 90% white. !d..,, at 31 a. 112 S. Ct. at 1438. Despite these statistical outcomes, the United States Supreme Court found that the system was unitary with respect to student assignment and racial balance. As we 91963 9 - will examine below, the track record of the PCSSD is far superior to that of the schools in DeKalb County, Georgia, is in compliance with any and all tests which may be reasonably applied, and that the PCSSD has demonstrated its entitlement to unitary status. THE PCSSD OUTCOMES District-wide, the racial composition of the PCSSD since 1989 has been as follows: 89-90 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EIGHT YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 Total 21 .607 21 ,597 21 ,062 21 ,633 20.426 20,417 20,534 20,295 % Black 26 26 27 28 30 31 32 33 91963 10 . Since 1989, the composition of the District's elementary schools has been as follows: School Adkins Elem Arnold Drive Elem Baker Elem Bates Elem Bayou Meto Elem Cato Elem Clinton Elem College Station Elem Crystal Hill Elem Dupree Elem Fuller Elem Harris Elem Jacksonville Elem Landmark Elem Lawson Elem Oak Grove Elem Oakbrooke Elem Pine Forrest Elem Pinewood Elem Robinson Elem PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EIGHT YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON2 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 Total 371 360 352 420 411 397 % Black 40 36 39 36 37 39 Total 387 411 408 390 348 375 % Black 18 16 14 18 23 25 Total 294 291 268 283 294 304 % Black 27 30 25 27 25 24 Total 698 638 737 680 599 550 % Black 47 46 47 45 45 53 Total 602 596 6 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1688","title":"Court filings concerning proposed changes to ADE monitoring and reporting responsibilities, districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages, and ODM report, ''Racial Composition of the Certified Staff in the Secondary Schools and the Administrators in the Central Office of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''","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":["1999-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School employees","Education, Secondary","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning proposed changes to ADE monitoring and reporting responsibilities, districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages, and ODM report, ''Racial Composition of the Certified Staff in the Secondary Schools and the Administrators in the Central Office of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''"],"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/1688"],"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":["76 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, progress report on proposed changes to Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) monitoring and reporting responsibilities; District Court, motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, memorandum brief in support of the motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Racial Composition of the Certified Staff in the Secondary Schools and the Administrators in the Central Office of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages; 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.   STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFIC.KOF rim ATTORNEY GENERAL Mark Pryor Attorney General Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 February 1, 1999 Re: little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Spedal School District No. 1, et~ LR-C-82-866 Dear Ms. Brown: RECEIVED FEB 2 1999 Oltl~i 0f  lllltGMIOll110~rroruNs Telephone: (501) 682-2007 Enclosed for your files and information, please find copy of the Progress Report on Proposed Changes to ADE Monitoring and Reporting Responsibilities. cj enclosure Sincerely Carol Robbins Secretary to T101othy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 200 Catlett-Prica Tower, 323 Center Street  Uttle Rock, Arkansas 72201-2610 -~--- Internet Website. http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED rtB 2 1999 OfflCEOF OESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS PROGRESS REPORT ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO ADE MONITORING AND REPORTING RESPONSIBnITIES Pursuant to the Court's December 18, 1998 order, the Arkansas Department of Education submits this report on the progress made in developing proposed . changes to ADE' s monitoring and reporting responsibilities. After the issuance of ODM' s report on ADE' s monitoring, ADE, with the support of the State Board of Education, sought to meet with all parties to this action to discuss possible revisions to ADE' s monitoring and reporting requirements that would, among other things, address some of the concerns and criticisms contained in the ODM report. All the parties, including the Joshua and Knight intervenors, were invited and encouraged to participate in the process. As required by the Court, meetings between representatives of ADE and the parties have been documented and described in ADE' s monthly project management tools. The information contained in the monthly PMTs will not be repeated here. However, if the Court desires more detailed information about I - these meetings or would like to review meeting agendas, lists of participants, or correspondence between the parties related to these discussions, ADE will be happy to submit such information or documents to the Court for its review. To comply with the Court's December 18, 1998 order, ADE has prepared the attached Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report. A draft of this report was shared with representatives of the parties for review and comment in January of 1999. The Report is intended to be a summary of the recommendations and comments made by the parties to date. As the Court will di.seem from reviewing the Report, the parties have focused their discussion on a plan that, among other things, (a) would provide for continued monitoring by ADE in six areas relevant to the Districts' desegregation efforts; (b) would provide for ADE analysis of selected data; and (c) would include ADE assistance to each District in areas such as staff development, curriculum alignment, and recruitment of minority teachers and administrators.  The attached Report is a work in progress. Many details will need to be discussed and refined by the parties before any proposed new monitoring and reporting plan can be submitted to this Court for approval. ADE intends to continue its meetings with the parties to discuss these issues so that a new monitoring and reporting plan can be presented to the Court as soon as practicable. 2 Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Atto General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on February 1, 1999, 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 Roe~ AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Roe~ AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201  3 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 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 Desegregation Monitoring Prelimbuuy Progress Report-revised llllUUlrY 21, 1999 Arlwua Dq,art,nenl of Edllcation Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report Arkansas Department of Education January 1999 NOTE: The following document summarizes the recommendations, written documents and comments made by district desegregation superintendents, specialized district staff, Office of Desegregation Monitoring, ADE staff and the parties in Pulaski County Desegregation Case. This preliminary progress report is a work in progress. It is intended to be disseminated among interested parties for discussion. comment, review and suggestions during the January 28, 1999 meeting. A revised'aiaft of the progress report shall be forwarded to all parties for review after administrative and Board review. 1 Arkansas Department of Education Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report: Preliminazy Drqft-Revised Section I Goal The goal of the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance is to ensure educational excellence and equity in the Pulaski County School Districts by monitoring, through the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), the implementation of educational programs, aimed at satisfactorily remediating racial, academic, and achievement disparities. The proposed Monitoring Plan will revise the 1989 Monitoring Plan and formatting directives by eliminating unnecessary, or redundant provisions, reducing the data collection and submission burden on districts, and ensuring that districts remain accountable for commitments made to quality desegregated education. To ensure the integrity of the monitoring reports, the ADE will continue to use the Standards of Educational Evaluation. The Standards for Educational Evaluation define four attributes of sound evaluation: A B. C. D. Section Il The utility of the evaluation to the audience to be served in relation to the problems they face; The feasibility of the evaluation in terms of its efficient use of practical procedures; Propriety, which calls for fair treatment of participants in the evaluation and ethical use of evaluation procedures and findings; Accuracy, which calls for obtaining valid, reliable and objective findings and reporting justified conclusions and recommendations. Purpose Monitoring by the ADE will be closely related to the identified needs and priorities of the school districts so that monitoring becomes an integral part of the accountability function of quality schools and districts. In particular, monitoring will focus on efforts to raise the standard for student achievement and reduce achievement disparities. The monitoring indicators are divided into six sections that are important for a high-quality desegregated educational system: (1) achievement, (2) discipline, (J) staff development and technical assistance, (4) minority teacher recruitment and staffing, (5) financial resources/budget, and (6) racial balance in enr'ollments. The purpose of the monitoring is to provide the means for determining whether the process is meeting its goals: that is to determine how \"on target\" schools are by comparing achieved outcomes with intended ones. Section m Achievement All students will perf onn at grade level by the end of the fourth grade as measured by the State-mandated criterion referenced and nonn-ref erenced assessments. The ADE will analyze achievement on the basic battery of the norm-referenced test, annually and longitudinally. Trends in educational performance will also be provided. The ADE will analyze achievement on the criterion-referenced test annually and longitudinally to help schools determine the most critical areas of need. 2 The ADE will also analyze test scores to determine if racial academic disparities are being reduced. Results of the analysis shall be used by the ADE and schools to:  Increase student performance  Communicate current levels of student performance to school customers  Assist in the orchestration of School Improvement Plans  Focus on reducing achievement gaps between black and white students  Identify group strengths and weaknesses in content areas  Ensure that prescriptive instructional assistance matches student needs  Determine the number of students who reach the proficient level in Math and Reading  Guide decision making about ways to improve student performance. After testing each year, monitors will determine the following: 1. Are plans in place to address areas of academic deficiency? 2. Has the standard of adequate yearly progress been met? 3. Is there significant disparity in the scores of black and white students? 4. Are there more than 50% of the students achieving below grade level in mathematics and reading? 5. How does the school's achievement compare to the state average and to schools with similar demographics? 6. Is student achievement progressively improving? - - Note: Analysis q,fachievement data wi /I be conducted by the ADE and consultants hired by the ADE, -i Section IV Discipline/Disciplinary Disparity Schools shall be organized and operated in a manner that creates safe, secure schools which are most conducive to student learning. The ADE will: 1. 2. 3. 4. Section V Monitor the Annual Discipline Report Summary from each school district to determine if consequences, for the same offenses are consistently applied to black and white students Review the suspension and expulsion rates Examine each school's implementation of their Disciplinary Management Plans to ascertain whether goals and objectives are being met Make recommendations as needed based on educational research, theory and best practice. Staff Development/l'echnical Assistance (Ways the ADE might assist Districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement) The State is committed to assisting with staff development, preparation, and support of educators whose primary focus is on student learning and who possess the knowledge, skills and the commitment to teach to high academic standards. The State will, through the Smart Start and School Improvement Programs assist in the collaborative development of staff development programs that ensure that instructional delivery models are aligned to student needs, state standards, and assessments. The state will also provide staff development based on needs identified as a result of the monitoring process. The ADE will: 1. Monitor the district's evaluation component of staff development 2. Collaborate with the Office of Pupil Personnel in each district in sponsoring professional development aimed at reducing the disparity in minority suspensions and expulsions 3. Assist schools with analysis of assessment results and strategies for improved student perfonnance 4. Provide staff development on ways to recruit, retain and support teacher recruitment of minority teachers . - 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Section VI Provide staff development to schools through the Smart Start Initiative Assist schools in the alignment of the curriculum with State standards and mandated assessments Provide staff development on researched-based and proven model in reducing achievement and disciplinary disparities with demographics similar to schools in Pulaski County Provide assistance in curriculum and assessment in the identified targeted areas Ensure that the monitoring reports are useful, succinct, readable and understandable, by assisting districts in the use of five essential steps: (1) disaggregation, (2) analyzation, (3) interpretation, (4) communication and (5) utilization of report findings. Recruitment of Minority Teachers 4 The quality of teachers is central to plans dedicated to improving student performance. The three districts in Pulaski County will need to recruit additional teachers, especially minority teachers due to retirement, and attrition. The ADE will remain committed to teacher recruitment through financial assistance for Minority Teacher Candidates, relevant job market information, and through the improvement of standards for teacher certification. The ADE will: 1. Maintain a current list of minority teachers and administrators who are seeking employment. This list should include certification areas, permanent addresses and phone numbers, and dates of availability 2. Review the number of minority teachers hired each year 3. Monitor the number of jobs offered to minority teachers 4. Examine recruitment plans and efforts such as the job fair participation 5. Assess racial balance in staffing by school and content/speciality areas 6. Disaggregate the percent of classes taught by teacher on a deficiency removal plan. - s Section VII Racial Balance in Enrollments The ADE will monitor to ensure that all students have access to a demanding curriculum, high quality instruction, and nourishing classrooms. The ADE will: 1. Monitor school enrollment for racial balance in accordance with court-approved desegregation plans outlined for each district. 2. Review the enrollment of minority students enrolled in advanced placement (AP) and special education programs 3. Evaluate the impact of interdistrict and intradistrict transfers on racial balance 4. Review the enrollment or participation of minority students in special clubs, teams, and activities 5. Analyze average daily attendance 6. Review the completion rate. Note: The ADE recognizes that the Revised Desegregation Plan for the Little Rock Pubic Schools (LRSD), does not require that every LRSD school be racially balance. Additionally, nothing in LRSD 's Revised Plan shall be construed as requiring a particular racial balance at every LRSD school or as obligating LRSD to recruit students to obtain a particular racial balance in every LRSD school. Section VIII Budget The monitoring of finances in the three school districts of Pulaski County will be the same as for all other school districts in the .state except for areas of the budget in which the districts receive financial support unique to the desegregation case. Also, monitoring done by the State in the financial area will be done from the standpoint of what the districts have agreed to do in their respective desegregation plans. Section IX Monitoring Process A The monitoring process shall be conducted to ensure effectiveness of court order remedies and will include site visitations, review of plans, review of statistical and administrative data as well as responses from school personilel, patrons and students. B C. D. 6 Monitoring teams shall be selected by the Director of the ADE. The team shall include ADE personnel and may include Intervenors, and other educational consultants as designated by the Director. Each district shall include in their school improvement plans appropriate objectives to achieve compliance with each court order related to the Agreement and recommendations made by the ADE. The ADE shall monitor annual school improvement plans to determine progress toward achieving educational goals. District plans should provide evidence of compliance with court orders and a process to ascertain progress. Continuous, independent, systematic monitoring and evaluation are processes necessary for assuring and demonstrating the quality of desegregated education. However, each school and district will be encouraged to conduct internal evaluations prior to monitoring by the ADE. No zysteni can achieve its potential and maintain a high level of service ifit does not constantly assess its performance, and modi fr its practices accordingly to ensure internal accountability. Section X Data Collection The ADE will: I . Collect, interpret, evaluate, and report the monitored data in a lucid, understandable manner so that the parties, the Court, the public, and ADE itself will have meaningful information that indicates the progress of desegregation, uncovers new or continuing problems, and points to needed changes 2. Collect, analyze, and interpret selected data annually for every school in Pulaski County 3. The ADE will produce two semiannual reports which are complementary to each other. The primary focus of each report will be achievement and selected monitoring indicators that impact student achievement 4. Examine the internal data collection and dissemination procedures annually with a view toward eliminating the duplicate collection of data throughout the monitoring process ,.~~ 5. Use the desegregation monitoring process to help the Pulaski County schools meet their desegregation commitments and improve student achievement . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED FEB 9 1999 OfflCEOF OESEGREGATIOM MOll1JIIIII MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE DEFENDANTS INTER VENERS INTER VENERS TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' UNDISPUTED TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE DAMAGES LRSD, NLRSD and PCS SD (the \"Districts\") for their Motion state: 1. The Districts have reached a compromise and settlement whereby PCS SD agrees to and does hereby withdraw opposition to the State's methodology for calculating the Districts' damages for teacher retirement and health insurance as set forth on the State's Revised Exhibit 504 filed January 19, 1999, subject to the modification set forth proposed in Districts' Briefin Response to ADE's Submission on the Issues of Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance filed August 19, 1998. Docket No. 3 18 7. The Districts' agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. As a result of the Districts' compromise and settlement, there is no dispute that the Districts' are entitled to the damages as set forth in Revised Exhibit 504. Accordingly, the Districts' seek an immediate order directing the State to pay to the Districts the amounts shown on Revised - Exhibit 504. The State should be directed to make payment within ten days of entry of the Court's Order or to show cause why payment cannot be made within ten days. 1 3. The only remaining issue for the Court to resolve is whether the Districts' damages should be based on their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other school districts. The State contends that the Districts' damages should be based on their actual costs. The Districts contend that their damages should be based on the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other school districts. This issue was the subject of the Districts' Brief in Response to ADE's Submission on the Issues of Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance filed August 19, 1998. Docket No. 3187. In addition to the reasons stated therein, the Districts' believe that Section II.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement requires that they be paid the same percentage of their teacher retirement and health insurance costs as the average for all school districts in the state. See - LRSD v. PCSSD, 148 F.3d 9556, 964 n.2 (8th Cir. 1998). 4. In addition to their damages as provided for on Revised Exhibit 504, the Districts should be awarded prejudgment interest. 5. The Districts' memorandum brief in support of this motion is hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, the Districts pray that the State immediately be ordered to pay the Districts the amounts set forth on Revised Exhibit 504 within ten days of entry of the Court's Order or to 1The Districts believe that Exhibit 504 should be revised a second time to reflect better information obtained by the Districts concerning their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The Districts have presented this information to the State for consideration. The Districts reserve the right to present this issue to the Court if no agreement is reached with the State. However, this should not delay the Court's ruling on this Motion. The revised numbers now being proposed by the Districts would increase the Districts damages, and therefore, the State could be ordered to pay any additional damages at a later date. 2 show cause why payment cannot be made within ten days; that the Districts be awarded prejudgment interest on said amounts pursuant to 28 U.S . C.  1961 ; that they be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees expended herein and that they be awarded all other just and proper relief to which they 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) 376-2011 B NOR TH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 F:IHOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD\\des-tea-mot-dis.wpd 3 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by hand-delivery on thi~day ofFebruary, 1999.  Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 20 I East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:IHOMEIFENDLEY\\LRSD\\des-tu-mot-dis.wpd Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. 4 AGREEMENT AMONG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, JOSHUA INTERVENORS AND KNIGHT INTERVENORS REGARDING TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE This Agreement among Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSDD\"), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") and Knight Intervenors (\"Knight\") regarding teacher retirement and health insurance remedy (the \"Agreement\") is made and entered into on this 8th day of February, 1999. LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua, and Knight shall be collectively referred to as the \"Parties.\" LRSD, PCS SD and NLRSD shall be collectively referred to as the \"Districts.\" WHEREAS, the Parties disagree as to the correct method for calculating the three Pulaski County school districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; and, WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that it is in the best interest of all of the Parties to reach a voluntary settlement of their disagreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That the Districts' collective damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs shall be calculated pursuant to the methodology proposed by ADE as set forth in Court's Exhibit 504; 2. That the Parties shall submit to the Court within five (5) days of this Agreement final numbers for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years from which the Districts damages may be calculated using the methodology proposed by ADE as set forth in Court's Exhibit 504. The State should be ordered to pay those damages within fourteen days of this Agreement; 3. The State should be ordered to reimburse the district in future years on the same EXHIBIT \"A\" monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current year State minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made in January and June based on current year actual participation numbers. The State should be ordered to make payments for the 1998-99 school year, within thirty days of this Agreement, as necessary to bring it into compliance with this paragraph. 4. That the total amount  of damages for the Districts as calculated according to the methodology set forth in court's Exhibit 504 shall be distributed each year as follows : 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD and 10% to NLRSD; 5. That the amounts received by each district pursuant to paragraph 3 above shall 9e regarded as the actual amount of each district's teacher retirement and health insurance remedy. 6. This Settlement Agreement does not resolve the question of whether the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State. That issue is ripe for adjudication by the Court. 7. That LRSD and PCS SD have entered into a separate agreement related to the Pooling Agreement and challenges to the Act 917 funding system which, in part, serves as consideration for this Agreement; 8. That LRSD and Knight have entered into a separate agreement related to teacher pay which, in part, serves as consideration for this Agreement. 9. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by all Parties; and, 2 - - - ----- - - 10. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 8th day of February, 1999. Cnristopher Heller Attorney for LRSD Ste Jone~ Att( 'e : NL~f c{ /'. --r-+-'1.-_ v_L_-_--J _Y_ J;v ? .......,.= 1 J lvv. Walker \\ / ttorney for Joshua Intervenors 3 Richard Roachell Attorney for Knight + IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEi\\fED DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL FEB 9 1999 OFFICE 0~ DESEGREGATION MONITORING MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE DEFENDANTS INTER VENERS INTER VENERS TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' UNDISPUTED TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE DAMAGES I. Section H.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The Districts' agreement leaves this Court to decide whether the Districts' damages should be based on their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other school districts. The State contends that the Districts' damages should be based on their actual costs. The Districts contend that their damages should be based on the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other school districts. This issue was the subject of the Districts' Brief in Response to ADE's Submission on the Issues of Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance filed August 19, 1998. Docket No. 3187. In addition to the reasons stated therein, the Districts' believe that Section II.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement requires that they be paid the same percentage of their teacher retirement and health insurance costs as the average for all school districts in the state. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 148 F.3d 9556, 964 n.2 (8111 Cir. 1998). Section II.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement provides: The State will not exclude the Districts from any compensatory education, early childhood development, or other funding programs or discriminate against them in the development of such programs or distribution of funds under any funding programs. (emphasis supplied). In affirming this Court's decision in this case, the Eighth Circuit noted, \"This provision may actually fit the present case better than Sections ILE. and ILL., which are the focus of the District Court's opinion and most of the parties arguments.\" Id. While the Eighth Circuit discussed Section II.F. in the liability context, this Court should consider Section II.F. in determining the appropriate remedy. The State's current method for funding the teacher retirement and health insurance programs results in the average school district in the state receiving approximately 106% of its teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Even so, the State proposes to pay the Districts only 100% of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs. To pay the districts less than the average amounts to discrimination in violation of Section II.F. Therefore, the Districts' damages should be based on the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other school districts. II. Prejudgment Interest. The Districts are further entitled to an equitable award to compensate them for the State's delay in paying the Districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs. As the Eighth Circuit stated in affirming the grant of summary judgment on these issues, \"the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change.\" Id., 148 F.3d at 968 . The adverse effect on the Districts has manifested itself in many ways, including deprivation of funds -- or the use of 2 funds - to which they have been entitled since 1996. The Districts seek prejudgment interest as a matter of law and equity. The award of \"damages\" here is ancillary to the prospective relief of continued compliance by the State with its teacher retirement/medical insurance obligations under the Settlement Agreement. As such, there is no Eleventh Amendment bar to an award of prejudgment interest. Cf. Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 437 U.S . 678 (1978)(The Eleventh Amendment does not bar an award of attorney's fees ancillary to a grant of prospective relief). 1 Courts have awarded prejudgment interest in similar situations. For example, the Eighth Circuit has held that courts have the power to award prejudgment interest against state defendants under Title VII, notwithstanding that Title VII does not expressly authorize such awards. Winbush V. Iowa, 66 F.3d 1471, 1482-83 (8th Cir. 1995). Cf Reoppell V. Massachusetts, 936 F.2d 12 (1 st Cir.), cert. denied 502 U.S. 1004 (1991)(Eleventh Amendment does not bar award of prejudgment interest against state in action under Veteran's Reemployment Rights Act if, under normal litigation principles and rules of statutory construction, the district court could have been expected to allow prejudgment interest on underlying recovery; it was not necessary that the Act expressly sanction prejudgment interest). The equitable award of prejudgment interest is akin to the enhancement of attorneys' fees to compensate for delay in payment. Indeed, the Eighth Circuit in Winbush relied upon the attorneys' fee holding and rationale in Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S . 274 (1989), in determining that prejudgment interest was proper in Title VII cases. The Jenkins holding and rationale also support 1 The \"no interest\" rule articulated by the Supreme Court in Library of Congress v. Shaw, 4 78 U.S. 310 (1986) is strictly limited to the sovereign immunity of the Federal Government. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 109 S.Ct. 2463 (1989). 3 the request for prejudgment interest by the Districts in the present case. Indeed, in light of the Supreme Court's decision that adjustment of a fee award to account for delay in awarding fees is appropriate and not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, \"ot "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1690","title":"Court filings concerning teacher retirement and health insurance remedy","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":["1999-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning teacher retirement and health insurance remedy"],"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/1690"],"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":["37 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, advisory letter from Joshua intervenors; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) prehearing brief on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) pre-trial brief re: teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) post-trial submission; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) post-hearing brief on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) post-hearing brief concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) supplemental response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motions for attorneys' fees and costs; 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.  5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. JQHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY Ar LAw 1723 BROAl)WAV l,JTTl.E ROCK, Alu\u003c..~NSAS 72206 , TEU:Pl!0:-IE (501) 374-3758   FA.\\ (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 324-6096 1 anuary 4, 1999 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge  United States District Court 600 West Capitol Llittle Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: 315 P02 '02 JAN OJ ' 99 17:02 This is to advise that the Joshua Intervenors hereby adopt by reference the Little Rock School Dsitrict's Prehearing Brief On The Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Remedy. JWW:js cc: Mrs. Ann Brown All Counsel of Record  IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LI'ITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS :MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PREHEARING BRIEF ON THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE REJMEDY I. Introduction. This hearing concerns the method for calculating the three Pulaski County school districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. On July 1, 1998, the Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court's finding of liability and remanded for a detennination of the districts' damages. LRSD v. PCSSD, 148 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 1998). In making that detennination, the Eighth Circuit offered the following guidance: On remand, it will be up to the District Court, in the first instance, to decide exactly what relief is appropriate. The three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held hannless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. The appellants suggest that this effort will necessarily involve speculation. Admittedly it cannot be exact, but we believe that the District Court can make a reasonable and informed estimate. LRSD v. PCSSD, 148 F.3d 956, 968 (8* Cir. 1998). As the State, LRSD, NLRSD md Joshua interpret the Eighth Circuit's opinion, the districts' damages should be calculated as follows: (1) determine the amount the districts would have received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the old Act 34 funding system; (2) determine the amount the districts actually received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the new Act 917 funding system; and (3) subtract (2) from (1). II. Discussion. A PCSSD's overall remedy argument. Although PCSSD originally agreed with the other parties' interpretation of the Eighth Circuit's decision, PCSSD now argues that the districts' damages should be based on an overall comparison between the old Act 34 funding system and the new Act 917 funding system. Compare Docket Nos. 3174 and 3187 to 3227. This argument ignores the previous findings of this Court and the opinion of the Eighth Circuit and should be rejected as a matter oflaw. First, the argument ignores the previous findings of this Court. This Court rejected this same argument when it was made by the State. The Court stated: While the state may contend that the settling districts will receive more formula money under the new funding scheme, the Court finds that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling districts to pay health insurance matching from equali1,lllion or local funds is not a \"fair and rational\" adjustment to the funding formula. 2 Docket No. 2968, Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 5 ( emphasis supplied). Assuming PCS SD' s calculations are correct, LRSD would recover nothing under an overall remedy. Docket No. 3227, Exhibit A Consequently, LRSD would be forced to use equalization funding or local funds to pay its teacher retirement and health insurance costs. As quoted above, that is exactly why this Court found that the Act 917 funding system violated the Settlement Agreement with regard to teacher retirement and health insurance. It would be absurd to now adopt a \"remedy'' that brings about the same result. Not surprisingly, an overall remedy results in a windfall to PCSSD. PCSSD claims that the overall change from Act 34 to Act 917 decreased PCSSD's total state funding by $3,794,039 in 1996-97 and $2,781,691 in 1997-98. Docket No. 3227, Exhibit A, p. 3. PCSSD seeks to recover these amounts as its remedy for the State's liability with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. However, according to PCSSD's own calculations, its loss for teacher retirement and health insurance totaled only $1,830,003 in 1996-97 and $1,679,881 in 1997-98. Docket No. 3186, Exhibit A and B. Thus, an overall remedy results in PCSSD being awarded damages more than three million dollars in excess of its actual loss in teacher retirement and health insurance funding. The difference between PCS SD' s teacher retirement and health insurance loss and its overall loss results, at least in part, from the adverse impact on PCS SD of the change in the funding formula for distributing general state aid, what was called MFP A under Act 34 and what is now called equalization funding under Act 917. PCSSD seeks to recover this amount despite the fact that no court has found that the Act 917 funding formula per se violates the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement permits the State to make \"[f]air and rational adjustments to the funding 3 formula which have general applicability blltwl,ich nd,,ce tire proportion of State aid to any of the Districts .... \" Settlement Agreement ,U.L (emphasis supplied). Therefore, even if PCSSD is correct in its assertion that it received less general state aid under the Act 917 funding system compared to what it would have received under the Act 34 funding system, this does not establish that Act 917 funding formula violates the Settlement Agreement. PCSSD bears the burden of proving that Act 917 was not a fair and rational adjustment to the funding formulcl. PCSSD moved for summary judgment on this issue on September 2, 1997, while the teacher retirement and health insurance appeals were pending before the Eighth Circuit. Docket No. 3042 and 3043. This Court denied that motion on January 12, 1998 \"[b ]ecause there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding the state funding formula.\" Docket No. 3104, p. 2. Those issues of material fact remain unresolved. Second, PCSSD's argument ignores the precise issue before the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit clearly limited its opinion to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. In the opening paragraph ofits opinion, the Eighth Circuit stated that \"[t]he question presented is whether changes made by the State of Arkansas in the funmng of retirement and health insurance for teachers violated [the Settlement Agreement].\" Id. at 963 ( emphasis supplied). The Eighth Circuit began its discussion stating, \"This case has to do with two important categories of school operating expenses: contributions for teacher retirement and employees' health insurance.\" Id. ( emphasis supplied). Nothing in the Eighth Circuit's discussion indicates that the court went beyond the question presented to find that the Act 917 funding formula violated the Settlement Agreement. Third, PCSSD's argument ignores the whole of the Eighth Circuit's opinion. Taken in the context of the question presented, the remedy contemplated by the Eighth Circuit was clearly limited 4 to the districts' loss in teacher retirement and health insurance funding. the Eighth Circuit began its description of the remedy by stating that \"[t]he three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed \" Id. at 968 ( emphasis supplied). The Eighth Circuit recognized, however, that the districts' equalization funding included some amount for teacher retirement and health insurance. lg. at 965. Accordingly, it directed this Court to reduce the districts' damages by this amount in order to prevent a double recovery. The Eighth Circuit stated: The three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding/or teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have  produced/or teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. Id. (emphasis supplied). Thus, the first step in determining the districts' damages is to calculate \"what the old system would have produced/or teacher retirement and health insurance.\" Id. What the old Act 34 system produced for teacher retirement and health insurance was the districts' actual costs for those programs. Summarizing its explanation of the remedy, the Eighth Circuit concluded: Id. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. 5 Reading these final two sentences in isolation, PCSSD contends that the Eighth Circuit's opinion calls for an overall remedy. However, the failure of the Eighth Circuit to repeat for the third time \"for teacher retirement and health insurance\" after the words \"produced\" and \"producing\" in no way indicates that the Eighth Circuit intended to completely depart from the rest of the opinion and the preceding sentences in the same paragraph. These final two sentences may properly be read as follows: This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance- would have produced [for teacher retirement and health insurance], and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing [for teacher retirement and health insurance]. The Eighth Circuit most certainly would have expressly stated and explained the basis for an overall remedy if such was its intention. This it did not do. Rather, it described the logical course this Court should follow in determining the districts' damages \"for teacher retirement and health insurance.\" The Eighth Circuit's use of the phrase ''MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance\" should not be construed as a mathematical equation, but rather as a general description of the old Act 34 funding system. Even if construed as a mathematical equation, however, the phrase in no way dictates an overall remedy. As discussed above, the preceding sentences make it clear that the Eighth Circuit was concerned with \"what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance.\" Id. Both this Court and the Eighth Circuit have recognized that, under the old Act 34 funding system, the State paid the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs outside of the funding formula used to distribute MFPA. See LRSD v. PCSSD,'148 F.3d at 963. 6 Thus, the tenn MFP A essentially means zero in this context. In accord with this understanding, all of the parties, including PCSSD, originally submitted a proposed remedy based on the districts' actual costs. Docket Nos. 317 4-77. Finally, the Eighth Circuit's rationale for finding that the Act 917 funding system violated the Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs cannot be extended to the entire Act 917 funding system or the entire Act 917 funding fonnula. Quoting this Court's teacher retirement opinion, the Eighth Circuit explained: [I]nstead of directly funding each district based on the number of employees, the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a per ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district. Just as the workers' compensation \"seed money'' fonnula worked to the detriment of the employee-heavy Pulaski County districts, so too does the distribution of teacher retirement contributions though the new funding formula give the districts less money to fund teacher retirement. While the three Pulaski County school districts may fare better under the new funding scheme from a state aid perspective, there is no question that the amount of their teacher retirement funding, previously directly funded by the State based upon the eligible salaries paid to their employees, will be reduced and result in unequal state funding. Id. at 967. The change from the Act 34 funding formula to the Act 917 funding fonnula does not suffer from this same defect. While teacher retirement and health insurance funding were based on the number of employees, the Act 34 funding formula was not. To summarize, the districts' remedy must, at a minimum, place them in a position which will not require them to use equalization funding or local funds to pay their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. An overall remedy would not achieve this because LRSD would be denied any recovery, notwithstanding an obvious loss of funding under Act 917 to pay these costs. Moreover, the Eighth Circuit's opinion cannot be fairly read as calling for an overall remedy. In discussing the issue and in outlining the remedy, the opinion clearly addresses only the districts' claims as to the 7 teacher retirement and health insurance programs. The Eighth Circuit's opinion should not be read to grant relief beyond the issues before the court. Bailey v. Henslee, 309 F.2d 840 (8* Cir. 1962) Therefore, an overall remedy should be rejected, and the districts' damages should be based on their loss of teacher retirement and health insurance funding. B. Damages based on the districts' loss of teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 1. Actual costs vs. equal funding. To award the districts damages based on their loss of teacher retirement and health insurance funding, this Court must resolve three additional issues. First, the State disagrees with the districts and Joshua on the starting point for calculating the districts' damages. The State argues that the districts' damages should be based on their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The districts and Joshua contend that the State should be required to pay the districts the same percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to all other school districts in Arkansas. In both the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school year, the State paid school districts outside Pulaski County 107% of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs.1 In order to provide equal funding to the three Pulaski County districts, the starting point for their damages should be 107% of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Docket No. 3187, Exhibit 1. 1Using Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tristan D. Greene (Docket No. 3176), this percentage may be calculated by first subtracting the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of the three Pulaski County districts from the statewide total to obtain the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of other districts in the state. The amount other districts received in excess of their actual costs is equal to the total desegregation adjustment shown in column 4. The total desegregation adjustment is then added to the actual teacher retirement costs of other districts. This equals the actual amount received by other districts in the state for their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The percentage of costs received by other districts in the state is determined by dividing the actual amount received by other districts in the state by the actual costs of other districts in the state. In both 1996-97 and 1997-98, this percentage is 107%. 8 In the Eighth Circuit's workers' compensation opinion, the court defined the workers' compensation \"program\" as \"equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts.\" LRSD v. PCS SD, 83 F.3d at 1018. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit found that this Court \"correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" Id. ( emphasis supplied). 2 Likewise, the State must disburse teacher retirement and health insurance funding to the districts \"in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" Therefore, the starting point for determining the districts' damages should be the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other districts in Arkansas rather than the three Pulaski County districts' actual costs. See Docket No. 3187, Districts' Brief, for a more complete discussion of this issue. 2. The amount of equalization funding received for teacher retirement and health insurance. The second issue concerns the amount of equalization funding received by the districts to pay their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The State, LRSD, NLRSD and Joshua disagree with PCSSD as to the appropriate method for calculating this amount. The State proposes a methodology which takes into account the equalizing effect of the Act 917 funding formula. On August 19, 1998, all three districts agreed that the State's method was appropriate. See Docket No. 2Specifically, this Court stated: [T]he Court does find that the State must assist the three Pulaski County school districts to the same degree that it is assisting the other districts in the state. Thus, the state must fund the same proportion of the cost of each of the three Pulaski County school district' workers' compensation insurance as it pays for all the other school districts in the state beginning with the 1994-95 school year. Docket No. 2337, Memorandum Opinion and Order filed Jan. 13, 1995, p. 6-7. 9 3187. However, it appears PCSSD now intends to pursue its alternative methodology, which assumes that the Act 917 funding formula distributed equalization funding based only on a district's Average Daily Membership (''ADM''). PCS SD' s methodology should be rejected because it conflicts with the findings of this Court which were affirmed by the Eighth Circuit and because it fails to take into account the equalization effect of the Act 917 funding formula. (a) The State's methodology. The State proposes that the amount of equalization funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance be determined by a simple two-step calculation. First, the total teacher retirement and health insurance costs for all school districts in the state is divided by the total amount of state aid distributed through the Act 917 funding formula to get a percentage. Next, this percentage is multiplied by the total amount of Act 917 funding received by a district, with the  result being the amount of Act 917 funding the district received for teacher retirement and health insurance. The State's methodology recognizes that there is no way to trace funding for teacher retirement and health insurance through the Act 917 funding formula. As this Eighth Circuit noted, teacher retirement and health insurance funding \"has been folded into the over-all Equalization Funding system .... \" Id. at 965. Because money is fungible, the only reasonable assumption that can be made is that the funding for teacher retirement and health insurance was equally distributed among school districts. Therefore, the State's methodology assumes that, if 15% of equalization funding for all districts was for teacher retirement and health insurance, then 15% of LRSD's equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance. 10 The present case is similar to trust cases involving the commingling of trust assets with other assets. In effect, the State has commingled the teacher retirement and health insurance funding with equalization funding. Where a trustee commingles trust assets with other assets, the trust maintains a right to the trust assets based on their proportion to the whole. See, e.:\u0026., Restatement (Second) of Trusts,  202, comment n. Similarly, the amount of teacher retirement and health insurance funding the districts received should be based on the proportion of teacher retirement and health insurance funding to the whole of equalization funding. This is the result achieved by the State's methodology. The State currently uses this proposed methodology to detennine the amount of equalization funding school districts receive from the Education Excellence Trust Fund (\"Trust Fund\"). Ark. Code. Ann.  6-5-307 (Michie Supp. 1997) requires school districts to spend funding from the Trust  Fund on teachers' salaries. Ark . . Code. Ann.  6-5-307 (Michie Supp. 1997). Like the teacher retirement and health insurance programs, funding from the Trust Fund was once distributed outside the funding formula. When the State began distributing the Trust Fund as a part of equalization funding, school districts still needed to know the amount of funding they received from the Trust Fund in order to determine their compliance with Ark. Code Ann.  6-5-307. The State developed the methodology it now proposes in the present case to detennine the amount of equalization funding a district received from the Trust Fund. This methodology has already been subjected to public comment and adopted by the State Board of Education. The State's regulations setting forth this methodology are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Most importantly, the State's methodology provides the greatest benefit to desegregation in that it results in the greatest monetary award for each school district, including PCS SD. See Docket 11 No. 3187, Districts' Response, Exhibit 1. Under PCSSD's own methodology (which assumes the districts recover more than their actual costs), PCS SD damages total $3,509,884 for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school year. Docket No. 3186, Exhibit A and B. However, using the State's methodology ( and also assuming the districts recover more than their actual costs), PCS SD' s damages total $4,142, 571. See Docket No. 3187, Districts' Response, Exhibit 1. PCSSD's method had a much more significant impact on LRSD. Under PCSSD's methodology, LRSD's damages total $10,726,693. ill Exhibit 2 attached. The State's methodology results in a damage award to LRSD of Sl 7,819,759. See Docket No. 3187, Districts' Response, Exhibit 1. (b) PCSSD Methodology. PCS SD proposes calculating the amount of equalization funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance based on the assumption that each school district received the same amount per ADM. PCS SD takes the total teacher retirement and health insurance costs for all districts and the State and divides that amount by the total state ADM. The resulting per ADM amount is then multiplied by a district's ADM to determine the amount of equalization funding received by the district for teacher retirement and health insurance. PCSSD's methodology should be rejected for several reasons. First, it assumes that all districts received the same amount per ADM and thereby fails to take into account the equalizing effect of the Act 917 funding formula. As this Court has found, \"the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a perADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district.\" Docket No. 2930, Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 9 (emphasis supplied). The equalizing effect of the Act 917 funding formula means that districts with greater local resources receive less equalization funding. For example, due to 12 differences in local resources, LRSD received $1,858.73 per ADM in equalization funding in 1997-98 and PCS SD received $2,815.47 per ADM in equaliz.ationfunding in 1997-98. See Exhibit 3 attached. PCS SD contends, however, that both districts received $428.18 per ADM for teacher retirement and health insurance. ~ Exhibit 2 attached. Thus, according to PCS SD, 23% ofLRSD' s equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance while only 15% ofPCSSD's equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance. No rational basis supports the assumption that a greater proportion of LRSD' s equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance. PCS SD' s method would result in LRSD being forced to use equaliz.ation funding or local funds to pay its teacher retirement and health insurance costs, but this is why the change to Act 917 violated the Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs in the first place. As this Court stated, \"requiring the settling districts to pay health - insurance matching from equaliz.ation or local funds is not a 'fair and rational' adjustment to the funding formula.\" Docket No. 2968, Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 5. PCS SD attempts to justify the use of a pure ADM calculation by making the assumption that the money for teacher retirement and health insurance was removed from the Act 917 funding formula after equalization and distributed separately. However, there is no factual basis for making this assumption. Teacher retirement and health insurance funding was not removed from equalization funding, and it was not distributed separately after distribution of equaliz.ation funding. Rather, teacher retirement and health insurance funding was commingled with equalization funding. Therefore, the State's methodology provides the only reasonable means for determining the amount of equalization funding the districts received for teacher retirement and health insurance. 13 3. PCSSD's cap argument. Finally, PCS SD argues that the Eighth Circuit's opinion requires a comparison of the overall impact of the change from Act 34 to Act 917 for the purpose of establishing a limit or cap on the districts' damages. While this would not affect PCSSD, calculations submitted by PCS SD indicate that it would bar any recovery by LRSD. Docket No. 3227. PCSSD's motive in making this argument results from a concern about the disparity in teachers' salaries betweenPCSSD and LRSD. PCSSD apparently hopes to prevent LRSD from following through on a promised pay increase contingent upon its recovery in this case. The best indicator of the lack of merit in this argument is the fact that the State itself does not make it, despite the fact that the State would be the real beneficiary if the argument prevailed. As the State concedes, however, a cap on the districts' damages in the manner suggested by PCSSD would violate the Settlement Agreement. - First, capping the districts' damages based on an overall comparison between Act 34 and Act 917 would violate Paragraphs II.E. and II.L. of the Settlement Agreement by depriving the districts of the benefit of the change in the funding formula. The final sentence of Paragraph II.E. prevents the State from using general state aid (now equalization funding) to supplant its funding obligations under the Settlement Agreement. It provides, \"The funds paid by the State under this agreement are not intended to supplant any existing or future funding which is ordinarily the responsibility of the State of Arkansas.\" Settlement Agreement, ,i II.E. Therefore, assuming for the purpose of argument that LRSD benefitted overall from the change to the Act 917 funding system, the fact remains that the State failed to pay the same percentage ofLRSD's teacher retirement and health insurance costs as it paid to other school districts in the state, and this violates the Settlement Agreement. 14 A cap on the districts' damages as suggested by PCSSD would also violate Paragraph II.L. of the Settlement Agreement. The Eighth Circuit described this paragraph as an \"anti-retaliation clause.\" Id. at 966, quoting LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1018 (8* Cir. 1996). Discussing Paragraph II.L. in the workers' compensation decision, the Eighth Circuit explained: Id. Its purpose, by its very words, is to prevent the State from cutting other programs in order to pay for its desegregation commitments. U: for example, the State had passed a statute decreasing or eliminating workers' compensation payments for the settling districts only, while maintaining its system of paying the costs to other school districts, this portion of the Settlement Agreement would have clearly been offended. The flaw in PCSSD's cap argument can also be demonstrated by consideration of a hypothetical statute. Assume the State passed a statute adopting the Act 917 funding system but continuing to directly pay school districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Assume e next that the statute provided that the State would not pay the three Pulaski County districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs to the extent they benefitted from the overall change in the funding formula. Such a statute would clearly violate the Settlement Agreement. In this hypothetical, numerous school districts in the state would receive increased state aid as a result of the change in the funding formula, but only the three Pulaski County districts would be required to use any increase in state aid to pay their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. PCS SD' s cap argument brings about the same result as the hypothetical statute. Therefore, a cap on the districts' damages would, in and of itself, violate the Settlement Agreement and should be rejected. The Eighth Circuit stated in its teacher retirement and health insurance opinion that its decision in the workers' compensation case \"points the way towards a proper solution of the present appeal.\" The Eighth Circuit's opinion in the workers' compensation case in no way indicates that the 15 districts may only recover damages to the extent that they lost money overall due to the change in the funding system. The court simply held that \"the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d at 1018. The court imposed no requirement that the districts must lost out overall as a result of the overall funding changes, and this Court should not interpret "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1677","title":"Court filings concerning judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy and ODM report, ''Specialty Programs in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''","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":["1998-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School employees","Student assistance programs","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy and ODM report, ''Specialty Programs in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''"],"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/1677"],"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":["154 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion in Limine; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) joinder in LRSD's motion in Limine; District Court, joint motion for summary judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, memorandum brief in support of joint motion for summary judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion in Limine; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Specialty Programs in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, two orders; District Court, Joshua intervenors' prehearing submission on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy  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 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION IN LIMINE 1-, ,ue.,,,~ . RECEIVED - DfC 4 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its motion the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This court's decision in favor of the three Pulaski County school districts on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance was affirmed by th~ ' Eight_?,. C,j,rcuit Court of Appeals on July 1, 1998. The Eighth Circuit remanded the case to this court \"to decide exactly what relief is appropriate.\" 2. Noting that the Eighth Circuit \"directed it to decide what relief is appropriate for the distric~s, this court scheduled a hearing \"on this issue\" for January 5, 1999. Order, November -3, 1998. 3. On July 20, 1998 the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and the districts filed simultaneous briefs concerning the r emedy issue. ADE submitted one method for calculating the remedy, '... -:' f' the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) submitted ,. another method ; the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and ,,.. ..:. \\ ' LRSD agreed that 11AnE,~.s submission seems to present an acceptable - method of calculating the remedy which is consistent with the decisions of this court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.\" 3. The parties filed simultaneous reply briefs on August 19, 1998. The three districts agreed \"that ADE's [July 20] submission provides (1) acceptable method for calculating the amount of Act 917 Equalization Funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance. The districts argued, however, that because districts outside Pulaski County received one hundred seven percent (107%) of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs, the districts should be paid that same percentage of their actual costs in order to meet the requirements of the Eighth Circuit's order. PCSSD filed a II supplemental submission\" in which it reserved the right to argue its proposed methodology and outcomes \"if the court ultimately determines not to accept the proposal being made by the LRSD. 11 ADE filed a response to PCSSD's July 20 submission arguing that the method for calculating the remedy proposed by PCSSD is flawed. 4. The only issue separating ADE from LRSD and NLRSD is whether ADE should be required to pay one hundred percent (100%) or one hundred seven (107%) of the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Aside from that issue, LRSD and NLRSD have expressed their willingness to accept ADE's proposed method for calculating the remedy. The question of whether the award should be calculated on the basis of one hundred percent (100%) or one hundred seven (107%) of actual costs is a legal one, the resolution of which would not require the court to decide any disputed factual 2 issues. ADE, NLRSD and LRSD are willing to present this sole remaining issue to the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The reason that this simple and expeditious method of resolving the remedy issue among these three parties has not been presented to the court is that PCSSD suggests a different method for calculating the remedy and ADE desires a single method of calculation for all three districts. 5. On September 8, 1998, PCSSD filed a motion and brief to enforce the Settlement Agreement as regards MFPA. PCSSD's motion is based partly upon the Eighth Circuit's July 1, 1998 decision regarding teacher retirement and health insurance but, unlike those issues, PCSSD's 11 MFPA11 claim has not been litigated and there has been no determination of ADE' s liability with respect to the 11 MFPA11 claim. PCSSD' s motion seeks to recover the entire difference between the funding it now receives under Act 917 and the funding it claims it would have received under Act 34. PCSSD's motion is not limited to the damages caused by ~he State's change in its method for distributing funds for teacher retirement and health insurance. 6. LRSD understood that the hearing scheduled for January 5, 1999 was to be for the purpose of resolving the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues remanded by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. As outlined above, there are relatively few issues separating the parties with respect to the remedy. The resolution of PCSSD's 11 MFPA11 issue requires a liability hearing, not a remedy hearing. The 11 MFPA11 issue would be more properly 3 - combined with the outstanding special education, loss funding and other issues which have yet to be tried on the merits. 7. In order to avoid unnecessarily prolonging the remedy hearing by the litigation of liability issues only marginally related to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issue, LRSD seeks an order expressly limiting the January 5 hearing to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issue and excluding the issues presented by PCSSD's \"MFPA\" claim. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order limiting the January 5, 1999 hearing to the question of the appropriate remedy for ADE's adjudicated violation of the Settlement Agreement with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance and excluding other issues, particularly those related to PCSSD' s \"MFPA\" claim. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, EDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. ----- By::-: i==h~~..I,J.'t~~LJ~~#::.( C Bar No. 81083 4 --- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion In Limine has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 3rd day of December 1998. JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 5 RECEIVED DEC 8 1998 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OffiCE(f DESEGREGATION MONm1iJE ,,,. EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS   '. ' WESTERN DIVISION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT N0.1, ei al. PLAINTIFF .DEFENDANTS ADE'S TOINDER IN LRSD's \"MOTION IN LIMINE\" Like the LRSD, ADE understands that the hearing currently scheduled for January 5, 1999, is for the purpose of presenting evidence and argument concerning the appropriate \"remedy\" for the teacher retirement and health insurance issues discussed in the Eighth Circuit's July 1, 1998 opinion. For the reasons discussed below, ADE joins in LRSD's motion to exclude from the January 5 hearing any evidence or testimony concerning PCSSD' s purported \"MFP A claim.\" Following the Eighth Circuit's decision, this Court set a briefing schedule for the ' parties to submit their arguments concerning the remedy on the teacher retirement and health insurance issues. Pursuant to the Court's briefing schedule, as amended, the parties filed briefs on Jly 20 and August 19, 1998. None of those briefs submitted by PCS.SD on those dates argued or even suggested that the appropriate remedy on the retirement/health insurance issues ~ould require a comparison of total state aid - outcomes between what the Act 917 system produced and what the Act 34 system 1 -- ---  \"would have produced\" if it would not have been eliminated in the 1995 legislative session. However, on September 8, 1998, well outside the established briefing schedule for the teacher retirement/health insurance \"remedy\" issue, PCS5D filed a pleading it styled as a \"Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as Regards MFPA.\" In that motion PCSSD purports to compare the total amount of state funding it received under the Act 917 system and the total an\\ount of sta!e fonding it claims it would have - received if the Act 34 system would not have been changed. PCS5D' s motion does not -i~entify any provision of the Settlement Agreement it contends has been breached. Rather, PCSSD's motion is based exclusively upon the \"remedy\" language in the Eighth Circuit's July 1, 1998 decision regarding teacher retirement and health insurance.1 Like the LRSD, ADE believes that PCSSD may attempt to introduce evidence at the January 5 hearing regarding purported total state aid outcomes under the Act 917 system and what PCSSD and the other Districts allegedly \"would have received\" if the Act 34 system had not been repealed. Such evidence and argument should be excluded from the January 5, 1999 hearing for two reasons. First, evidence and argument concerning an alleged Act 34/917 comparison should be excluded because this method of calculating a remedy was not presented to this \u003c;~urt in any of the briefs PCSSD submitted pursuant to this Court's briefing 1 In its motion in limine, LRSD states that PCSSD's motion .. is based partly on\" the remedy language in the Eighth Circuit's July I, 1998 opinion. ADE disagrees with LRSD_on this point. An examination of PCSSD's motion  makes cJear that PCSSD's bases its claims exclusWe(y upon the remedy language of the Eighth Circuit's opinion. PCSSD's motion does not cite_t9 ariy .provision of the Settlement Agreement  2  - schedule on the remedy issue. Had PCSSD wished for this Court to consider such a comparison as the appropriate rei:nedy on the retirement .and health insurance issues, PCS.SD should have advanced this theory in its opening remedy brief on July 20, or in its reply brief on August 19. Second~ PCSSD's proposed Act 34/917 comparison is not an appropriate \"remedy\" on the retirement and health insurance issues as a matter of law, and any ' evidence or argument concerning such a compa.Iison would therefore be L.-;:elevant. The appeal which resulted in the Eighth Circuit's July 1 opinion dealt only with the changes in the manner in which teacher retirement and health insurance matching obligations of school districts were paid by the State. Neither this Court nor the Eighth Circuit has found that the State is in violation of the Settlement Agreement in any other respect, yet PCSSD's Act 34/917 comparison plainly seeks relief beyond those damages  that might have been caused by the State's change in its method of distributing funds for teacher retirement and health insurance. Nothing in the Eighth Circuit's opinion authorizes such a comparison as an appropriate method for calculating the damages on the narrow retirement and health insurance issues. Permitting  PCSSD to. present clearly irrelevant evidence and argument concerning its . purported Act 34/917 comparison. at the January 5 hearing would unnecessarily prolong and complicate the resolution of the remedy issue. Accordingly, ADE joins in LRSD's request for an order excluding from the January 5 hearing any evidence or argument concerning PCSSD's purported Act 34/917 comparison. 3 Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General  Assistant Attorn y General ; . ~23 Center Street, Suite 200  Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, T~othy Gauger, certify that _on D~ember 7, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing qocument to be served by first class 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 Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell . 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller . i'.riday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark . 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol  Little Rock, AR72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH REGARD TO THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE REMEDY PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") for their Joint Motion for Summary - Judgment With Regard to the Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Remedy state: 1. No material fact remains to be resolved with regard to the appropriate methodology for determining the three Pulaski County districts' (the \"districts\") damages with regard to teacher retirement and heal th insurance. All parties agree that ADE's proposed methodology is acceptable. 2. The only dispute concerning ADE's methodology is whether the districts damages' should be based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. The parties have already submitted br.iefs on this issue. This dispute presents a legal question which can be resolved as a matter of law. 3. LRSD and ADE's memorandum brief submitted in support of this motion is hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, LRSD and ADE pray that the Court adopt ADE Is proposed methodology and decide as a matter of law whether the ---- -- districts' damages should be calculated based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. Respectfully Submitted, Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. John c. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for LRSD and, Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Attorneys for ADE By: John c. Fendley, Jr,. I V I. 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United states mail on this 9th day of December, 1998. 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 First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 - --- -- 3   , RECEIVE,:, //411..f-/\"l./1 I Y'GflJ, f!ye_ ~ DEC 1 0 1998 \" ' t. 2. .., ...,, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/Nr, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL I. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH REGARD TO THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE REMEDY Introduction. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS This Court has scheduled a hearing for January 5, 1999 on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy. Two issues stand to be resolved. 1 First, this Court must determine the appropriate methodology to be used in determining the amount of teacher retirement and health insurance funding received by the three Pulaski ~ounty districts under Act 917. Second, this Court must determine whether the three Pulaski County districts' damages should be based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. No material fact remains to be resolved with regard to either of the above issues. Accordingly, the moving 1 See Joint Motion in Limine filed December 3, 1998. Docket No. 3223. parties pray that this Court resolve these issues as a matter of law. II. The Methodology. On August 19, 1998, the three Pulaski County school districts -- --- . (the \"districts\") agreed that the Arkansas Department of Education's (\"ADE\") Submission Concerning Remedies on the Issues of Teacher Retirement and Heal th Insurance provided an acceptable method for calculating the amount of Act 917 equalization funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance. Docket No. 3187. Only the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") proposed an alternative to ADE's methodology. Docket No. 3186. However, PCSSD's pleading simply reserved the right to argue for its methodology should the Court reject ADE's methodology. Docket No. 3186. 2 Under ADE's proposed methodology, all three Pulaski County districts recover more damages than under PCS SD' s methodology. Districts' Brief filed August 19, 1998. See Exhibit 1 to the Therefore, since all parties agree that ADE's proposed methodology is acceptable and since that methodology provides the greatest benefit for the students of each district, LRSD and ADE respectfully request that the Court adopt ADE's proposed methodology as a matter of law. 2The three Pulaski County districts do not agree at this time that ADE's methodology would be applicable to possible future pending claims regarding MFPA, special education and loss funding. F: \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD\\des-bri-sju .tea 2 or III. Actual Costs Versus Percentage of Costs. While the three Pulaski County school districts agree that ADE's methodology is acceptable, the districts contend that ADE has stopped short of granting the districts complete relief. ADE's proposed remedy provides the districts with 100% of their actual costs for teacher retirement and health insurance. The districts contend that this remedy falls short of complete relief because other districts in the state received more than 100% of their actual costs for teacher retirement and heal th insurance. The districts seek to recover the same percentage of their teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. ADE denies that the districts should receive more than their actual costs. Whether the districts should receive their actual costs or the same percentage of their costs as other districts in the state presents a legal issue which can be resolved by this Court on summary judgment. No material fact needs to be resolved for the Court to decide this issue. Resolution of this issue simply requires an interpretation of Eighth Circuit's decisions in this case. The districts and ADE have already submitted briefs stating their respective positions on the issue. Accordingly, LRSD and ADE respectfully request that the Court decide the issue as a matter of law. IV. Conclusion. LRSD and ADE respectfully request that the Court adopt ADE's proposed methodology and decide whether the districts' damages F: \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\ LRSD\\de 3-bri -3 ju. t ea 3 should be calculated based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. If the Court resolves these two issues, LRSD and ADE are confident that the remaining details can be settled and that the January 5, 1999 hearing will be unnecessary. f : \\HOME\\fENDLEY\\LRSD\\des-bri-sju.tea Respectfully Submitted, Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for LRSD and, Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Attorneys for ADE 4 . ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United states mail on this 9th day of December, 1998. 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 First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 J F: \\HOME\\FENOLEY\\LRSO\\des-bri-sju. tea 5 ', ~ECEIVED DEC 15 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEC 14 1998 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.JAMES ','i ;\\ :cCOR,'lir\\CK, Cl..ErK WESTERN DIVISION By: 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GcP. CLEi,K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO LRSD'S MOTION IN LIMINE INTRODUCTION The PCSSD understands that the hearings scheduled for next January are for the purpose of resolving the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues. However, the PCSSD disagrees with LRSD's analysis concerning the MFPA issue. For reasons which will be fully explained below, the PCSSD submits that the MFPA analysis it has submitted to the Court is, on the one hand, an independent claim being pursued by the PCSSO. However, and most importantly, on the other hand, the PCSSD MFPA analysis resides at the heart of the remedial tasks directed by the Court of Appeals as regards teacher retirement and health insurance. INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS As an initial matter,' the Court of Appeals has directed the District Court: \"On  remand, it will be up to the District Court, in the first instance, to decide exactly what . ' . . ' : . . . . ' . . , . .  relief is appropriate.\" 97-1794 EA, Slip Opinion at p. 30 72098 1 t This the parties have done by their submitted calculations regarding their claimed teacher retirement and _health insurance shortfalls. In this respect, the submissions of the PCS SD differ from those submitted by the State_ and embraced by the LRSD.1 However, the submissions of the other parties ignore the remain.der of the Court of Appeals instructions. The Court of Appeals went on to direct that: The three Pulaski County Districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be a double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFPA plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. 97-1794 EA, Slip Opinion at pp. 30-31 This directive of the Court of Appeals cannot be ignored. While the other parties have paid lip service to this requirement, only the PCSSD has submitted an analysis comparing the effects of the old system to the new as required by the Court of Appeals. Whether this be currently characterized as an independent claim by the PCSSD or as simply its effort to assist the Court in complying with the instructions of the Court of Appeals is of no practicable 1 To the extent it ever agreed, the PCSSD can no longer support the calculations of the State. This will be more fully explained in PCSSD's Response to the Joint Motion for Summary Judgment served upon the PCSSD on December 11, 1998. 72098 2 moment for hearing purposes, since whatever description is given the analysis, it is the same for either purpose.2 THE RULES AND CASE LAW REQUIRE THE PARTIES AND THIS COURT TO FULLY COMPLY WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS' INSTRUCTIONS Twenty-eight USC 2106 requires in pertinent part that: The Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm ... any judgment...and may remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment...or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances. The case law from this Circuit supports this proposition. In Bethea v. Levi Strauss \u0026 Co., 916 F.2d 453 (8th Cir. 1990) the court of appeals had occasion to explain what is required of a district court after remand. On remand, a district court is bound to obey strictly an appellate mandate. (citation omitted) If the district court fails to comply with an appellate mandate, the appellate court has authority to review the district court's actions and order it to comply with the original mandate. llL at 456 See also Chambers v. Armantrout, 16 F .3rd 257 (8 th Cir. 1994) and West v. United States of America, 1995 US Appellate Lexis 5294 (8th Cir. 1995). CONCLUSION As its resubmitted analysis will demonstrate, the PCSSD is entitled to a full recovery for its teacher retirement and health insurance shortfalls since its losses under the new funding system far exceed its claims for teacher retirement and health insurance. A full award of its current claim will thus neither result in a 2 Because the labeling issues obviously concern the LRSD and the State, the PCSSD is separately submitting its own funding analysis which it believes complies with that required by the Court of Appeals. (Please see attached Exhibit A, three pages) 72098 3 r .I , - double recovery nor a windfall and, as explained above, this analysis must be performed by this Court whether or not any other party assists by submissions to this Court. 72098 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-~::;__---:+------=~-:-:-:----- y Special School \\ 4 1' ,. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December /J , 1998 a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following.  Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 72098 M. ( Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger .A.ssistant 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 ones, Ill / I 5 NA I c ... r :.. I NOS\u0026v !MFPA CA1.C. ESTIMATES: ACT 3\"' FOR H-97. 97-91 \u0026 91-N ACT J.4171. ww.. I OISTIUCT L.RSD UWJ LRSO LASO I UHE SCHOOL YEA11 199 .. 11111-el 11117-M 19a.. NO. CHNIGIMTa 0.0271 0.0315 0.031M 0.1131M 1 WAOIIOATA 2 REG. 3 QNJM 22.JM.as 22.231.54 22,439.31 23,133.39 l SPEDWNJM' 1,700.72 1,7'00.72 1,700.72 1,700.72 , VOCWNJM' 825.81 529.61 8.28.61 !21l.61 5 VOCCWN)M  TT.9/5 TT.9/5 n,ge n .9tJ 6 GITWAOM 2.53.7S 253.75 253.75 253.75 71 LOSS FD WAOII 533.51 311..20 0.00 0.00 I TOT. WAOII am ... 25.401.M K ..... 29.H2A ----OUT 10 s1EJ1- ,.,. \"TION8 11 ST ATE l'\\JN0S $Q63.200.2,41 $983,.200,24' $1,\"8.684.101 S1, 111,111,171 12Nit0..M'(AOJEJ SQ ... g....,,;: . ... ' iiiiii 13 TOTAL ST. SSIII.U00.241 $1,!Ma, .. , 101 $1,111,717,171 S1, 147.290,11111 14 AVNIT. $11,015.9118.ffl $11.371.121. s1u1e. 1M.511 $20,alXJ.232,515 150iMGERATI: 0.0271 OJXl15 0.03111 0.0319 19 TOTAL AV OiO $473,044,7 S571.-.m SG2.929.253 $M4,455.2,47 17 TOTAL MISC. FOS. S!.215..3311 15.171 70Z '-A 739, 1111 S7 209247 11 TOTAi. Rl!SOURSU $1441-~ s1.a:n..1112.m s1m~ $1 11 ut25.355 11 TOT. WADII 171112'  SZ1 7l1 11,~ 1:111..a1 !lX.1IO 20 saa tt7S4.IO tt 14\u0026..21 '3.331.ff S3,\"5UI 21 DIFfUEHC2 U91.II $1- SUUI 22 AV!. LOC. RES. SN7 11111 Sf.:21111 $1..:za:I 2l IIIIFIIA CAL.CtJLAT10N 24 TOTAL AV. $1 ,So\u0026e,039.71'1 S1 ,712,311.Z20 $1,947,375,174 S1 ,9\u0026l,n7,1547 25 XCHG. 145.7~.101 SSJ. 837. 803 SG.1111,1115 sa2,753,401 291 MISC. REV. 75\" $102. 158 S1-47,11M S132.386 27/LOCAL RES. $,45,834,284 $53,i:37,803 $82.3'4.37'9 $62,M5,7S7 28 NO. M. D. 29 M.O. CR. 30 NET LOC. RES. $45,834.26' $53,937,803 $82.l4e.379 SS2,885,787 31 LOC. RES. RATE s1.ns.oe $2.123.37 $2.42:ll.07 $2,419.38 32 SaeR $2.75U0 $3, 1-4e.2S $3,331.97 $3,456.e.5 JJiTABlE RATE $978.54 S1 022.90 $905.90 $1 037.47 341 TOT. MFPA 'l:ll 172..1%1 ~11\u00261.74 $23 2IO 152 $:21 9M.3TT 3SiMfPACHAHGe $110121 (ll.701.!M $3 SN.22.S 31/ADDmOHAL. FUNDING 37 TEACHER RET. \u0026 HEAL.TH INS. COST $11 ,511.5111.00 S 13,802,731.00 $1-4,481 ,9'2.00 $15,933,618.50 38 AT RISK S 1,228.252. OIi $1.229~00 S 1.2:Ze.252.00 $1.229.252.00 39 TRANS $1 ,653 753.00 S1 . 653. 753.00 $1553753.00 $1 653 753.00 40 TOT. ADO. STAn FUNDI 114.lU.. ... $11.112.741 $17 341.M7 $1111312.4 41 TOT. STATE fUfjDI $31571 417 $G ll\u0026L.tlllll $40.122.0N $45 710.000 42 TOT Al. CHAHGI $3.~ , .. ., ..... - S! 157.101 431 S.EQA/GWTHIGWT. FCJD.SJINC. $4350,510 $43.233.011 t.\u00265.941~ 44/TOTAL MOR OR (LESS) THAH ACT 34 I u.u.0211 12110 NZ $161,313 EXHIBIT I A ; ... ~c - , 2 ,,. ' MFPA CAL.C. ESTIMATES: ACT 34 FOR N-e7 97-81 \u0026 91-81 A.CT3,q71.-. OISTlaCT NUt\"2 NUSD NLASD ~ LINE ............. Y!AII 1~ 199M1 1917-tl 1 ..... NO. CHNtG! IIATI!   0.0271 0.0315 IJ.Ol1M 0.03114 1 WADMDATA 2 REG. 3QAOM 9,079.25 ll.9C.111 9,094.2' 9,231 .07 3 SPEDWNJM  1,111l.78 1,11ua 1,119.78 1,1111.78 4 VOCWNJM' 310.71 310.71 310.71  310.71 5 VOCCWN)M 8.15 8.15 6.15 8.15 S GATWMlM 0 107.75 107.75 107.75 107.75 7 LOSS FU W.ADII 140.13 11~ 0.00 4.00 I TOT.WAOII 10 7M.l5 10.131.71 10,131.G 10.nSM ,....,..our 10 ~ CM.CULAnoNa 11 ST A Tl! l'U.\"C\u003eS S983..200.241 S883,200.241 St,048.1594,101 St .111 ,717,171 12AMOlMTADOED so) , . .,,..,!I,:,!: 13 TOTA\u0026. ST. $803..200.241 11 ,IMl,e\u0026M, 101 11,111,717,171 11,1-47.280,8111 14AVMr. S17,015,ll11U75 S11.l71.721. 119,111. 194,517 120 1113 232 515 15 CHARGE RATE 0.0271 0.0315 0.0318 0.0319 111 TOTM.AVCHG $-473,044,7N $571,a\u0026l,953 $832,i29,l5J SilM,465,247 17 TOTAL MISC. FDS. S5.215 335 $5 171 702 U739111 S72011-.247 11 TOTAL RESCIUltlEI 11 ~1.--.:i\u0026.I S1 ICD. 7n.n1 $1751..-..- SU11~ 11 TOT. WAOII m- 521731 518.2.111 ~a1 521,1 saa S2.7S\u0026.IO Sl.1\"\"-21 S2.331.ff H ,,.  .,. 21 DIFFRENC2 mi.II S1ISJI 112'.II Z2 AW. L0C. IIU. SI01' 11111 11.2111 $1-2EI 2l IIFPA CALCUUTION 24 TOT M.A. V. $-41,,333.275 $-4:ZS,'11.491 $-471 ,402.- $-475.a:!4.,220 25 XCHG. $11 ,511,485 $13,400,C s1s,cee.111 $15.201 ,020 215 MISC. R\u0026. 75\" S12.8511 12.m $0 27 LOCM.RES. $11,531,120 $13,400,462 S15.0S.311D $15..201,020 2S NO.M.O. 211 M.D.CR. 30 NET LOC. RES. $11,531 ,120 $13,400,462 115.09,390 $15.201,020 31 LOC.. RES. RA TE $1,071.24 $1.2~.47 $1,415.54 $1,410.71 32 S8ER $2,754.80 SJ,1-44.28 S3,l31.J7 $3,456.85 33 TASLS RATE $1 613.38 $1 588.11 $1918.'3 S2 048.t, 3' TOT.WPA S1L120 Ga ~079.2117 S203U14'1 !22 !ML 071 35 IIIFPAatAHGe $1H.l..124 $312-.lla $159.nt 3' .ADOfflONAL FUNDING 37 TEAC\u003eER RET. 6 HEM.TH INS. COST \"' 107,741.00 $4.'53,571 .00 $-4,681, 1 !M.00 $4,937,917.00 JI AT RISK $-478. 197.00 $478,197.00 $478,197.00 $478.197.00 39 TR.AHS S5 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1687","title":"Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, joint motion to relieve Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) from its obligation to file a February 1999 semiannual monitoring report; District Court, opposition of Joshua intervenors to join motion; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1998-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School facilities","School employees","School integration","Students","Student assistance programs","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, joint motion to relieve Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) from its obligation to file a February 1999 semiannual monitoring report; District Court, opposition of Joshua intervenors to join motion; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1687"],"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":["37 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 NOV C 1998 Orf!CE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 * * * * * * * Defendants. * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * * * * * ORDER FILED U.S. OISTR1crcouRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS NOVO l 1998 - JAMES W/ McGO~MACK, CLERK By: \\ , C::hl (\\ MUC\\ ' DEP Cl.ERK . On July 1, 1998, the Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit handed down an opinion on the issue of funding of retirement and health insurance for teachers and directed this Court to decide, in the first instance, exactly what relief is appropriate. The Eighth Circuit's mandate was filed in this Court on August 17, 1998, and the parties have now submitted papers setting forth their respective views on the matter. Accordingly, a hearing on this issue is hereby scheduled for Tuesday, January 5, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED this J ~ay of November 1998. rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP ON l/-.!1;98 BY :n:: _ 1 The Court contacted a majority of the counsel in this case in an attempt to set an earlier hearing date but was infonned that counsels' schedules prevented such an earlier hearing. The Eighth Circuit has previously indicated that it expects some kind of hearing to be held on many of the issues in this case. See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Spec. School Dist., 60 F.3d 435, 436-67 (80, Cir. 1995). 2 - HERSCHEL H . FRIDAY 11922 - 199-41 WILLIAM H . SUTTON , P. A . JAMES W . MOORE BYRON M . EISEMAN , JR .. P.A . JOE O. \u0026Ell , P. A . .. C. ECHOLS, P. A . SA . BUTTRY , P. A . ERICK$ . URSERY , P. A . RE . DAVIS , JR ., P. A . JAMES C. CLARK , JR ., P. A . THOMAS P. LEGGETT , P. A . J OHN DEWEY WATSON , P. A . PAUL B, BENHAM Ill , P. A . LARRY W . BURKS , P. A . A . WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR ., P. A . JAMES EDWARD HARRIS , P. A . J . PHILLIP MALCOM, P. A . JAMES M . SIMPSON , P. A . JAMES M . SA X TON , P. A . J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, P. A . DONALD H. BACON , P. A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P . A . BARRY E. COPLIN , P. A . RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR, P. A . JOSEPH 8 . HURST , JR ., P. A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY , P. A . CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P. A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH , P. A . ROBERTS . SHAFER, P.A . WILLIAM M . GRIFFIN Ill , P. A . MICHAELS. MOORE, P. A . DIANE S. MACKEY, P. A . WALTER M . EBEL Ill , P.A . KEVIN, A . CRASS , P. A. Wlllf:A.M A . WADDELL, JR ., P. A . FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3493 TELEPHONE 501 - 376 -2011 FAX NO . 501 - 376 -2147 November 12, 1998 NO\\J 13 1998 Qff\\CEOf o~sa;RtGA1\\0N MOtt\\lOR11'G Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Amended Fee Petition Dear Tim: SCOTT J. LANCASTER , P. A . M . GAYLE CORLEY , P. A . ROBERT 8 . BEACH , JR ., P. A . J . LEE BROWN , P. A . JAMES C . BAKER, JR .. P.A . HARRY A. LIGHT , P. A . SCOTT H . TUCKER , P. A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH , P. A . GUY ALTON WADE , P. A . PRICE C . GARONER , P. A . TONIA P. JONES , P. A . DAVID 0 . WILSON , P. A . JEFFREY H . MOORE, P. A . DAVID M . GRAF , P. A . CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A JOHN C . FENDLEY , JR ., P. A . R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0 . TAYLOR TON Y L. WILCOX FRANC . HICKMAN BETTY J . DEMORY BARBARA J . RAND LYNDA M . JOHNSON JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIELL. HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, J R. ALLISON J . CORNWELL TODD A . GREER ELLEN M . OWENS HELENE N . RA YDER JASON B. HENDREN SUSANN . CHILDERS BRUCE 8 . TIDWELL CHRIS A . AVERITT Of COUNSH WILLIAM J . SMITH 8 . S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON , JR . H. T . LARZELERE , P. A . WRITER 'S OIRl!CT NO. (501) 370-1506 I have enclosed our amended fee petition concerning the teacher retirement and health insurance issues . Much of my time was mistakenly left out of the original petition. The problem became apparent to me as I reviewed Sam's and Steve's fee petitions. It took some time for me to retrieve the time records from a general billing number. I apologize for the delay. CJH/k cc: All Counsel Ann Brown - ---- - --- - - Heller 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 l\\1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED NOV 1 3 1998 OfflCEOf DESEGREGATION MONffORINS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS For its amended motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS 1. LRSD is the prevailing party with respect to the teacher retirement and health insurance issues and is therefore entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs. LRSD, together with the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District, moved for summary judgment because the State of Arkansas changed its method of funding teacher retirement and health insurance to their detriment and in violation of the settlement agreement in this case. This court granted summary judgment. On July 1, 1998, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this court's order. 2. LRSD now seeks its attorneys' fees and costs expended presenting these issues. LRSD respectfully requests that this court award it reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 3. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has previously held in this case that fees should be awarded to LRSD for successful litigation enforcing the terms of its settle~ent agreement with the State of Arkansas. Little Rock School Dist. v. State of Ark., 127 F.3d 693 (8th Cir. 1997). 4. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark has historically billed the Little Rock School District at significantly discounted rates. LRSD is nevertheless entitled to an award of reasonable fees at the rates normally charged by the attorneys who work on behalf of the district. Little Rock School Dist. v. State of Ark., 127 F.3d 693, 697-98 (8th Cir. 1997); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 959 F.2d 716 (8th Cir. 1992). 5. LRSD should be awarded the following fees in accordance with the accompanying Affidavit: Christopher Heller - 114.75 hours x $170.00 = $19,507.50. 6. The district court has previously awarded fees to counsel for LRSD at the rate of $160 per hour for work done in 1994 and 1995. Order, December 31, 1997, Docket No. 3101. The fees sought in this petition are calculated at the regular rates for LRSD's lawyer for 1997 and 1998. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has awarded fees to LRSD's lawyer at the rates requested in this petition. 7. LRSD's previous motion for attorneys' fees and costs related to these issues contained significant omissions which were brought to counsel's attention upon the filing of the North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District fee Affidavits. Counsel for ADE was promptly notified that the previous fee petition was incomplete and that an amended fee petition would be filed. F:IHOME\\KATHY\\APPEAL\\1794USDCFccsAmdMot 2 WHEREFORE, LRSD prays for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees of $19,507.50 as set forth in the accompanying Affidavit. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Little Rock School District's Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs has been served on the following on this 12th day of November, 1998: Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 F:IHOMEIKATHYIAPPEAL\\179-IUSDCFeesAmdMot 3 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 F:IHOMEIKATHYIAPPEAL\\1794USDCFecsAmdMo\u003c 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCTNO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL AFFIDAVIT I, Christopher Heller, after being duly sworn, state under oath: REC IVED NOV 1 3 1998 OFFICE OF l\u0026GREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS 1. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark's billing statements attached as Exhibit A to this Affidavit reflect the hours worked on the teacher retirement and health insurance issues as recorded in contemporaneous time records. All of the time shown on these billing statements has been billed to the Little Rock School District and those bills have been paid. 2. I have been engaged in the private practice oflaw at Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark for seventeen years. My normal hourly billing rate for the period oftime covered by these issues was $170. 00. That rate is in line with the rates typically charged by lawyers of similar experience and ability in Pulaski County, Arkansas. I was recently awarded fees at this rate for work on these issues in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark-has historically billed the Little Rock School District at significantly discounted rates. For the period of time covered by these issues, the highest hourly rate charged by any partner in the firm for any work on behalf of the Little Rock School District was $125.00, regardless of the partner's experience, ability or regular billing rate. 4. Based on the hours devoted to these appeals multiplied by the regular hourly rates of the participating lawyers, LRSD is entitled to the following fees: Christopher Heller - 114.75 hours x $170.00 = $19,507.50. By: - County of Pulaski) )ss. State of Arkansas) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary Public in and for the County of Pulaski, State of Arkansas on this ;.;,... ti- day of November, 1998. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT F:IHOME\\KA THY\\APPEAL11794USDCFeesAmdAlf 2 - - FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Little Rock School District's Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs has been served on the following on this 12th day of November, 1998: Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 F:IHOMEIKATHY\\APPEAL\\1794USDCFccsAmdAff 3 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 F:IHOME\\KA THY\\APPEALll 794USDCFecsA111Aff 4 LETTER TO DR. ROSSELL ENCLOSING DATA TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH AUDRY LEE RE: HISTORICAL STUDENT ASSIGNMENT DATA 4/29/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS RE: TEST SCORE DISPARITY/LOAN ISSUE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STACEY PITTMAN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS VARIOUS MATTERS RE: UNITARY STATUS 4/29/96 JCF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DAVID BESON RE: MEETING 4/29/96 JLM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MS. LEWIS RE: MGMT TOOL TRAVELED TO LRSD; CONFERRED WITH DR. JACKSON AND MS. LEWIS RE: MGMT TOOL; RETURNED TO OFFICE 4/30/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS (2 CALLS) TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH RUSS MAYO RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED INFORMATION RE: SCALE TEST SCODES; ADE LOAN AGR MEMO FROM DR. MAYO RE: HEARINGS ON COMPLIANCE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED REVISED BUSINESS CASES REVIEWED TRANSCRIPTS AND OLD FILES RE: 6 YEAR PLAN ARGUMENT CONFERENCE WITH JCF RE: MEETINGS AND MOTION RE: PLAN TERM (2) 4/30/96 JCF FAX FROM DR. MAYO RE: INTERNAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. ROSSELL RE: RESEARCH ON ORFIELD AND WALBERG 4/30/96 JLM PREPARATION OF NOTICE OF FILING; CORRESPONDENCE; REVIEWE AND FINALIZED; VARIOUS MATTERS RE: PROJECT MGMT TOOL 5/01/96 CJH LETTER FROM ELIZ TURNER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE PROJECT MGMT TOOL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: ADE MEETING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 1.00 .25 .25 .25 .25 .75 .25 .25 1.00 .50 .25 .50 .25 .75 1. 25 .50 .25 .50 1.00 .25 .so 27 -128658 6/30/96 .000090-CJH Gi) (Continued on page 28) 5/15/96 CJH 5/15/96 JCF 5/16/96 CJH 5/16/96 JCF 5/17/96 CJH 5/17/96 JCF 5/17/96 RSS WILLIAMS RE: INTERVENTION IN DESEG. CASE REVIEWED ARMOR ARTICLES AND CASES IN WHICH TESTIFIED; PREPARATION FOR TESTIMONY OF DR. ARMOR PREPARATION AND COURT HEARING EXPERT WITNESS DAVID ARMER; CONFERENCE WITH CO-COUNSEL; PREPARATION BRIEF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH PAT GEE CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: ARMOR TESTIMONY PREPARATION OF MOTION TO END JURISDICTION ATTENDED HEARING RE: TESTIMONY OF DR. ARMOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. MAYO TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY WALKER; THEN WALKER AND J. WRIGHT; CALLS TO SAM AND STEVE; CALL TO WILLIAMS AND MAYO TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STACY PITTMAN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEANNA RE: BEACH REQUEST TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. MAYO RE: DOCUMENTATION OF SPECIFIC COMPLIANCE AREAS RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF BRIEF RE: COMPLIANCE; JURISDICTION REVIEWED TRANSCRIPTS RE: SIX YEAR ARGUMENT PREPARATION OF MOTION FOR END OF JURISDICTION MEETING WITH ADE, PCSSD, NULRSD AND LRSD RE: NEW STATE FUNDING FORMULA: THEN CONFERENCE WITH DISTRICT COUNSEL RESEARCHED AND FINAL PREPARATION AND REVISION OF MOTION AND BRIEF RE: FED. CT. JURISDICTION; REPORTED TO CLIENTS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SCOTT TROTTER'S OFFICE PREPARATION OF MOTION TO END JURISDICTION REVIEWED DRAFT BRIEF Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 2.00 2.50 9.50 .so .so 4.75 3.00 .25 1.00 .25 .25 .so 8.75 1.50 8.00 6.25 .25 7.50 .75 34 -128658 6/30/96 .000090-CJH (Continued on page 35) 5/29/96 JCF 5/29/96 JLM 5/30/96 CJH 5/30/96 JCF 5/31/96 CJH FEES LETTER FROM SAM JONES RE: COMM-CASE PREPARATION FOR ORFIELD TESTIMONY; REVIEWED ARTICLES AND CASES; CONFERENCE WITH CO-COUNSEL; AND TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES CONFERENCE WITH KRIS BABER LETTER FROM JOINT WALKER RE: DEPOSITIONS LETTER FROM JOINT WALKER RE: DEPOSITIONS CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: HEARING PREPARATION REVIEWED ARTICLE BY ORFIELD RE: PREPARATION FOR HEARING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARDI WATTS RE: ORFIELD TRANSCRIPT CONFERENCE CALL WITH DR. ROSSELL, CJH AND ATTY. SAM JONES RE: HEARING PREPARATION REVIEWED HISTORICAL STUDENT ASSIGNMENT NUMBERS; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH AUDREY LEE RE: DATA ENTRY TRAVELED TO LRSD; ATTENDED MEETING RE: PROJECT MGMT TOOL: RETURNED TO OFFICE PREPARATION AND APPEARED AT TRIAL - EXPERT TESTIMONY OF GARY ORFIELD; THEN HEARING RE: DISCOVERY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS LETTER FROM SAM JONES RE: PCSSD CLAIM LETTER FROM SAM JONES RE: M TOM ISSUE CONFERENCE WITH JUDGE WRIGHT RE: DEPOS. OF DR . WILLIAMS AND DR. MAYO ATTENDED HEARING; TESTIMONY OF DR. ORFIELD; LUNCH MEETING WITH CJH; ATTY. JONES REVIEWED MILLIKEN OPINIONS; CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: PREPARATION FOR TESTIMONY Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .25 .25 8.50 .25 .25 .25 1.50 4.50 .25 1.25 1.25 1.00 9.75 .25 .25 .25 .75 7.00 OF ORFIELD 1.75 38 -128658 6/30/96 .000090-CJH PREPARATION AND APPEARED FOR HEARING G) RE: ADE FUNDING ISSUE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD FOIA REQUEST 5 (Continued on page 39) RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: JOSHUA RESPONSE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH J. WRIGHTS DOCKET CLERK RESEARCHED POSSIBLE CLAIMS VS ADE ER BREACH OF SETTLEMENT; CALL TO MARK MILHOLLEN 5/31/96 JCF ATTENDED HEARING RE: SCHEDULE ON FUNDING ISSUES ORGANIZED MATERIALS FOR EXPERT FILES USE DURING HEARINGS CONFERENCE WITH ATTY. STEVE JONES RE: FILING JOINT MOTION ON FUNDING ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BOB CONNOLLY RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT DATA TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARINGS 5/31/96 JLM PREPARATION OF PLEADING AND CORRESPONDENCE; VARIOUS MATERS RE: Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 39 -128658 6/30/96 .000090-CJH ~~ ~ .25 .25 .25 PROJECT MGMT TOOL Total Services 1.00 897.75 $86053.75 ANDREW T. TURNER CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER DEBORAH K. MOORE JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY JERRY LEE MALONE JANE MARIE WEISENFELS ROBERTS. SHAFER WALTER A. PAULSON WILLIAM H. SUTTON BINDING EXPENSE COURT REPORTER DISBURSEMENT RE: DEPOSITION EXPENSE EXPRESS MAIL COPY CHARGES FILE PREPARATION - - 1. 75 494.00 26.00 321.75 26.75 3.00 21.50 .50 2.50 X 85.00 = 148.75 X 105.01 = 51874.94 X 45.00 = 1170.00 X 85.00 = 27348.75 X 105.00 = 2808.75 X 45.00 = 135.00 X 105.00 = 2257.50 X 105.01 = 52.51 X 105.01 = 262.53 108.25 1371.00 17.00 2528.40 16.80 2335.20 126.00 {Continued on page 40) - - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MARKHAM \u0026 IZARD STREETS LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PULASKI CTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DIST NO. 1 5/28/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD MOTION AND BRIEF 6/02/96 JCF REVIEWED BUSINESS CASES AND TENTATIVE 96-97 BUDGET 6/03/96 CJH LETTER FROM ELIZ BOYTER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE PROJECT MGMT TOOL PREPARATION AND MEETING WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: CLAIM AGAINST STATE: CONFERENCE WITH JCF RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: FEES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED DOCUMENTS FROM MILHOLLEN; RESEARCH AND PREPARATION OF CLAIM AGAINST STATE 6/03/96 JCF FAX FROM DR. ROSSELL RE: SERVICES CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: NEW FUNDING FORMULA ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BOB CONNOLLY RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH AUDREY LEE RE: HISTORICAL STUDENT ASSIGNMENT DATA PREPARED FORMAT FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT DATA; FAXED TO BOB CONNOLLY 6/04/96 CJH LETTER TO DR. JOEL ANDERSON LETTER TO BILL BEAVEN CONFERENCE WITH STEVE ENGSTROM RE: WALKER FEES; REVIEWED FILE; EXCHANGED INFORJATION; RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED FEE DOCUMENTS RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF MOTION AND BRIEF OF ADE Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .so 2.50 .25 .so e 65 2.50 .25 . 25 .so .25 .25 1.50 8 1 -129263 7/30/96 . 000090-CJH (Continued on page 2) 6/04/96 JCF 6/05/96 CJH 6/05/96 JCF 6/06/96 JCF 6/07/96 JCF 6/10/96 CJH 6/10/96 JCF PREPARATION AND MEETING WITH BIRACIAL COMM. PREPARATION OF MOTION TO EXCUSE RIGGS FROM BUDGET HEARING REVIEWED TRANSCRIPT OF LAST BUDGET HEARING; PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARING RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF LRSD MOTION AND BRIEF; CALL TO SAM JONES; DON STEWART; MARK MILHOLLEN, REVIEWED AND REIVSED; FILED RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED JOSHUA MOTION TO EXTEND RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED JOSHUA MOTION AND BRIEF RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS CONFERENCE WITH WITNESSES RE: PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARING REVIEWED BUDGET AND BUSINESS CASES; PREPARATION OF OUTLINE FOR BUDGET HEARING REVIEWED ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS AND RECRUITMENT MATERIALS; PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARING ATTENDED BUDGET HEARING REVIEWED BUSINESS CASES; CONFERENCE WITH MR. MILHOLLEN RE: PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARING REVIEWED JOSHUA'S MOTION RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS LETTER FROM SAM JONES WITH REVISED BRIEF RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED NLRSD MOTION AND BRIEF LETTER FROM MR. GANS RE: ADE APPEAL RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND INTERROGATORY RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION FOR HEARING ON JOSHUA FEE ISSUE REVIEWED ODM AND JOSHUA REPORTS CITED IN JOSHUA MOTION - PREPARATION OF RESPONSE CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: BUDGET HEARING PRINTED NEW 8TH CIR. OPINION RE: BURDEN Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 1.25 .25 3.75 G .25 .75 6.00 1. 50 6.75 .50  .25 @) 2.25 3.00 .25 2 -129263 7/30/96 .000090-CJH (Continued on page 3) INCENTIVE SCHOOL OBLIGATIONS 6/26/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ED JACKSON; CLAY FENDLEY; REVIEWED DESEG. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF FEE PETITION VARIOUS MATTERS RE: UNITARY STATUS DATA; MONITORING REPORTS: RESPONSE TO WALKER; REVIEWED NEW CASES 6/26/96 JCF CONFERENCE WITH DEANA RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL RESPONSE CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET TOOL REVIEWED PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET TOOL FOR FY 97 AND FY 98 REVIEWD SUMMARY OF INCENTIVE SCHOOL OBLIGATIONS PREPARED BY DEANA TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MS. LEWIS RE : PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET TOOL CONFERENCE WITH DR. JACKSON AND MS. LEWIS RE: PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET TOOL 6/27/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED FAX FROM TIM GAUGER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR. GAUGER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED FAX FROM BOB MORGAN CONFERENCE WITH FENDLEY RE: SERVICEMASTER BRIEF PREPARATION OF MOTION RE: ATTORNEY FEES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH TERESA CALDWELL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY KOWLER'S OFFICE 6/27/96 JCF PREPARATION OF NOTICE OF FILING PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING TOOL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JOY SPRINGER RE: JOSHUA MONITORING REPORTS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH FRETA ROGERS RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT DATA 6/28/96 CJH LETTER FROM ANGEL JONES WITH NOTICE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE MOTION 6/28/96 DKMP REVIEWED SUMMARY OF MONITORING REPORT Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .25 .75 2.25 1. 75 1.50 .50 1.00 3.50 .25 6 -129263 7/30/96 .000090-CJH db .25 .25 .50 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 0 (Continued on page 7) - - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MARKHAM \u0026 IZARD STREETS LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PULASKI CTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DIST NO. 1 7/01/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STEVE JONES 7/01/96 DKMP PREPARATION OF SUMMARY OF REPORTS 7/01/96 JCF RECEIVED AND REVIEWED ACHIEVEMENT DATA FROM FRETA ROGERS RECEIVED AND REVIEWED HISTORICAL STUDENT ASSIGNMENT DATA FROM AUDREY LEE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH FRETA ROGERS RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT REPORTS 7/02/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: ADE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: FEE PETITION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES REVIEWED EXPERT TRANSCRIPTS 7/03/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED JOSHUA MOTION AND BRIEF RE: ODM RECOMENDATIONS VARIOUS MATTERS RE: PLAN MODIFICATIONS; CONFERENCE WITH JCF; RESEARCHED APPEAL ISSUES R:E MOTION TO DISMISS/ SERVICEMASTER 7/03/96 JCF CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: KANSAS CITY AGREEMENT; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MO. AG'S OFFICE 7/05/96 CJH REVIEWED TRANSCRIPTS RE: PLAN MODIFICATION 7/08/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JIM HATHAWAY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DIXON FLAKE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: HEARING REVIEWED INCENTIVE SCHOOL 4 YR OLD AND KINDERGARTEN INFORMATION; CALL TO Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .so 6.00 .25 . 25 ci95 d!, I 5 1.00 3.25 .25 1.00 .25 .25 .25 (Continued on 1 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH page 2) CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: MEETING TO DISCUSS MODIFYING STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN CONFERENCE WITH CJH AND JULIE WIEDOWER RE: MODIFYING STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. ARMOR RE: PREPARING NEW STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN REVIEWED STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN; PREPARED DRAFT MODIFICATIONS BASED ON EXPERT HEARINGS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JULIE WIEDOWER RE: MEETING TO DISCUSS MODIFYING STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN REVIEWED MONITORING REPORTS; PREPARATION OF OUTLINE OF OBLIGATIONS RE: SCHOOL THEMES, MULITCULTURAL EDUC., FOREIGN LANG., SCIENCE LABS AND FIELD TRIPS 7/18/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER VARIOUS MATTERS RE: CREATION OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF UNITARY STATUS; PLAN MODICIATIONS  TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RESEARCHED AMEND 59, AMEN. 1 AND OTHER SCHOOL FINANCE ISSUES; CONFERENCE WITH SCHOOL DISTRICUT COUNSEL AND FINANCE OFFICIALS CONFERENCE WITH JCF RE: MOTIONS AND SCHEDULING 7/18/96 JCF REVIEWED AND REVISED OUTLINE OF OBLIGATIONS PREPARED BY DEANA RESEARCHED IMPACT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON TERMINATION OF CONSENT DECREE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEANA RE: PRINTING AUDIT RESULTS BY DOCUMENT PAGE NUMBER 7/19/96 JCF REVIEWED JOSHUA MOTION AND BRIEF RE: ODM RECOMMENDATIONS RESEARCHED POWER OF FEDERAL COURT TO Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .25 .75 1.00 1.25 .25 3.25 .25 1. so .25 .25 4 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH @ .25 4.25 2.75 .25 .75 (Continued on page 5) SUA SPONTE MODIFY CONSENT DECREE REVIEWED ODM REQUIREMENTS RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS AND CORROLATED WITH LRSD OBLIGATION ID NUMBERS REVIEWED ORDER RE: JOSHUA MOTION RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS; PREPARATION OF MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO JOSHUA MOTION RE: ODM RECOMMENDATIONS 7/22/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES (2) TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. ANDERSON 7/23/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES (2) RESEARCHED INTERVENTION ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH PAT GEE REVIEWED FURTHER REVIEW OF ADE DISCOVERY RESPONSES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD DRAFT INTERROGATORIES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE MOTIN TO DISMISS/ABSTAIN WITH BRIEF 7/23/96 JCF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH PATTY KOHLER RE: RESCHLEY REPORT AND LRSD DATA 7/24/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JULIE WEIDOMIER RE: S/A INFORMATION; LAIDLAW SOFTWARE FOR MANIP. S/A DATA TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES (2) RESEARCHED AND CONFERENCE WITH CO-COUNSEL RE: INTERVENTION; ROSS. DISCOVERY; RESPONSE LETTER FROM SAM JONES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS 7/24/96 JCF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. JACKSON RE: BUDGETING TOOL 7/25/96 CJH LETTER FROM ANN BROWN RE: LRSD BUDGET LETTER FROM STEVE JONES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED NLRSD MOTION AND BRIEF 7/26/96 CJH RESEARCHED WHITE FLIGHT ISSUES; NEW Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 1. 75 4.00 .50 GJ .25 0 .25 ~ .so 1.25 .25 .25 .75 ey .75 .25 .25 .25 .so 5 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH (Continued on page 6) 8TH CIR. CASE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: ENDING ISSUES; INTERVENTION RESEARCHED ADE REGS AND STATUTES RE: SCHOOL FUNDING CONFERENCE WITH JCF (2) RE: RESEARCH ISSUES 7/28/96 CJH LETTER TO DR. ANDERSON RE: NLR MOTION REVIEWED DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY ADE CONTINUED REVIEWED STATE PLEADINGS AND FILES RE: ADE FINANCIAL ISSUES 7/29/96 CJH RESEARCHED AND REVIEWED DOCUMENTS AND ADE PLEADINGS RE:O FUNDING AND INTERVENTION ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES MEMO FROM SAM JONES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ANALYSIS OF ARK. SCHOOL FUNDING PLAN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH PAT GEE 7/29/96 JCF REVIEWED GREY BOOK; REVIEWED FY 97 AND FY 98 BUDGET TOOL 7/30/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES VARIOUS MATTERS RE: ADE FUNDING ISSUES; COMPLIANCE; ODM REPORTS; GOOMED REPORT 7/31/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. ANDERSON LETTER FROM SAM JONES LETTER FROM GUS TAYLOR RE: MEDIATION PREPARATION OF MOTION TO RELEASE SEATS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: LAKE VIEW BUDGET 7/31/96 JCF PREPARATION OF NOTICE OF FILING OF BUDGET TOOL CONFERENCE WITH DR. JACKSON AND MS. LEWIS RE: BUDGET TOOL REVIEWED INCENTIVE SCHOOL PROGRAM; REVIEWED AUDIT OF OBLIGATIONS RE: PREPARATION OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUA MOTION RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 8/01/96 CJH REVIEWED AND FINALIZED MOTION LETTER FROM ELIZ TURNER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE PROD MGMT TOOL Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 1.00 G \u003c9 .50 .25 G;; ~ ~ .25 ~--2~0 1. 75 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 1.25 2.75 .50 .25 .50 6 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH (Continued on page 7) RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD DRAFT RESPONSE 8/01/96 JCF RESEARCHED APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH CONSENT DECREE REVIEWED AUDIT OF DESEG. OBLIGATIONS RE: PREPARATION OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUA MOTION RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 8/02/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH GRAM JONES; RECEIVED REVISED DRAFT BRIEF; REVIEWED AND CORRECTION; CALL TO SAM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BARRY WARD RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED JOSHUA MEM. BRIEF OPPOSIVE END . OF FED JONES; CONFERENCE WITH JCF 8/02/96 JCF REVIEWED JOSHUA RESPONSE TO MOTION TO END JURISDICTION PREPARATION OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUA MOTION RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS PREPARATION OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO JOSHUA RESPONSE TO MOTION TO END JURISDICTION 8/05/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD MOTION TO CLARIFY 1993 ORDER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MOTION, BRIEF IN SUPPORT; ANS RESPONSE TO ANSWER FILED BY POTENTIAL INTERVENTOR CONFERENCE WITH JCF RE: RESPONSE TO JOSHUA RE: COMPLIANCE (2) TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DENT GITCHER LETTER TO DENT GITCHER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STEVE JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER RE: ORFIELD TRANSCRIPTS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED BIRACIAL, COMM. MONITORING INST. VARIOUS MATTERS RE: RESPONSE TO JOSHUA OTIONS; RESEARCHED; PREPARATION OF RESPONSE 8/05/96 JCF CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL RESPONSE Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS Q 2.25 2.50 G 1.50 1.00 6.50 .25 .50 .25 .25 .25 .50 3 . 25 .50 7 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH (Continued on page 8) 8/06/96 CAAC 8/06/96 CJH 8/06/96 JCF 8/07/96 CJH 8/07 /96 JCF 8/08/96 CJH RESEARCHED STANDARD AND REMEDIES FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT COPIED CASES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED NLRSD MOTION RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD MOTION AND BRIEF RE: CLASS BRIEFS PREPARATION OF RESPONSE TO WALKER PLEADINGS; REVIEWED DRAFTS; CONFERENCE WITH FENDLEY RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD RESPONSE TO ADE; BRIEF REVIEWED TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING RE: JUNE 5, 1992 ODM REPORT PREPARATION OF DRAFT RESPONSE TO JOSHUA MOTION RE: ODM RECOMMENDATIONS PREPARATION OF BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO JOSHUA MOTIONS RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS RESEARCHED WHETHER FINDING OF CONTEMPT REQUIRED FOR COURT TAKE ENFORCMENT ACTION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STERLING INGRAM LETTER FROM TIM GAUGER RE: PRIVILEGE DOCUMENTS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BEVERLY (2 CALLS) TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BARRY WARD TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES (2) RESEARCH CLASS ACTION ISSUES REVIEWED FY 96 BUDGET HEARING TRANSCRIPT RE: SPANISH PROGRAM PREPARATION OF BRIEF RE: JOSHUA MOTION ON ODM RECOMMENDATIONS RESEARCHED BURDEN OF PROOF ISSUE RE: JOSHUA MOTIONS RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS TELEPHONE CONFERNECE WITH STERLING INGRAM RE: MEETING ON JOSHUA MOTIONS AND SPANISH PROGRAM PREPARATION OF RESPONSES TO WALKER PLEADINGS RE : INCENTIVE SCHOOLS AND ODM, CONFERENCE WITH JCF AND REVIEWED AND REVISED DRAFTS Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 4.75 .75 .25 .so 1.00 GP 1.50 1.50 2.50 4.00 .25 .25 .so .25 1.00 .75 4.25 3.50 .25 1.00 8 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH {Continued on page 9) RECONSTRUCTING SOFTWARE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED JOSHUA OPPOSITION TO PCSSD MOTION RE: CLASS STILES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE RESPONSE. - INTERVENTION RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: VARIOUS MOTIONS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED KNIGHT MOTION RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD FEE MOTION; BRIEF; AFFIDAVIT RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD SUPPLEMENTAL TO PLAN MOD. MOTION EXHIBITS 8/20/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM DAVIS RE: STATE HEARING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH KENT GITENER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ED JACKSON RE: BIRACIAL ADK, REVIEWED FILE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORFIELD TRANSCRIPT AND SENT COPY TO DENT GITCHELL, LARRY BARWAY 8/21/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE RESPONSE TO PCSSD WITH BRIEF REVIEWED FOR AND PREPARATION FOR LAKEVIEW HEARING RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD MANUAL FOR FEES AND COSTS 8/22/96 CJH ATTENDED CLASS CERT HEARING IN LAKE VIEW CASE; CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES (2); REVIEWED TRANSCRIPTS 8/22/96 JCF CONFERENCE WITH LARRY BURKLEY RE: STATUS PREPARATION OF NOTICE OF FILING 4TH QUARTER PBD TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SHIRLEY LEWIS RE: 4TH QUARTER PBD REVIEWED AND SUMMARIZED VOLUME I OF TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID ARMOR 8/23/96 CJH CONFERENCE WITH LR ADVANCE RE: VARIOUS DESEG AND STUDENT ASSIGNMENT ISSUES; Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .50 .50 .50 .25 .50 .75 10 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH (35 .75 .50 1. 75 .25 .50 .25 .25 2.50 (Continued on page 11) 8/23/96 JCF 8/25/96 CJH 8/26/96 CJH 8/26/96 JCF 8/27 /96 CJH CONFERENCE WITH JCF CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED 1996-1997 FINAL BUDGET RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED TRANSCRIPT OF BUDGET HEARING RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED LRSD STATUS AND PROGRAM PLANNING DOCUMENTS PREPARATION OF RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INTERVENE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: BUDGET TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH AUDREY LEE RE: ZONE BLOCK MAPS REVIEWED AND SUMMARIZED VOLUME II OF TESTIMONY OF DR. ARMOR CONFERENCE WITH CJH, STACEY PITTMAN AND BAKER KURRUS RE: IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATION OF ALLIANCE VARIOUS MATTERS RE: CLAIMS VS ADE; RESPONSES TO INTERVENORS; LAKE VIEW AND BUDGET ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES; REVIEWED DRAFTS LETTER TO STERLING  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1675","title":"Court filings: District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to PCSSD's motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, report of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) assessment of the equitable allocation of resources; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Achievement Disparity between the Races in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; 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":["1998-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School improvement programs","School employees","Student assistance programs","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to PCSSD's motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, report of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) assessment of the equitable allocation of resources; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Achievement Disparity between the Races in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; 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/1675"],"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":["21 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.  RECEn,eo RECEJVE,:, - OCT 8 1998 JN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 8 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ~\\ EASTERN I\u003eISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING  .  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v.   No~ LR-C-82-866 : PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  .... . . .. l .  DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. -DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S   .. ; ... _ - . _. . . . . . . \" 'MOTIO. N T. .O . EN-F.O RC.E T. HE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT   - AS REGARDS MFPA\" . On September 8, PCSSD filed a \"Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement As - Regards MFPA.\"'  Attached to PCSSD's motion is an-unauthenticated exhibit that . purports to demonstrate that PCSSD received less state aid during fiscal years 1997 through 1999 than PCSSD \"would have received\" if the States' public school funding system had not been changed during the l995 legislative session and thereafter.1 In the purported motion, PCSSD does not cite to a single provision of the Settlement Agreement th~t has allegedly bee:. violated.  Instead, PCSSD -relies exclusively on language in the Eighth Circuit's July l, 1998 opinion concerning the . narrow issues of teacher retirement and health insurance funding and argues that, \"to . '. PCSSD~s \"motion~.does not contain any affidavit o~ declaration explai~ing who created the exhibit, explaining the ,- -~urce ~ta'or method6logy used, or explaining ~hat assuritptioris were made.in arriving at the alleged\" Act 34 . :     . , ~t~orri~~ for fiscaryears 1_997 through'. i999: f.s: such, even if P\u003c;Ssps m~tioii were in the nature of a motion for . ..  summary judgmen~ ~ibit A to PCSSD's motion could not~ con~idered ~ evidence and could not be relied upon ... , ~to support any)t~ding ofliability on ih~ part of ADE . See Wright, ~1iller \u0026 Kime, .Federal Practice and Procedure:  Civil 3d 2723; -.,~-390 ( 1998) (\"{T]he court may riot take cognizance of positions regarding the facts based on 1  ,' comply with the holdings of the Court of Appeals,\" PCSSD must be held harmless from any alleged adverse effect of the overall change in the funding system. Thus, although it is styled as a \"motion,\" PCSSD's latest filing is in fact a thinly-veiled attempt to file yet another brief on the \"teacher retirement\" and \"health insurance\" remedy issue currently . pending before this Court, in contravention of this Court's established briefing schedule. PCSSD's \"motion\" should therefore be stricken as untimely and not considered by the Court. In its earlier submissions to this Court, ADE has presented its arguments as to the appropriate method for calculating the \"remedy\" on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance. However, in the event.this Court accepts PCSSD's latest filing as an additional submission on the teacher retirement and health insurance \"remedy\" issue, ADE requests that it be given the opportunity to submit evidence and argument concerning the accuracy and appropriateness of PCSSD' s \"Act 34\" calculations for fiscal years 1997 through 1999, and concerning the appropriateness of PCSSD's suggested method for calculating an appropriate teacher retirement and health insurance \"'remedy.\"  Finally, even if the Court were to treatPCSSD's submission.as a motion separate and apart from the pending . proceedings on the retirement and health insurance remedy, . PCSSD's motion should be summarily denied. As noted earlier, PCSSD's motion does not identify a single provision of the Settlement Agreement that has :exJ.tibits that arc merely part of the brief and have not been otherwise verified or supported.\").; see also Fed. R. Evid. 801,802 and 901. 2 allegedly been violated, and therefore the motion fails to state a claim upon which relief niy be granted as against ADE. Further, PCSSD's latest motion appears to be a rehash of the unsuccessful motion for summary_ judgment PCSSD filed late last year. See PC5.5P's \"Separate Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of the State Funding Formula,\" filed September 2, 1997. This Court denied that motion on January 12, 1998, because 1'there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding the state funding fon;nula\" (see Docket Entry No. 3104), and PCSSD's most recent motion should be denied for the same reason.  Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General TIMOT Assistant Attorney General : 323- Center Street, Suite 200 ,_, - Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for  :Arkansas Department of Education 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . I, Timothy qauger, . certify that on October -6, 1998, I caused a copy of the .. foregoing . document to be  served by first class 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 Plaz.a .  200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. . 1723 Broadway     Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell    401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock; AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg . . 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown -; _ Office of.Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 4 I .OCT 7 Fil r.:p IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .. L-: --' -~~Glr llB8WireBAllomMIDI~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANsAs9n OCT - 7 PN L. WESTERNDMSION J.t'.f;'~-.:: l, , ,.. \" I  19 LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATIIBRINE KNIGHT, ET AL REPORT OF LRSD'S ASSESSMENT U ::  .. , . I ,!,t. n ~r' 1 ~., . .). u;-; , ,. c\" .  '.!,/, , r, ;\",, [( v , ~, f C -'1 -r \"'\"- L. l \\ f\\ BY .J ,1 I , AR. ---s~-U' 1 7:~~~IFF '\" '  l, Lt.RK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS OF THE EQUITABLE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Report ofLRSD's Assessment of the Equitable Allocation of Resources states: 1. LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") requires that LRSD assess the equitable allocation of resources in the district and report the results of this assessment within 180 days of the district court's approval of the Revised Plan. Revised Plan 2.9.2. The district court approved the Revised Plan on April 10, 1998. Docket No. 3144. Accordingly, LRSD's report of the assessment of the allocation of resources was to be completed on or before October 7, 1998. LRSD files this report in compliance with the Revised Plan. 2. LRSD assessed the allocation of its resources by way of a committee composed of district administrators and staff persons and representatives of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\").1 The committee first worked to determine what \"resources\" should be assessed. In this regard, the committee looked to available research in the area of school resources. Based on the available research and the committee's collective education and experience, the committee decided to assess the equitable allocation of resources in the district by examination often factors: (1) pupil/teacher ratio; (2) pupil/staff ratio; (3) square feet per pupil; ( 4) percentage of staff with a masters degree and nine or more years of experience; (5) the turnover rate of certified staff; (6) school size; (7) the computer/pupil ratio; (8) per pupil expenditure; (9) volunteer hours per pupil; and, (10) donations per pupil. 3. Pupil/Teacher Ratio. Research indicates that smaller class sizes (15 or less to 1 ) may improve achievement of minority students. See,~ Nye, B.A, Achilles, C.M., Zaharias, J.B., Fulton, B.D., Wallenhorst, M.P., Small Is Far Better, Paper presented at Mid-South Educ. Res. Ass'n, Knoxville, Tenn. (Nov. 13, 1992). The committee measured its pupil/teacher ratio using October 1, 1997 enrollment and certified staff at the school excluding administrators, counselors and librarians. The committee decided to exclude four-year-old classes, which have a smaller pupil/teacher ratio, because not all LRSD schools have four-year-old classes. 4. Pupil/Staff Ratio. The committee also wanted to include a measure which would recognize the importance of school administrators and other support staff at a school. In addition to certified teachers, this factor includes all other school based personnel with the exception of 1The committee members were as follows: Dr. Victor Anderson, Associate Superintendent for Operations; Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instructional Services; Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services; Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services; Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services; Brady Gadberry, Special Assistant to the Superintendent; Dr. Ed Williams, Research Specialist and Statistician; Ann Brown, Federal Desegregation Monitor; Skip Marshall, Associate Federal Desegregati9n Monitor; and, Gene Jones, Associate Federal Desegregation Monitor. 2 federal and food service employees. As with teachers, a lower pupil/staff ratio is considered more favorable with the goal being equity in the staffing formula. 5. Sguare Feet Per Pupil. The committee found that the school overcrowding can have a negative impact on student achievement. The Council of Education Facility Planning standards recommends 90 sq. ft. per pupil for elementary schools, 120 sq. ft. per pupil for middle schools and 145 sq. ft. per pupil for high schools. Using 3D International's 1995 Facilities Master Plan Study, the committee assessed schools based on the number of square feet per pupil with the assumption that the more space the better. Students in schools below the standard may not have adequate instructional space. 6. Percentage of staff with a masters degree plus and nine. In a 1990 study, researchers found that African-American student performance improved when teachers had strong language skills, nine or more years of experience and a master's degree or higher. Ferguson, R, Racial patterns in how school and teacher quality affect achievement and learning, In Challenge: A Journal of Research on Black Men (1990). Based on this study, the committee decided to measure the allocation of quality teachers by considering the percentage of teachers at a school with at least a masters degree plus nine years of experience. A higher percentage of being more favorable. 7. Turnover Rate of Certified Staff. Low turnover among certified staff plays an important role in building a strong and committed teaching staff and a strong base of parental and community support. High turnover, on the other hand, often results in an inexperienced teaching staff. See,~ Newmann, F.M. and Wehlage, G.G., Successful School Restructuring (1995). The committee calculated the turnover rate by comparing the number of new teachers at a school 3 (both new hires and transfers) to the total number of teachers at a school. The schools were then ranked based on the percentage of new teachers with the assumption that low turnover was most favorable. 8. School size. Recent studies indicate that school size, like class size, may impact student achievement. See,~ Howley, C.B., Synthesis of the effects of school and district size, What research says about achievement in small school and school districts, 41 Journal of Rural and Small Schools 2 (1989). Small schools promote better personal relationships between staff, students, parents and the community. Student morale tends to be higher because of a feeling of belonging. Teachers communicate better with each other and know students better allowing them to teach in a more individualized way. In assessing school size, the committee simply looked at the each school's enrollment and ranked the schools under the assumption that smaller was better. 9. Computer/Pupil Ratio. The committee developed the computer/pupil ratio as a proxy for assessing technological resources as provided for in the Revised Plan. LRSD has already begun implementation of its technology plan designed to bring the district in line with state and national technology standards. The ratio includes only network compatible computers in schools by September 22, 1998. A higher computer/student ratio was considered more favorable. 10. Per Pupil Expenditure. Pouring money into a school provides no guarantee of improving improved achievement. Even so, per pupil expenditure is perhaps the most commonly used factor for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. The committee calculated each school's per pupil expenditures based on the school's discretionary funds. This excluded expenditures for salaries, benefits, utilities and federal funding provided under Title I and for food 4 service. To prevent outliers based on extraordinary expenditures, the committee used a three year moving average for expenditures. 11. Volunteer Hours Per Pupil. Volunteer hours per pupil indicate the degree of parental and community involvement at a school. Authorities recognize the importance of parental and community involvement in school success. See. u., Graue. M.E . Weinstein, T., and Walberg, H.J., School Based Home Reinforcement Programs: A Quantitative Synthesis, 76 Journal Educ. Res. 351 (1983). Volunteer hours by school were obtained from the LRSD VIPS department. 12. Donations Per Pupil. Like volunteer hours. donations indicate the degree of parental and community involvement at a school. Donations may also fill in gaps left due to inadequate discretionary funding provided to a school by the district. Only donations accepted by the LRSD Board of Directors were considered. 13. Exhibit 1 contains the results of the committee's assessment of each of these factors for each school in the district. 14. The committee also undertook to determine whether any relationship existed between the resources allocated to a school and the percentage of African-American students attending a school. The committee enlisted Dr. Ed Williams ofLRSD's Planning, Research and Evaluation Department to determine if such a relationship existed. Using statistical measures, Dr. Williams combined the ten factors in order to assign each school a composite score. See Exhibit 2, \"Equitable Allocation Worksheet\" and \"Composite School Scores.\" Dr. Williams then compared each school's composite score to the school's percentage of African-American students. See Exhibit 2. \"Correlations.\" Dr. Williams concluded that there was no significant 5 relationship between the racial makeup of a school and the amount of resources allocated to the school. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 6 stopher Heller (#81083) C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 7th day of October, 1998. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Banlc Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A 425 W. Capito~ Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 10-07-98 EQUITY INDICATORS 1. Pupil/ Teacher Ratio Less Than 15 2. Pupil/ Starr Ratio Less Than 9 3. Sq. Ft./ Pupil : Elem 90, Jr 120, Sr 145 4. % or Starr w/ 9 yrs \u0026 Masters Degree 5. Turnover Rate or Certified Stafr 6. School Size 7. Computer/ Pupil Ratio 8. Per Pupil Expenditure 9. Volunteer Hours / Pupil 10. Donations / Pupil -... 1 ,I.D.. I  ::z: X Ill 1-.-.... .,,.... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ... - . ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES   - - . 10-07-98  -  -.  OCTOBER 1, 1997 ENROLLMENT . TOTAL TEACH PUP-PIK PUP-PIK -   -  PIK  K  T 12 tor TOT-PIK sL  WH 0TH roT 0/4BL % WH o,,;;OTH F.T.I~:- F.T.E. i STAFF \"{TEACH HIGHSCHOC\u003eLS .  - -   .. .. .. -    . ........ .  -  -     -- -.. ---- - -- ... - ---            - -  -  -- -       --- --- -- -- . .  - - -- . . - - - -- - - ....    --- --  -- -- - - - . CENTRAL 34 1821 1855 1855 1101 705 49 1855 59% 38% 3% 147.94 100.14 HALL ...  . .... . .. -  --  - 7  783 790 790 561 179 - -so ... 790 . 'h0io -23/~ --- .6io --- .. g-,fgQ 62.70    - - - - - - -  ---   .    --   - --  - - -------- - .. - - .. - - - --- . FAIR 757 757 757 612 137 8 757 81% 18% 1% 82.50 53.20 9.18 McCLELLAN -----  -- -  .. -  935 ___ _ 935 935 790 121 ... 24 -  g35 84i~ --faiii., ____ .. 3% ____ ___ 98.'fo _ .. __ 65.90 - .  9.53 PARKVIEW ... ... -... . ...... - - - 9f1 .... 'gd 911 464 403 44  911 51% 44/~ --- s0/o ---ag~io. - S!'i.40 10.21 12.54 8.32 18.52 12.60 14.23 14.19 TOTAL   ... .. . -- - ---  - o 41 5207 -524.8 5248 3528 1545 175 \"52,ia 6ii'lo - 29%  ' \"310 - sh64 341 .34 10.24 15.34 jiJNioR HIGH-sdfo'6U,-- -- -.. _.. ---.. .. - . - .   -- -   ---- -- -   - ..  -  -...  - .. ___ 15. 37 DUNBAR -  -- - .. --        - 771 771  .,_771 442 ... 282 - 47 771 57% 37% 6o/o .... . 70.io- FOREST HEIGHTS . .. . .... _  648 648 648 452 178 18 648 70% 27% 3% 73.90 PULASKfHEIGHTS - -    - -- - - - -  -767 --757 --  i67 - 437 315 - 15  - 757 . 57/~ -41% -- 2/4 .. _. 76.80 soui'i-lWEst  -  - ---.. -- - -- -- -- -- - --- -5fo .... sfo --s10 --- ,i2i5 -.... 65 ----19 - .. . 5fo . 84% 13% - 4/0 -- 6Ci.o6 HENDERSON-- --- ... __________ ___ -   - . 724 --124 .  - 724 624 83 11 . ---724 . 86% . 11% 2% . --1tf i:m CLOVERDALE   . . .. .. . .. - ..... -- -  622 622  -  622  - 552 36 34 622 89% .. .... i3/4  - ... 5% . ... 53jm- MABELVALE .. . . - _,. - .. -  .. 506 506 506 380 119 7 506 75% 24% 1% .. . . 61.36 MANN .  ....  - . .. ... ... - -    - - 85a - a58 858 446 375 37 858 .. sioj~ ---44% 4/0 . - . iff!i.1f totAL ... ...  - -     -   - -- a --o 5406 5406  -- s,foi3 3159 1453 rn4 5406 10% 21% 4% 564.90 ELEMENTARY SCHoocs -.. -   -- - . - .. - . - -- . - -- - - --- . .. . . ...... - . --- .. - .. .. .. 48.80 51 .30 56.30 42.40 53.30 44.80 41 .90 58.30 397.10 BALE ..  --   - 35  s1 . -216 362 327 265  11  26 362 73% 20% . . 1% .. 42.20 23.30 BRADY .. .. . ........ ----- -- - - - ---;a --56 - 298 .372 ....... .. 354 \"\"235 ....... 94 .. 43 - 372 \"tbii/4 - -25/o --f2% --- 35~io 20.30 BADGETT - . . ....... --  ---- ---- -31 ---jg ---163 233 -- -202  -214 -Tg ..... - i:33 \".92% -- --a;~ -- ---c:i'0/4 --- - 2O.io  15.30 McDER.MOTT ...... ... .. ...... ...    54 423 ,iii  \"\"4f7 .... 273 181 ... 23 ---- 4ii -s1io -- 380/o - .... s0;; .. .. 43.30 26.90 BASELINE :: : :~::;: -.-~:.::::~: -~::.~_: -~~5 ::-:~~ _=_2_~4 .: - -323  2aa -267  38 -  10  - Jij  83/o ---120,,~ ---- 5io . .. 3cf96 . 18) 0 FAIR .. PARK 36 36 176 248 -- -i12  ---188 50 10 248 75iij.  -20% 4% 27.00 1:i:ifo . FOREST PARK  -  .... ...    .. .. Si  373 430 430 205 219 6 430 48% 51% . . 1/~ 38.00 23.00 CHIC6T - .. . . ...... -- -- --.. - js -sg ---,i43 5j7 ------ --soi 370 . T21 46 537 -69% ---23i~ .... 9% ---- s9-:fo .. -29:40 WESTERNHILLS ...  - - .. -- - -jg --216 .... jfa --- 315 ... 222 91 2 315 70% 29% 1% -- 29~30  - 1 i:1O JEFFEl'fsoN ,   - --    --   Ka  --455 - sfa ....  ... 5f3  221 219 1 54% 1% 44 .oo 21.10 CLOVERDALE . .. . .... .. -35   ii 404 512 476   469  3ci 13 6% 3% 41 .10 .. 24 .30 6'600 -   -- .. _.   - ......  - 2.; :2oci  224 ----- 224 145 14 5 \"J3i~ -  iii. --- 30:cio 11.30   -  --    -   -    --- . - ........ .. - - -  . . . . . . - - -  [,~~:~:!:::$ r ~! i ;i I~: :~ mm 2 ~: H ~;m :~ !;!i ~rn 513 44% 512 92% 224 65% 332 79% 658 54% 316 75% . .1..0 .98 8.77 9.99 8.50 9.41 9.73 8.25 10.48 9.57 7.75 9.78 7.14 - --1-1 .02 7.80 7.05 ...1.. 1 .32 8.48 10.75 11 .66 .1.1. .58 7.47 10.18 8.36 8.26 15.80 12.63 13.62 12.03 13.58 13.88 12.08 14.72 13.61 14.03 17.44 . . - ~ . . .. - 13.20 17.73 15.40 15.25 18.70 17.07 18.42 18.93 19.59 12.95 17.95 14.68 16.73 LITTLE ROC. . K.. ..S CHOOL DISTRICT  - . ... -..   -  ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 10-07-98   - .. OCTOBER 1, 1997 ENROLiMEt-ii'         TOTAL TEACH PUP-P/K PUP-P/K   -     PIK K 1-12 TOT TOT-PiK al wH 0TH TOT % BL % WH 0;{ 0TH F.T.E. F:t.i:. I STAFF /TEACH PULASKI HEIGHTS     -   ... 4.0 424   464 464 254 193   17 464 55%  42io  - 4io  . 39.20 22.90 11.84 20.'26 ROMINE - - -    35  6i - 230 --328  . 292 206 ... 78  ~f4  328 .. fa% ... i4% 13% .. . jgjij 23.00 7.47 . - 12.70 WASHINGTON      - - - - --5j --83 --s24 --fiifo -- 607 --352 -2fa 95 660 53% 32% 14% 80.10 46.60 7.58 ... -1io3 wiLsoN --     -- -- :;a  --s4 - -fgo - Ji32  - 344 -297  s3 12 - 362 a2io -1s0i; - ':loio - -ja.Jo 23.10 8.98 14.89 woobihiFF     - - -- . 34  40 -2fo   284  i5o  201   15 8   20-1. 71 i~ --26/o 3% 32.40 17.80 7. 72 . . .. 1fci4 MABEL.VALE. -    - -  15 - .. s-1 h1 -  407 . - 391 299  92   fo  407 1:Wo -~i:3,i.; ---~f -- 4cY.i3if --23~9if - -- g:53 16.36 TERRY    -    -    - ys 435 -sf1 - Kf1 2j5  243 .. 33 511 46% 48% 6% 47.20 28.20 10.03 10.12 FUCBRIGHT        69 426 495 495 240 246 9 495 480/o 50i~ -- 2i~ . . 51.90 28.80 9.54 17.19 OTTER CRE.Ek'          J6 -2~i\"2 -Ji8 . -  320 -1s1 167 10  320  46% s1% - - - 3% .... 30.10 16.60 .10.90 19.76 WAKEFiELt\u003e\"      ---  - - -52 - - j21 -373 373 -322 . 32  19  373 . a50io  gcy~ -siii~ . - :foji .. 2cf5ci 10.26 ..  1a .2ff WATSON    - ... - -- - 36 73 384 493 457 - 441 40  12 -- - 493 - 89/o ---8/o  . 2%. - 43)5 - 25.90. F.RANKLIN-     72 77 3f5 --464 - 392 --427  -24  13 -464 g2i~ - -5% - 3   73_-96 .. jif5O GARLAND     --  fa  -34 -219 --2if  -- 253 -253  -3 ... 15 ... 271 . g:foj. .. - 1o/~ - -6)~ ..... 47:30 I1 .ao MITC.HELC      -  ~1a -37 ---1ai -- i42   2i4 223  -- g ... fo  242 .!)2/o .... 4/4  4 . .. 4{:fo .. 21 .90. RocKEFELLER. --  -   - s3 ..... 53  299 -- 405  -3s2 :fai na   3o  ;:fris 59% 34%  - 1o;;.   19.90 32.90 R1i3Hri;ELi:.      --     fa 39 - fai -- 249    -231 234 9 6  2-19  94% 4%  2% 39.50 21 .00 EJOOKER        -- -     16 --s21 sg1  --597 Joa 251 . ia - 597 si0i~  44oj~ - so,,; ... 5:ffo .... 44 .50 CARVER  -  -    -  -- -   60 536  595  - sg5  --:i12 ... 259 25 .... 596 52/o 43%  4% - 63.90 39.20 Gies-s  -       -   --   - 39 -212  311  \"jfl - 161 133 17 .. . 511 -52o/o 43% 5% 40.30 . 25.30 WILLIAMS       -     - .. .. cio --419 479 -  479  240 214 17 479 52% 45% 4% 52.30 31 .10 TOTAL --    704 fiia4 11583 14171 13467 9335 4151 685 .14171  66% -29%    s 0io f.575j4 ai33.4O     -    0  0 -  o O --- - - ---   - - 0   ---  --  -   -  . .. .. . .. . --  -  0 0 0 0 0 -  - - H o --    0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0  00 0 00 00 0,0  --H o   - -    - 00  -     .. ,o , o 0  0 0  o o o   0 0000 -0 0  --- .. ---- .. .. 10.45 17.64 . ....   - 5.30 - 10.74 .. - 5.35 11 .61 5.07 10.23 - -- - - .. . 4.41 10.70 5.85 11 .00 9.37 13.42 9.33 15.20 7.72 12.29 9.16 15.40 8.54 15.24      -       ----- ------ -- - ---- - - - - ------ ---- ------ -- ----- -      - -  -- - - .. -- . - . . -  - ----------- --- -  --- -- - - ----. - . - . - -   .... - . - ... -      704 1925 22196 24825 24121 16622 7149 1054 24825 67% 29% 4% 2653.88 1621 .84 9.09 14.87 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT  -  --ALLocATION OF RESOlJRcEs----- - ..   -- .. . ... .. . ..... -- - ... . 10-07-90 ENROL[ . s60ARE SITE -   --. 10-1-97 -- FOOTAGE. AtREAGE CENTRAL   -  ----    1:oss   - 266,023  16.50 i-ii\\LC  --  --. --- .... . .. .. 'foci . - - 1s2,:i4ff  - -- \":if:10 FAIR   151   fai;ioo ----so.oo McCLELLAN 935 129,000 29.60 PARKVIEW - -  911 166,477 30.00 rnTAL - --  ------ -sj4a   --o-i 'i:cioa  -fs'(20 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS  - --   .. - ---- ---  SOFT/ .ENRoi..C 174.75 130.05 102.74 161.40 DUNBAR  771  --gfj97 - --  --5.\"cio\" 1 :z8~92 FOREST HEIGHTS 640 70,207 26.00 -------1-.0 8.47- i\u003eDLAsi\u003ci Heie,Rrs - - --- -    - 16i.    fa.ifo  - ----,foo =-=:y.s~jI SOUTHWEST 510 02,960 30.00 162.60 HENDERSON 724 103,212 46.36 142.56  CLOVERDALE 622  0 1--,-0--9--7  --- --- ------8.-0 0- - ---- -1--3-1--.6--7-- - ------- ------ --- ----- -- -- MABEL VALE 506 62,030 12.00 122.60 MANN  050 113,013 . - 12.29 - --fafii TOTAL 5,406 ao6,o2o   ..143.65 -126:oci ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS -  -   --- - -- -  BALE  - 362    33,626 - - - -:10.\"{iff -----g:fj39 BRADY -  372     _35,259 .  . ....... . tiio 97.47 BADGETT  233 23,404 .  -- \"f\u003cfoO. - - -- ffio:45 McDERMOTT 477 -  ,fo.02() --10:ifo --100:57 BASELINE 323 50,455 4.00 156.21 FAIR PARK 240 20,067 4.20 116.40 FOREST PARK 430 31,914 2.10 74.22 CHICOT   537  - ifo:Goi - --1 0:4\"6 ---f1Ll5 WESTERN HILLS 315   -- -10,iiTf    - -14:00  - 34.64 JEFFERSON -.  - 513 43,546 12.00 -- 04.00 crovi:RoAT.E - -   - --   - 512 33,263 a.oo - --134:01 DODD  224 46,71i  ----!Qfo . --208~54 MEADOWCLIFF 332 36,931 9.60 - 111.24 l\u003cING -- - - -  -  --  :-553  - -15,ooo - - 4:so -  113.98 GEYER SPRINGS 316 41,700 4.30 132.22 PULASKI HEIGHTS    - -  -464  -- s11.2si ---soo - ---125.54. ROMINE    --- ----- - ---320  -- 4i;j14 . 20:00 ---faifo1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT  ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES . . . . . - .. .... - . 10.07.90 sciLiARE wASHINGTON .. .. . ... . .. - - . . ... 660 o!i,ifoo WILSON . . .. . .... . . .. - ..... --   36i 37,075 WOODRUFF - 204 -- - :30,000 MABEL.VALi~- --  -   - 407 55,568 rEFfRv-------------------- ----------  -s11 -- --- ---- - 4!;:312 FULBRIGHT  495 . ........ 66:892 OTTER CREEK 320 36,551 WAKEFIELb - -  - . .. . . . ..........  373 Ji,395 WATSON   -  493 - - - ifa:ii,fo SITE --- so FT/ ACREAGE -  -ENROLL. 5:!io  ....... faifos -   s.ai'i' --10f4i 2.10 10.00 15.00 19.00 8.90  1f.:io 133.00 136.53 08.67 135.14 111:;i\"4 100.25 --- - ----  ... --- ------- . - .. -- -. FRAN1\u003ci..1~.;- - - ----      464 - so.soo 12.20 109.22 GARLAND  211 30,632 --- f :fo MITCHELL 242    .:i9,ioo 4.20 10.00 147.63 142.55 161 .98 159.41 1sf12 124.04 103.52 119.73 ROCKEFELLER 405     .6{ Sih RiGi-h'sECC - -         .  ... . -  .. 2,iri - -- 37 ,630 BOOKER 597 74,530 CARVER . --  -- -       - .. 596 - .. .. 61 ,695 GIBBS  311  :i7,237 wid:.1AMs     ..  479 47,200 6.30 2.10 12.00 s:oo 15.00 ....  gifs-1 TOTAL .    \" 1{ 171  1,GJ0,5i55  ---- -------- -.. . _ - - - - - - -- . . --  - ....... - ...     - . -- --- . . . . . - ......3 -0.5.. .90- . - ... -1- .1. .5.. .-0--6. -- - -- -.. ..... ________ ----. - .   .. . GRAND TOTAL 24 ,025 3, 163.siff 606.75 127.44 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT   -  - - --ALLocAfi6t.f6F RESOURCES - - - -- -  - . - - -.  -  ---- - -  . --- -. -- .. . . - -- . -- ... . -- - .. ----- -- -- --- ....... ------- - - --- 100798 ENROLL MASTERS + 9 TEACH % --   ---- -- - . - --- ----       - - - ---  - ........ --- - ---HIGH SCHOOLS  --- - -- ------- ----- - ------- 10197 F.T.E. CENTRAL 1,855 56 107.14 52% HALL 790 32 66.70 48% FAIR  - --------- -- - - --- - - ---------  - -t---- McCLELLAN 935 29 70.90 41 % 757 30 57.20 52% PARKVIEW - 911  35 ---5:f4()- -------553/0 TOTAL   ..... - -5.2~;-8 .. --- - - .. 182 -355_34 50% JUt-ii6rf\"i;i\"GHScHo6Ui .. ...... .  .. .......... . ...... - .  - -- DUNBAR 771 23 52.80 44% FOREST HEIGHTS 648 23 54 .30 42% PULAsi\u003cfl-iEiGHts  - .    --;67      22  si:fo 31o;o SOUTHWEST   510.  ---  19  -4s:40  --,f2 HENDERSON - - -    - 12,f - 20 57.30 35% -- --- - -- - -- -- --------- -- ----- ....... __ -- -    --------------- . . -- - -- - -- -- -  - . CLOVERDALE 622 14 47.80 29% MABEL VALE 506 13 44.90 29% MANN 858  30 62.30   - -~18/o TOTAL 5,406 164 424.10 39%  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS --   ---- - -  - .. - . - - -- BALE -- - - - - -  -- ----35i --------14 --2s-:-30 ---55)0 BRADY-  - ---- -  - . J'i2 . . - --- 1s -2i30  ---- Bi% BADGETT - -  -  - -  - . faj 8 17.30 46% McDERMOTT 477 9 29.40 31% BASELi~iE - 323  11 20. 10  53% FAIR PARK 248 10 15.90 63% FOREST.PARK 430 .  -- -- - ---11 - is:oo --44o/o CHICOT - -   537     --- 14 31 .90 - 44/o WESTERN HILLS 315  - ---- --- ------1- 0 - - 1-9.1-0- - --  -- 5--2--%- JEFFERSON 513 20 29.60 68% CLOVERDALE 512 13 26.80 49%   -- - - -- --  ------------  -- -   - - - .. - - ... -- ... . - -- -- --~  . DODD 224 9 19.30 47% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT   ALlOCATibN OF RESOUFfCES - - . --  ........     -- - -- ---- -- .. . . 10-07-98  ---  -   --- -- ... -- --- -  - -- - ENROLL MASTERS + 9  TEACH % - ---- ----  - - -- .. - --- - -- -  ... - - .. . ..   10-1-97 F.T.E. MEAi56WCLi\"FF---------- ------- -332 11 20.so 54% Ki NG - --- -- -  -  . .. . - 658 ..... ......... 17 . \" - -,b.oo -- -40%    - GEYER SPRINGS 316 - -----------10- ----- --1--8- .--8---0- 53% PULASKI HEIGHTS 464 12 25.40 47%  --- --- -----. ---------- -- - - .. - --- - --- ------- -    . -- -  - _ ,. __ ... . . . - ---- ------- ROMINE 328 10 25.00 40% WASHINGTON-- - -- -    -iiicf - - 11 - -50:16 -- ----3-4iij~ WILSON 362 19 25.10 76%  WOODRUFF - -- - . 284 . -- - . 5 ...... 1ti:ao .  ---30io MABELVALE 407  - -    6 --  25~90.  -  -23.0/o T-E R-R--Y--- -- ---- --- ------- -------- -- - -- ---- -- ------  .. - - "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1674","title":"Court filings concerning motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA), petition for award of attorneys' fees and costs, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of the PCSSD,","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":["1998-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Little Rock School District","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Lawyers","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA), petition for award of attorneys' fees and costs, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of the PCSSD,"],"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/1674"],"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":["50 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in support of its motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) petition for award of attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendant; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fee petition; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, Joshua intervenors' comments on the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Joshua proposed finds of fact and conclusions of law; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, order; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to defer consideration of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motions for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, brief in support of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to defer consideration of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motions for attorneys' fees and costs; 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.   ' .. .. ... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS SEP 9 1998 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS OfflCE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ~CGATimHtiOi11TORING INTERVENORS PCSSD'S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS REGARDS MFPA The PCSSD for its Motion states: 1. The PCSSD has previously acquainted this Court with the negative impact Act 917 had, and is having, upon the PCSSD. 2. Exhibit A to this Motion is an updated calculation utilizing the same methodology reviewed and approved by this Court on February 18, 1997. 3. This exhibit demonstrates that the PCSSD lost three million, six hundred and fifty-seven thousand, six hundred and sixty-nine dollars ($3,657,669) in 1996-97 as compared to Act 34, two million, forty-seven thousand, six hundred and seventy-six dollars ($2,047,676) in 1997-98 and that Act 917 will cost the District four million, one hundred and twenty-two thousand, four hundred and fifty-seven dollars ($4, 122,457) during the current school year. 4. The Court of Appeals has ordered that the three Pulaski districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system (Act 34) of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. 5. To comply with the holdings of the Court of Appeals, the PCSSD should be awarded the sums set forth in Exhibit A to this Motion. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 060) aunty Special School CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September __i_, 1998 a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg. , Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 53481 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 MFPA CALC: ESTIMATES: DISTRICT LINE SCHOOL YEAR NO. CHARGE RATE 1 WADM DATA 2 REG. 3QADM 3 SPEDWADM  4 VOCWADM  5 VOCCWADM* 6 G\u0026 TWADM  7 MAGADM 8 LOSS FD WADM 9 TOT. WADM 10 M-to-M OUT 11 SBER CALCULATIONS 12 STATE FUNDS 13 AMOUNT ADDED 14 TOTAL ST. 15 AV AMT. 16 CHARGE RA TE 17 TOTAL AV CHG 18 TOTAL MISC. FDS. 19 TOTAL RESOURSES 20 TOT. WADM (73,892)  21 SBER 22 DIFFERENCE 23 AVE. LOC. RES. 24 MFPA CALCULATION 25 TOTAL A. V. 26 X CHG. 31 MISC. REV. 75% 32 LOCAL RES. 33 NO. M. D. 34 M.D. CR. 35 NET LOC. RES. 36 LOC. RES. RATE 37 SBER 38 TABLE RATE 39 TOT. MFPA 40 MFPA CHANGE 41 ADDITIONAL FUNDING 42 TEACHER RET. \u0026 HEAL TH INS. COST 43 AT RISK 44 TRANS 45 TOT. ADD. STATE FUNDS 46 TOT. STATE FUNDS 47 TOTAL CHANGE 48 ACT 917 FUNDING + DEBT SERV. 49 TOTAL MORE OR (LESS) THAN ACT 34  NUMBERS REMAIN AT 1995-96 LEVELS CHG. INC= (AMT. ADD./2500000)/1000 ACT 34 FOR 96-97 97-98 \u0026 98-99 ACT34978.WK PCSSD PCSSD PCSSD PCSSD 1995-96 , 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 0.0278 0.0315 0.0334 0.0358 19,070.30 19,074.36 18,801 .98 18,339.84 1,950.70 1,950.70 1,950.70 1,950.70 712.45 712.45 712.45 712.45 26.01 26.01 26.01 26.01 246.00 246.00 246.00 246.00 963.41 951 .41 978.17 978.17 539.39 159.12 166.49 389.97 23,508.26 23,120.05 22,881.80 22,643.14 402.66 394.01 581.14 581 .14 $963,200,241 $963,200,241 $1 ,056,899,739 $1 ,104,528,360 $963,200,241 $1 ,056,899,739 $1,104,528,360 $1, 164,528,360 $17,015,999,575 $18,376,728,665 $19,816,194,517 $20,410,680,353 0.0278 0.0315 $473,044,788 $578,866,953 $5,215,335 $5,171,702 $1 ,441 ,460,364 $1,640,938,394 521 ,731 519,249 $2,762.84 $3,160.21 $397.37 $907 $1,115 $737,033,624 $786,594,811 $20,489,535 $24,777,737 $73,473 $73,473 $20,563,008 $24,851 ,210 669.47 669.47 ($217,769 ($83,766 $20,345,239 $24,767,443 $865.45 $1 ,071 .25 S2,762.84 $3,160.21 S1,897.39 $2,088.96 $44,604,310 $48,296,823 $3,692,512 S8,701 ,196 $9,564,451 S809,914 $809,914 S2,005,448 $2,005,448 $11 ,516,558 $12,379,813 $56, 120,868 $60,676,636 $4 555,767 $57,018,967 ($3,657,669 EXHIBIT I A 0.0334 $661,860,897 $6,739,116 $1,773,128,373 I 525,631 I $3,373.331 $213.121  $1 2591 $917,639,068 $30,649,1451 $41,1861 $30,690,331 I 669.471 $30,690,331 I $1,341 .261 $3,373.33 ! $2,032.08i $46,497,592 I ($1 ,799,231) $9,753,8661 $809,9141 $2,005,448 i $12,569,228 I $59,066,8201 $31,116,1931 $57,019,1441  ($2,047,6761 0.0358 $730,702,357 $6,739.116 $1,901 ,969,833 525,631 $3,618.45 $245.12 $1,390 $949,708,069 $33,999,549 $56,981 $34,056,530 669.47 $0 $34,056,530 $1 ,504.06 $3,618.45 $2,1 14.40 $47,876,547 $1,378,955 $10,280 ,201 .18 $809,914 $2,005,448 $13,095,563 $60,972,110 $4,851 ,242 $56,849,653 ($4, 122,457 MFPA CALC. ESTIMATES: ACT 34 FOR 96-97 97-98 \u0026 98-99 ACT34978.WK~ DISTRICT LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LINE SCHOOL YEAR 1995-96 ' 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 NO. CHARGE RATE 0.0278 0.0315 0.0334 0.0358 1 WADMDATA 2 REG. 3QADM 22.384.95 22,231 .64 22,839.39 23,133.39 3 SPED WADM  1,700.72 1,700.72 1,700.72 1,700.72 4 VOCWADM  826.68 826.68 826.68 826.68 5 VOCCWADM  77.95 77.95 77.95 77.95 6 G \u0026 TWADM  253.75 253.75 253.75 253.75 7 MAG ADM 8 LOSS FD WADM 533.59 311 .20 0.00 0.00 9 TOT. WADM 25,777.64 25,401.94 25 698.49 25,992.49 10 M-to-M OUT 11 SBER CALCULATIONS 12 STATE FUNDS $963.200,241 $963,200,241 $1 ,056,899,739 $1 ,104,528,360 13 AMOUNT ADDED $0 %1M}tf~t~~  %if-tt{U:t~~ ii.i.i:d:li~J 14 TOTAL ST. $963,200,241 $1 ,056,899,739 $1 ,104,528,360 $1 ,164,528,360 15 AV AMT. $17,015,999,575 $18,376,728,665 $19,816,194,517 $20,410,680,353 16 CHARGE RATE 0.0278 0.0315 0.0334 0.0358 17 TOTAL AV CHG $473,044,788 $578,866,953 $661 ,860,897 $730,702,357 18 TOTAL MISC. FOS. $5,215,335 $5,171 ,702 $6,739,116 $6,739,116 19 TOTAL RESOURSES $1,441,460,364 $1,640,938,394 $1 ,773,128,373 $1 ,901,969,833 20 TOT. WADM 173,892) * 521,731 519,249 525,631 525,631 21 SBER $2,762.84 $3,160.21 $3,373.33 $3,618.45 22 DIFFERENCE $397.37 $213.12 $245.12  23 AVE. LOC. RES. $907 $1115 $1 ,259 $1,390 24 MFPA CALCULATION 25 TOTAL A. V. $1 ,645,039,791 $1 ,712,31 1,220 $1,947,375,874 $1 ,964,727,647 26 X CHG. $45,732,106 $53,937,803 $65,042,354 $70,337,250 31 MISC. REV. 75% $102,1 58 $1 47,194 $132,386 32 LOCAL RES. $45,834,264 $53,937,803 $65,189,548 $70,469,636 33 NO. M. 0 . 34 M.D. CR. 35 NET LOC. RES. $45,834,264 $53,937,803 $65,189,548 $70,469,636 36 LOG. RES. RATE $1,778.06 $2,123.37 $2,536.71 $2,7 11 .15 37 SBER $2,762.84 $3,160.21 $3,373.33 $3,6 18.45 38 TABLE RATE $984.78 $1 ,036.84 $836.63 $907.301 39 TOT.MFPA $25,385,218 $26,337,719 $21,500,007 $23,582,898 40 MFPACHANGE $952,502 ($4,837,713 $2,082,891 41 ADDITIONAL FUNDING 42 TEACHER RET. \u0026 HEAL TH INS. COST $11 ,518,589.00 $13,802,736.00 $14,461 ,942.00 $15,933,618.50 43 AT RISK  $1 ,226,252.00 $1 ,226,252.00 $1 ,226,252.00 $1 ,226,252.00 44 TRANS  $1 ,653,753.00 $1 ,653,753.00 $1 ,653,753.00 $1 ,653,753.00 45 TOT. ADD. STATE FUNDS $14,398,594 $16,682,741 $17,341,947 $18,813,624 46 TOT. STATE FUNDS $39,783,812 $43,020,460 $38,841,954 $42,396,521 47 TOTAL CHANGE $3 236,649 $38,841,954 $2,612,709 48 ACT 917 FUNDING + DEBT SERV. $43,350,510 $43,233,081 $45,946,383 49 TOTAL MORE OR (LESS) THAN ACT 34 $330,050 $4 391,127 $3,549,862  NUMBERS REMAIN AT 1995-96 LEVELS -  CHG. INC= (AMT. ADD./2500000)/1000 - - ----- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 93 ~Fp _ o P\"' S WESTERN DIVISION .. - '-' 1  06 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECElllED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE-fr !ffSEGREGATION MONITORlNm INTERVENORS PCSSD'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS REGARDS MFPA In its latest decision regarding the Districts' financial claims against the State, the Court of Appeals held in part that: [t)he districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFPA plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. 97-1794 E.A. Slip Opinion at p. 31 . The PCSSD has previously acquainted this Court with the negative impact Act 917 had and is having upon the PCSSD. Indeed, in its Order dated February 18, 1997 this Court stated: The Court finds persuasive the figures submitted by the PCSSD which show that its total State funding in 1996-97 will be less under the new formula than it would have been under the old. See PCSSD MFPA Calculation Estimate with Act 34 of 1996-97, Ex. A, PCSSD Prehearing Brief (doc. #2854). In response to the State's figures that indicate that the PCSSD does better under the new formula, _ see Green Deel., State's Resp. to M. Summ. J., the PCSSD points out that the State's figures are not adjusted for the increases in teacher retirement and health insurance costs that the PCSSD is experiencing this year and instead rely on data from the previous school year. Exhibit A to the Motion is an updated calculation utilizing the same methodology reviewed and approved by this Court on February 18, 1997. The outcomes for 1996-97 are slightly different because additional updated information has been received. As contemplated by the Court of Appeals in its most recent decision, these calculations cannot be made with precision, but they are more reliable than \"a reasonable and informed estimate.\" kl The outcome in this case is that as compared to Act 34, Act 917 cost the PCSSD three million, six hundred and fifty-seven thou,sand, six hundred and sixty-nine dollars ($3,657,669) in 1996-97, two million, forty-seven thousand, six hundred and seventy-six dollars ($2 ,047,676) in 1997-98 and will cost the District four million, one hundred and - twenty-two thousand, four hundred and fifty-seven dollars ($4,122,457) during 1998-99 using the current projections of the Arkansas Department of Education. The same methodology demonstrates that for 1996-97 the North Little Rock School District lost one million, five hundred and thirty-four thousand, five hundred and fifty-seven dollars ($1,534,557) under Act 917, that it gained slightly at forty-three thousand, fifty-one dollars ($43 ,051) in the last school year under Act 917 but that it will lose an additional one million, three hundred and forty-four thousand, eight hundred and fifty dollars ($1,344,850) this year under Act 917. The same methodology demonstrates that for 1996-97 the LRSD gained three hundred and thirty thousand and fifty dollars ($330,050) under Act 917, gained four million, three hundred ninety-one thousand, one hundred and twenty-seven dollars - (4,391 ,127) last year under Act 917 and will gain three million, five hundred and forty- 53101 2 ' nine thousand, eight hundred and fifty-two dollars ($3,549,852) this year utilizing current State projections. The Court of Appeals ordered that: \"the three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed.\" ~ at 30- 31 . The system that changed the distribution for teacher retirement and health insurance is Act 917. To comply with the holdings of the Court of Appeals, the PCSSD should be awarded the sums set forth in Exhibit A to its Motion. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 60) nty Special School CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September _i, 1998 a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, PA 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 53 101 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm  401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 53101 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 4 ,,,, J.-1\\C K, lLYON \u0026 J O'.~ES, P ... -1\\ . ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TCBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 7 2201 3472 (501 ) 375 1 1 22 TELECOPI ER (501 ) 375 1 027 ~,-~/ \"~ ,, .. (.It:. lii: Ur f\u0026GREW'!ON MONiTORING Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John M. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al September 11 , 1998 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Nashville Office 111 MUSIC Circle South Surte 202 Nashville. Tennessee 37203 (6151259-4664 Telecopier (615) 259-4668 Enclosed please find North Little Rock School District's Petition for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs as to State Defendant. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, (-- i ~ Stephen W. Jones U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARK ANSllc: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS SEP 11 1998 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: ________ _ nEP.CLERI\u003c LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. SEP 1 ~~ 1998 OFF/GE Cf DEISafGATION MONIT'JR/NG DEFENDAt-v.IS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT; et al. INIERVENORS INIERVENORS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PETITION FOR AW ARD OF. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AS TO STATE DEFENDANT Comes now the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"), by and through its attorneys, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A., and for its Petition for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs as to State Defendant, states as follows : 1. On or about July 1, 1998, this Court issued an Opinion affirming the district court's decision that the State of Arkansas had violated the terms of its Settlement Agr~ement with the three Pulaski County school districts with respect to the adverse effect on teacher retirement and health insurance caused by changes to the method of school funding. 2. Consistent with this Court's previous decision in this matter, see 127 F.3d 693 , 695 (8 th Cir. 1997), NLRSD qualifies as a prevailing party and is entitled to recover attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988. Alternatively, NLRSD is entitled to recover fees pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308. 3. NLRSD incurred fees and costs in the amount of $31,081.15 (Stephen W. Jones - 130.25 hours x $185.00 = $24,096.25;]. Allen Carney- 24.50 hours x $125.00 = $3 ,062.50; Melissa Glover - 23 .5 x $115.00 = $2,702.50; and $1 ,219.90 in costs). The hourly fees charged by Jack, Lyon and Jones, P.A. are consistent with those charged by attorneys of like skill and experience in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 4. The fees and costs are supported by the attached Affidavit of Stephen W. Jones, attorney ofNLRSD. See Exhibit A. 5. As a service to the NLRSD and the community at large, the fees charged by Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. to NLRSD were at substantial discounts from those rates typically charged to other clients. See attachedExhibit B, Affidavit of James Smith. However, Defendant ADE is not entitled to benefit from those discounts. To do so would reward it for its violation of the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, for purposes of this fee petition, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. is entitled to receive its typical hourly fees. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, NLRSD respectfully requests this Court award it attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $31,081.15, and for all other ~elief to which it may be entitled. By: 2 Respectfully submitted JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-1122 Stephen W. Jones, ' 083 J. Allen Carney, #9. 122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 11 th day of September, 1998 served one copy of the foregoing via United States mail to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDqE \u0026 CLARK, 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Builcti.m r ~ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John M. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas .72206 3 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 $L\u003c-W~ Stephen W. Jones U IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTER.~ DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT,.et al. AFFIDAVIT I, Stephen W. Jones, after being duly sworn, state under oath: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INilRVE~-ORS INilRVEJ\\-ORS 1. The billing statements attached as Exhibit A to this Affidavit reflect the hours worked and costs incurred on this matter before this Court as recorded in contemporaneous time records. All of the time shown on these billing statements have been billed to NLRSD and those bills have been paid or will be paid. 2. I have been engaged in the private practice of law for twenty (20) years and am the managing partner of Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. I have practiced and lectured extensively in the areas of civil rights, employment, and school law. I am a contributing author to Employment Discrimination Law, Schlei and Grossman, 2Ed., 1983, co-editor of the Arkansas Employment Law Bulletin, and co-author of the Arkansas Employment Law Deskbook. My normal hourly billing rate is $185.00. That rate is consistent with rates charged by lawyers of similar experience and ability in Pulaski County, Arkansas. EXHIBIT I A 3. J. Allen Camey is an associate with Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. with approximately four ( 4) years of experience. His normal hourly billing rate is $125 .00. This rate is consistent with billing rates for lawyers of similar ability and experience in Pulaski CoW1ty, Arkansas. 4. Melissa Glover is an !associate with Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. with approximately two (2) years of experience. Her normal hourly billing rate is $115.00. This rate is consistent with billing rates for lawyers of similar ability and experience in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 5. The attached billing statements relate exclusively to proceedings before this Court involving the funding of teacher retirement and health insurance benefits. Moreover, the time entries have been reviewed to eli!I}inate duplicative and other non-billable time. Designated for internal accoW1ting purposes as matter No. 1-2 0, time records with respe~t-to proceedings before this Coun were kept separate from other desegregation matters. ~ . ' -- '(I STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) ss. COUNTY OF PULASKI) By: x~ LJ ?FJ~ Stephen W. Jones U ACKNOWLEDGMENT On this the l f tiJ d~y of September, 1998, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, personally appeared Stephen W. Jones, known to me to be the p~rson whose name is subscribed to the attestation and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purpose therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. r-, \\- -~~-\\-'! ::.\\ cQ-Jt. K 0 Notary Public 2 DATE ATTORNEY DESCRIPTION Tl~IE 10/20/95 JAC Conference with Mr. Jones regarding State Funding 0.50 issues, recovery of payment shortfalls, etc. 10/20/95 SWJ Meeting with Messrs. Smith, K.ince and Watkins to 5.75 review financial projections and analyze legal rami~cations; Telephone conference with Mr. Jones and Dr. Stewart 11/8/95 JAC Conference with Mr. Jones regarding state funding 0.75 issues and his previous meetings with NL RSD officials 11 /9/95 JAC Conference regarding state funding; review 0.50 Desegregation Plan provisions 11 /14/95 JAC .. Conference regarding teacher retirement and state 1.00 funding 12/ 1/95 JAC Conference regarding funding formula and potential 0 .. 25 litigation 12/11/95 SWJ Telephone conference with l'v1r. Smith regarding 0.75 .. ADE response to funding concerns; Telephone conference with Ms. Boyter .. 1/2/96 SWJ Meeting with Mr. Smith and Dr. New, etc. regarding 2.75 funding issues 1/26/96 SWJ Telephone conference -with Mr. Smith regarding state 0\".75 funding and plan, etc. 2/7/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding 2.75 funding issues; Research regarding same and possibility of recovery 2/8/96 SWJ Review ADE's pleadings regarding Worker's 3.25 Compensation to determine if any admission; Research regarding funding issues 2/12/96 JAC Conference regarding potential action against state 0.50 2/13/96 JAC Attend meeting regarding state funding issues 2.50 2/13/96 SWJ Meeting with Mr. Smith and staff regarding funding 4.25 issues; Review current analysis .. \" . . 4/24/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding 0.50 PCSSD and ADE meeting 4/29/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding 0.50 meeting with ADE; Telephone conference with tvlr. Jones' secretary regarding ADE meeting 5/2/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding 0.50 meeting with ADE 5/16/96 SWJ Meeti,ng '.vith ADE regarding funding issues; Meet 5.25 with Messrs. Smith and Kince, et al. 5/ 17/96 JAC Interoffice conference with tvlr. Jones regarding ' 1.00 funding meeting 5/17/96 SWJ Prepare and attend meeting with ADE and district 7.50 personnel regarding funding issues; Meet with Messrs. Smith, et al.; Review various reports 5/23/96 SWJ .. Review ADE offer regarding M-toM adjustment for 0.50 1996 5/24/96 SWJ Telepho~e conference with Mr. Sam Jones regarding 0.75 issues and ADE position 5/28/96 SWJ Review PCS SD letter regarding 1996 M-toM 0.75 adjustments; Review tvlr. Jones' letter regarding hearing on June 7 5/29/96 SWJ Review PCSSD Motion to Enforce Settlement; 0.75 Review letter from tvlr. Walker regarding deposit~ons; Review PCS SD FOI request 5/30/96 JAC Conference regarding meeting with Judge Wright; 1.00 Litigation strategy 5/31 /96 JAC Prepare for and attend hearing regarding State 2.00 funding issues; Conference with Messrs. Jones and Heller. 5/31/96 SWJ Conference with Judge Wright and other counsel 3.50 regarding schedule of proceedings for Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement; Conferences with Messrs. Heller, Jones, Smith and Watkins regarding same; Review ADE FOI request to PCS SD; Review Order regarding funding hearing; Review LRSD, PCSSD Petition for rehearing 6/4/96 JAC Review.County's Motion to Enforce Settlement 1.25 ... Agreement 6/5/96 JAC Review County's Motion; Research funding issues 1.50 6/6/96 JAC Review 8th Circuit Slip Opinion; Review LRSD 1.25 6/6/96 SWJ Review LRSD Motion to Enforce Settlement 3.75 Agreement; Review PCSSD Second Motion to Enforce; Work on NLRSD Motion 617196 JAC Rese' arch and draft NLRSD's Motion to Enforce 3.50 Settlement Agreement 617/96 SWJ Review PCSSD and LRSD Motions; Review and edit 3.25 NLRSD Motion Brief; Telephone conference with Mr. Smith 6/12/96 SWJ Telephone conference regarding NLRSD motion; 0.75 Prepare letter regarding same 6/17/96 SWJ . . Review ADE response to petition for rehearing 0.75 6/27/96 SWJ Review letter from ADE rega~ding extension to 0.25 respond 6/28/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Messrs. Jones and Heller 2.75 regarding amicus and other issues; Review ADE Motion for Extension to Respond; Review status report materials 7/1 /96 SWJ Review Motion to Extend Time filed by Joshua, 1.00 PCSSD and LRSD; Review 1:,RSD June planning and budgeting tool 7/2/96 SWJ . Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding 0.50 need for amicus and demand status of rehearing 7/3/96 SWJ Review discovery requests and ADE pleadings 0.75 7/8/96 SWJ Review letter from ADE describing documents 1.00 responsive to PCSSD discovery 7/15/96 SWJ Review documents in preparation for Lakeview 0.75 hearing 7/ 16/96 JAC Conference regarding state funding issues 0.50 7/16/96 SWJ Attend status conference on Lakeview case; 2.00 Conference with Mr. Wilson 7/17/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Sam Jones regarding 0.50 meeting on Lakeview; Telephone conference \\.vi th tvlr. Smith 7/ 18/96 JAC Prepare for and attend meeting with Messrs. Jones, 2.50 Heller, etc. regarding state funding challenge 7/1 8/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Wooldridge 4.50 regarding Mr. Smith's schedule; Telephone conference with Mr. Sam Jones regarding going ahead with meeting; Telephone conference with Mr. Kince; Telephone conference with Ms. Wooldridge; Telephone conference with Mr. Watkins; Attend meeting with other counsel and parties regarding Lakeview 7/23/96 SWJ Telephone conference with l\\llr. Sam Jones 0.50 . 7/24/96 SWJ Briefly review ADE and Lakeview Plaintiffs 1.00 Motions and Responses; Telephone conference with Mr. Sam Jones regarding same; Telephone conference with Mr: Roachell regarding same 7/26/96 JAC Conference with Mr. Jones; review brief 1.00 .. 7/26/96 SWJ Conference with Mr. Carney, review brief 1.00 8/2/96 SWJ Review ADE request for extension 0.25 8/21/96 SWJ Review accumulated PCS SD and intervener's 2.50 pleadings 8/23/96 SWJ Review ADE Motion to Dismiss and Intervener 1.25 Motion; Review PCSSD response; Interoffice conference regarding response; Review and edit same 8/25/96 SWJ Review Motions/Memorandum; telephone 1.00 conference with Mr. Smith 8/29/96 SWJ Review Intervener's reply to LRSD and PCSSD 1.50 response 9/3/96 SWJ Review ADE pleadings 0.50 9/6/96 JLJ Copy Charges 1.50 9/6/96 .. . JLJ Telecopy Charges .. 1.75  , 9/ 10/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding class 1.00 certification motion in Lakeview case; Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding LRSD position on motion 9/26/96 JLJ Copy Charges 4.25 10/3/96 SWJ Meet with Messrs. Smith, Jones, Heller, Kincl, Lester 2.75 and Stewart regarding strategy in Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement against ADE; Conference with Messrs. Smith and Kincl regarding same 10/8/96 MBG . Telephone conference with Mr. Hoskins at 0.50 Department of Education about depositions; Conference with Mr. Jones and Mr. Bowman about depositions 10/9/96 MBG .. Telephone conference with Mr. Hoskins at 6.00 Department of Education; Review ofletters for file; Prepare deposition list; Conference with Mr. Jones  on facts of case; Organize file; Attend deposition of . Dr. Robert Shaver 10/10/96 MBG Attend Dr. Robert Shaver's deposition; Conference 9.00  --with Mr. Jones on issues in depositions 10/11/96 MBG Attend depositions of Tristan Greene and Dr. Bobbie 8.00 Davis 10/14/96 JLJ  Parking Charge 17.40 11/11 /96 SWJ Review and comment on draft of pretrial brief of the 2.00 three Pulaski districts regarding loss of teachers retirement and employee health insurance payments from state; Telephone conferences with Messrs. Heller and S. Jones regarding brief and preparation for hearing on November 19 11 /13/96 SWJ Review order from Judge Wright ordering status 1.75 conference to consider various motions regarding motion to enforce settlement agreement; Reivew PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South; Telephone conferences with other counsel regarding hearing and strategy 11/18/96 SWJ Review new motions to enforce settlement agreement 6.00 and ADE responses; Telephone conference with :vfr. Smith regarding hearing; Telephone conference with Messrs. Heller and S. Jones regarding November 19 hearing; Review original motions to enforce settlement agreement against ADE prepare for status conference with Judge Wright; Review pre-trial brief;  ! Review PCSSD pre-trial brief 11 /21/96 SWJ Review draft of Motion for Summary Judgment, 1.50 Briefin Support and Statement of Undisputed Facts; Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding same; Review letter from Mr. Walker regarding request for fees for November 19 hearing 11/25/96 SWJ Review filed version of Districts ' Motion for 1.75 .. Summary Judgment against ADE, Brief in Support and Statement of Undisputed Facts; Review letter from ADE attorney requested e~tension to respond to Motion for Summary Judgment on teacher retirement issue 12/13/96 SWJ Review ADE pleadings; Telephone conferences 2.25 regarding depositions needed and schedule for sa.rne 12/18/96 SWJ Review ADE pleadings; Telephone conference with 1.50 other counsel regarding analysis and suggestions 12/19/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr: Heller regarding 0.50 additional filings 12/23/96 SWJ Review ADE response to LRSD, NLRSD and 2.75 PCSSD Statement of Undisputed Facts, ADE opposition to ODM budget, arid Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 12/26/96 SWJ Review Districts ' reply to ADE Response to Motion 1.25 for Summary Judgment; Review Amicus Curiae Response on Summary Judgment; Review deposition schedule for Mr. Wilhoit and Dr. Sydoriak 1/2/97 SWJ Prepare for and attend deposition of Mr. Wilhoit; 3.75 Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding hearing 1/3/97 SWJ Review documents related to school funding issues; 2.50 Interoffice conference with other counsel regarding hearing and evidence needed 1/6/97 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Reed regarding 3.25 impact of Act 917 on special education funding; Research regarding Act 91 7; Prepare for and attend deposition of Diane Sydoriak 1/6/97 SWJ Conferences with Messrs. Heller and Jones regarding 1.25 preparation for hearing 1/13/97 SWJ Review ADE and Districts' pleadings; Review 2.00 amicus filed by Mr. Llewelyn 1/14/97 SWJ Review and organize files with paralegal 1.25 1/14/97 SWJ . . Review motion and brief regarding summary 1.00 judgment on special education and other issues 1/1 5/97. SWJ Review Districts' motion regarding health insunice , 1.75 special educ "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1680","title":"Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' proposed findings and conclusions of law regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for 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":["Walker, John W."],"dc_date":["1998-09-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' proposed findings and conclusions of law regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for 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/1680"],"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":["30 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.  JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 , Re: LRSD v PCSSD LR-C-82-866 Dear Sam: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY LITILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Hand Delivery September 1, 1998 RECEnfED SEP 2 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed please find Joshua Intervenors' proposed findings and conclusions of law regarding PCSSD's Motion for Unitary Status. JWW:js /jc/ely, 'K::~~ cc: All Counsel of Record - Via United States Mail Ms. Ann Brown - Via United States Mail  ' } I FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES. DISTRICT COURT SEP Q l 1998 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK CLERK WESTERN DIVISION By: ' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTH'?S CLEAi\u003c v. NO. LR-C-82-866 i PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL ~~~te;_ i,ED DISTRICT, ET AL. ~\"l~~E\\:;.G W DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. SEP 2 1998 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Joshua Intervenors' INTERVENORS Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law concerning the Motion of the Pesso for Termination of the court's Jurisdiction The Joshua Intervenors hereby submit their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) for the termination of the court's jurisdiction. r. Proposed Findings of Fact A. Introduction (1.) In 1989 and 1990, the Joshua Intervenors, as well as representatives of the PCSSD, the LRSD, and the NLRSD negotiated five ~ritten agreements, leading to the settlement of this case. 1 In this settlement, the officials of the PCSSD \"voluntarily adopted\" 2 three plans, a \"Desegregation Plan [for] PCSSD\" (CX 432, modified version of April 29, 1992), an 1 LRSD y. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1376-80, 1383, 1384 (1990). 2 Order, 9-23-96, at 12. 1 \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\" (CX 433, modified version of April 29, 1992), and a \"Settlement Agreement\" addressing, in part, the resolution of claims against the state. (2.) The Court of Appeals approved the parties' settlement and addressed its implementation and enforcement in its opinion of December 12, 1990. The court wrote that 11 [i]t is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to ... \" (921 F.2d at 1386); the court also charged this court with the responsibility for \"monitor[ing] closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement [and] ... ~ak[ing] whatever action [was] appropriate ... to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. \".I_d. at 1394. 3 The Court of Appeals referred to the plans as \"a benchmark for the future path of this case\" 4 and \"a particular- -- ization of federal law applicable to these parties. 115 (3.) The Court of Appeals recognized that this court would require assistance to perform its monitoring function. It therefore provided for the creation of the \"Office of Desegregation Monitoring\" (ODM) to support the court's efforts. LRSD., 921 F.2d at 1388, 1394. Thereafter, ODM staff, under the leadership of Ann Brown, has: (i) prepared 3 The Court of Appeals also referred to the parties \"scrupulously and diligently carry[ing] out the settlement plans and the settlement agreement .... \".IJ3.SI2, 921 F.2d at 1394. 4 Appeal of Little Rock, 949 F.2d 253, 255 (1991). 5 Knight y. Pesso, 112 F.3d 953, 954 (1997). 2 approximately 35 formal monitoring reports, virtually all of which address the PCSSD wholly or in part; (ii) attended scores of court hearings, many of which concerned the PCSSD, at least in part; and (iii) had scores of more direct contacts with the officials and employees of the PCSSD regarding various aspects of the district's voluntary commitments and ODM's efforts . .E......a..., ex 475 (\"ODM Climate Analysis Process\"); Tr. 551 (A. Brown); Tr. 524 (E. Collins); Tr. 812 (G. Miller). (4.) The voluntary commitments of the PCSSD address outcomes or goals, various activities designed to achieve those goals, and what might be termed process issues, namely the approach to be taken by the system's officers and agents in implementing the plans. See findings (5.)-(7.) (5.) The outcomes or goals identified in the plans, to which -~ the PCSSD voluntarily agreed, address for example, eliminating or reducing disparity in achievement between white and black students (CX 433, at 6, Interdistrict Plan; ex 432, at 95-96, PCSSD Desegregation Plan); and eliminating disproportionate disciplining of black students. (CX 432, at 6) (6). The activities identified in the plan address, for example, actions to attain the outcomes or goals of the plans in the areas of student achievement (CX 432, at 85-86), discipline (CX 432, at 73-74, 75-76), and classroom racial make-up. (CX 432, at 96-97) (7.) The voluntarily agreed process is delimited in various provisions of the plan. The following are among those which are 3 - particularly significant. Desegregation Plan (ex 432, at 14, Office of the Superintendent) The Superintendent is the chief desegregation officer of the Pulaski County Special School District. It is his duty to be familiar with the district's legal obligations under the Constitution, court orders, and applicable statutes, and to be certain that the Board and staff members are kept aware of those obligations. The superintendent is responsible for vigorously implementing the Board's desegregation policy and plan and for accurately and promptly reporting positive accomplishments and areas where additional ,efforts are needed. The superintendent is expected to recommend to the Board such modifications of policies and practices as may be reW,1ired from time to time; the goal is to achieve desegregation outcomes, and the Superintendent must promote sufficient institutional flexibility to reach that goal. (emphasis added) Desegregation Plan ccx 432, at 16-17, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation) The Assistant superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for planning, directing, controlling, and monitoring the overall desegregation plan of the District .... (at 16) One of the primary responsibilities of the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation is to direct the administra~ion of the District's Office of Desegregation, including supervision of the Director of the Office of Desegregation, who reports to the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation will work closely with the Office of Desegregation to determine if the Office of Desegregation is fulfilling its purpose and meeting its goals as appropriate. (at 17) Desegregation Plan (CX 432, at 18, Director of  Desegregation) An essential purpose of the monitoring conducted by the Office of Desegregation is to observe and thoroughly document progress being made toward all the District's desegregation goals and objectives. To this end, the Director of Desegregation will monitor the District's compliance with civil rights laws and court orders. Further. this monitoring function includes recommendin~ corrective action where necessary to improve the quality of the desegregation process and to achieve a federal court 4 ' declaration of unitary status. (emphasis added) Desegregation Plan (CX 432, at 95-96, Assistant Superintendent for Instruc\"tion) The Assistant Superintendent for Instruction has responsibility for monitoring the District's desegregation efforts in the Instructional Division, including ... the effectiveness of the educational program in reducing achievement disparity .... . . . . [SJtudent achievement is monitored by race so as to collect the data necessary to evaluate programs and make necessary curricular and instructional changes to support the concept of equity and enhanced learning for all students. (emphasis added) . (8.) Mr. Billy Bowles is the system's Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation,~ position he has held for 13 ' years. (CX 441, at 4) Asked during his testimony \"[d]o you know ' whether or not you . are responsible as a board -- you as an agent of the board for vigorously implementing the board's desegregation policy and plan, 11 Mr. Bowles replied: \"Yes, we are responsible for vigorously implementing the plan.\" (Tr. 313) 6 (9.) The testimony during the hearing of Ms. Tommy Sue Anthony presented some of the deficiencies in the implementation of the voluntary plans, and a good example of the agreed upon process at work. This testimony concerned the area of advanced placement courses. In this are~, the plan provides (CX 432, at 7) : The District will also strive to raise the level of student academic performance .... This objective will also be met by an increase in the number of black students enrolled in gifted and talented classes, pre-AP classes, and AP classes. 6 Unless otherwise indicated, transcript citations are to the transcript of the hearing conducted from June 29-31, 1998. 5 (10.) Ms. Anthony completed her term as the District's Director of Talented and Gifted Programs on June 30, 1998. (Tr. 440) Through 1991, or so, her duties encompassed advanced placement (AP) classes. She resumed that assignment in 1996-97, after a five-year hiatus. (Tr. 458-59) Upon resuming these responsibilities, Ms. Anthony \"collected all the data from every school about enrollment, black, white and including the feeder classes,\" and found that \"black students were under represented in advanced placement [classes] .... \" (Tr. 480) She also agreed that \"no concerted effort had been made in the intervening five or six ~ears\" (Tr. 465) \"to find a ~ay to get more black students as the plan committed into AP .... \" [Tr. 464; see also Tr. 286, line 17 to 289, line 11 (Dr. Altom) (inaction)]. (11.) Ms. Anthony explained what followed:  ... Oyer the last several years I have become very, very concerned about the lack of African-American students or the very small numbers of African-American students enrolled in AP. I brought this to the attention of several people .arul finally this past year was directed to convene a committee made up of people; teachers, administrators, counselors from throughout the district, all of our secondary schools, and look at the district's policy. My feeling was that perhaps each subject matter had a different policy of how a child could be placed in AP and I felt that perhaps these policies were prohibiting students from getting into AP and should be more inclusive. I also knew that the National Office of the College Board was encouraging districts to develop an inclusive strategy for placement in AP. So we convened the Committee. We actually re-did the district handbook for placement in AP and made it much more inclusive .... I might say we spent the entire -- this committee spent the entire year on struggling with these issues and the policies actually came out right at the end of the year. We've just now implemented some of these strategies and it looks like from the preliminary figures that I have turned 6 back in the last week of school that the numbers have increased. They are not where they should be but these policies seem to be beginning to work and the numbers of black students seem to be increasing for next year. (emphasis added) (12.) This is an example of the vigorous implementation required by the voluntary plan. It involved, after a period of inattention, the use of data to identify a problem as to the attainment of a goal of the plan, identification of a policy requiring revision, a group effort to achieve that end, and implementation, and monitoring, thereafter, which determined that the new policies were \"beginning to work .... \" However, the requisite vig?rous implementation, -or, alternatively, scrupulous and diligent implementation, is absent in many significant areas, as these findings show. (13.) The general problem is illuminated by testimony of the court's monitor, Ms. Ann Brown. Significant questions and answers are as follows (Tr. 552): Q: Ana your opinion as to whether or not the district has any place -- any assessment criteria in place other than say that which has been explained by Ms. Tommie Sue Anthony for assessing the viability of educational programs which may be in place from the perspective of achieving remediation of student achievement disparity. A: I'm aware of some individual reports that are evaluative in nature and as Mrs. Anthony has alluded to, some are summative and some are formative -- some are formative, I'm sorry. Some of them are summative, in that they tend to be issued at the end of the school year. As far as a comprehensive evaluation of their programs and operations in relation to their plan, I am not aware of any comprehensive documents of that nature. * * * Q: Have you seen evidence that this district has had 7 . . __. ,. sustained rigorous, vigorous activities to implement each and every aspect of the plan submitted to the court as reflected in the desegregation plan, the interdistrict plan and the Joshua agreement? A: No, I can't say that. (Tr. 555-56) While unable to fault the Pesso as to the filing of required monitoring reports, Ms. Brown did question the content and, particularly the~ of the information. She testified as follows (Tr. 557-58): A number of the reports are a compilation as I said previously and a number of the documents that have been used in various activities, for example, the recruitment document that we received. Where I have been disappointed is that I have not seen evidence of how the school district has made use of these documents in measuring the rate and the progress or the extent of the progress. In other words, I don't see that there is a -they're valuative in nature. I do not see that there regular application of this information to determine should be changed .... usually is a what._, While r have certainly seen some good faith efforts on behalf of the district. r have not seen that has been applied diligently throughout the entire operation of the district. (~mphasis added) B. Discipline (14.) The provisions of the PCSSD desegregation plan concerning school discipline include the following: Goals: 1. There will not be a disproportionate number of minorities disciplined. 3. There will be a district-wide school-based management system. 4. There will be an alternative discipline program for at-risk youth. . (CX 432, at 6) * * * 8 .... More alternatives (e.g., in house suspension) should be supported by the administration and Board of Education. (CX 432, at 6) * * * .... Disciplinary records are kept on each student concerning suspensions and expulsions that show the reasons for punishment, the teacher or staff member involved, and the school, race, and sex of the student disciplined. collection and assessment of this information allows the school principal, parents and others to analyze the reasons for suspension by race and sex, and to determine if particular teachers or staff members are experiencing problems t~at require attention .... (emphasis added) The Assistant superintendent for Pupil Personnel services shall submit a discipline report to the Superintendent, School Board and the Office of Desegregation at the end of each semester along with specific recommendations or suggestions for reducing the disproportionality .... The Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel and Director of Staff Development has established a biracial committee to study the problem of minority students being-disciplined disproportionately .... (Plan, CX 432, at 73- 74) Discipline Data Analysis Assessment objective: to identify sources and nature of disproportionate black discipline in -removal action (classroom removals and school removals). a. Determine which disciplinary actions result in overrepresentation of black students (suspensions, expulsions, removal from classroom) .... b. Determine which offenses result in overrepresentation of black students in disciplinary actions. d. Determine which staff are involved in actions which result in students being involved in disciplinary actions. e. Determine length of time and\\or severity of disciplinary actions, comparing black and white students ... (CX 432, at 75) 9 Parental rnvolyement Analysis .... After the needs assessment is completed and analyzed, a discipline management system will be developed .... (CX 432, at 75) (15.) Mr. Eddie Collins serves as Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services in the PCSSD, a position he has held for 15 years. (CX 443, at 9). Mr. Collins' responsibilities encompass the area of school discipline. (CX 443) Asked \"is a goal of elimination of disparity in discipline a realistic goal\" -- \"is it doable,\" Mr. Coliins testified, \"I think so.\" (Tr. 545) Under its \"discipline management system,\" the PCSSD \"proposes to .e liminate disparity within f..i ve years.\" (Tr. 546) (16.) ODM's Report titled \"Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District\" (March 18, 1998) shows . that there continue to be very significant racial disparities in discipline rates in the PCSSD. For example, it is possible using data presented by ODM (at page 94) to determine, for secondary students, by racial group, how many of each 100 students of the group enrolled in the PCSSD were subjected to particular forms of discipline in 1996-97, and to calculate disparity in terms of the extent to which the rate for black students, per 100 students, exceeded the rate for white students. These results are as follows: (a) Suspensions. The suspension rate per 100 for all black students was 36.06 and for all white students 21.3, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 1.69 times. The suspension rate per 100 for black male students was 45.08 and for white male 10 students 29.9, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 1.5 times. (b) Saturday School. The assignment rate per 100 to Saturday School for all black students was 50.18 and for white students 29.55, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 1.7 times. The assignment rate per 100 to Saturday School for black male students was 61.00 and for white male students 32.27, with the black rate exce~ding the white rate by 1.59 times. (c) Expulsions. The expulsion rate per 100 for all black students was 2.92 and for all white students .BB, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 3:31 times.The expulsion rate per 100 for black male students was 4.52 and for white male students 1.41, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 3.2 times. (17.) A similar analysis, for 1996-97, regarding~ elementary level, based upon statistics appearing in the ODM Report at 64, is as follows: (a) Suspensions. The suspension rate per 100 for all black students was 11.18 and for all white students 4.64, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 2.41 times. The suspension rate per 100 for black male students was 15.96 and for white male students 7.75, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 2.06 times. (b) Saturday School. The assignment rate per 100 to Saturday School for all black students was 5.71 and for white students 3.07, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 1.85 times. 11 - The assignment rate per 100 to Saturday School for black male students was 7.47 and for white male students 5.05, with the black rate exceeding the white rate by 1.48 times. (18.) ODM concluded that the PCSSD has failed to achieve its objective regarding racial disparity in the area of discipline. (At 100) Its other conclusions included the following (at 100): .... Each year for the past six years, more and more black students (especially males) have been suspended or expelled from school, thus receiving less classroom instruction. From an academic perspective, the negative effect that reduced instructional time has on test scores, grades and other indicators of academic progress must be considerable. From a behavioral perspective, the potential for mischief from students who are out of school and 'on the streets~ is tremendous. , The PCSSD designed its Saturday School program to help students stay in school by providing an alternative for outof- school suspension. Thus we would expect to see suspensions decline as Saturday school placements increase. ~ On the contrary, the data shows that the opposite has occurred. Since the district opened the Saturday program to all schools in 1993-94, overall suspensions have continued to rise while, on the whole, referrals to Saturday School have declined. Even with the [Discipline Management System] and the Saturday School program, the PCSSD continues to sanction black students at rates that are disproportionate to their numbers in the student population. Apparently, many school personnel are not getting the help they need to deal with some of their students, particularly black males. No school district should have an out-of-school suspension rate approaching 50% for any portion of its student population. yet that is exactly what the district's records show is happening to its black male students at the secondary level . . (emphasis added) See also Tr. 512, line 16 to 514, line 17 (M. Powell testimony). (19.) The evidence establishes that the PCSSD did not implement some of the steps identified in the portions of its plan addressing discipline. 12 (a) The end of semester reports to the superintendent, school board, and office of desegre_gation do not include \"specific recommendations or suggestions for reducing the disproportionality. . \"Compare ex 432, at 74 and ex 423 (discipline reports). (b) There is no apparent compliance with one facet of the \"discipline data analysis\" provisions, namely, the promise to analyze \"length ,of time ... of disciplinary actions, comparing black and white students .... 11 Compare CX 432, at 75, CX 438, at 11 (answer 14), and ex 423 (discipline reports). (c) The ~ystem voluntarily agreed to data collection and analysis for the purpose, in part, of \"determin(ing] if particular teachers or staff members are experiencing problems - .that require attention .. \" (CX 432, at 74, 75) The evidence establishes inattention to and the lack of implementation of this important feature of the plan. see ex 443, at 29, line 25 to 33, line 2; see also ex 438, at 22 (answer 33) (d) The \"biracial committee to study the problem of minority students being disciplined disproportionately\" (CX 432, at 74, plan) did not present any conclusions in writing. (CX 438, at 24, request# 2) (20.) The ODM Report noted the vastly different discipline rates at various system schools, at both the elementary and secondary levels. (Report at 65-66, 95-96) The PCSSD's data collection system has allowed the central office staff to identify the schools with the highest discipline rates and the 13 - greatest disproportionalities. (CX 423) The reaction of the central office staff to this data is fairly characterized as w;:.Q forma. See Tr. 543, lines 2-6: ex 443, at 33, lines 3 to 25 (Collins deposition). (21.) The PCSSO adopted a Discipline Management system (OMS) and developed a OMS manual for the stated purpose of ending the racial disparity in discipline during a five-year period. There are guidelines for the local implementation plan, which each school was required to develop (and has developed). The content of the plans vary considerably, as did the mode of preparation. (OOM Report, ~t 3) The evidence established the need for additional efforts to perfect the OMS approach. [Tr. at 540 (Collins) (system getting ready to analyze school data from 1997- - 98): 546-48 (Collins)]. (22.) OOM has not monitored, on a sample basis, the extent to which there is actual implementation of local school OMS plans, or the relationship of particular features to positive or negative outcomes. (23.) The ODM Report set forth 11 recommendations. (At 103-04) (see in particular numbers 1, 2, and 9). The PCSSO is at an early stage of considering the monitors' suggestions. (Tr. 524, line 6 to 525, line 13) c. Facilities (24.) Plan provisions concerning school facilities include the following: An aim of the plan shall be to ensure for all students equal educational facilities. Schools which are located in 14 lower socioeconomic areas shall receive more attention and resources at least equal to those in more affluent areas in respective districts. (CX 433, at 5, ID Plan) .... Facilities will be maintained so that they are clean. safe. attractive and equal. (ex 432, at 3, Pesso Plan; emphasis added) (25) The ODM completed on April 30, 1998 a detailed report titled \"Secondary School Facilities in the Pulaski County Special School District.\" ODM concluded that the system had not complied with its commitment to provide schools which were \"clean and attractive, as promised.\" (ODM Report, at 50) ODM \"noted no egregious safety violations, but found that many schools exhibited lapses in safety and security measures.\" .Id. ODM \"did not find that schools in lower income neighborhoods were more rundown than those in more affluent neighborhoods.\" (At 54) In substance ODM found the depressing, unsatisfactory pattern of  school upkeep to be distributed randomly. (.Id. at 54-55) ODM did write: \"Fuller was in extremely poor condition, ranking as one of the most neglected schools [the monitors] visited .. II (.Id at 54) The condition of the Fuller School is a matter of concern, that school having been in the range of 43 to 49 percent black in the period from 1988-89 through 1997-98. (CX 418, ODM Report, 1- 30-98, at c-31) The school can hardly attract or retain a desegregated student population over time if its condition is \"extremely poor.\" It is also reasonable to conclude that the poor and decrepit condition of the PCSSD schools will depress the efforts by school staff and students necessary to make progress in reducing the achievement disparity. 15 (26.) Intervenors' Interrogatory 20 and the system's response are as follows (CX 438, at 17): The Interdistrict Plan provides in part (at 5): \"Schools which are located in lower socioeconomic areas shall receive attention and resources at least equal to those in more affluent areas .... Please identify each document: (i) evidencing an effort to ascertain compliance with this standard during the period from the start of the 1995-96 school year to date, and (ii) allowing an evaluation, currently, to ascertain compliance with this standard. Response. Plans and drawings and contracts regarding these schools are available for inspection at the central office. This answer evidences a lack of attention to the plan requirements .. The documents identified donot focus on the voluntary commitments. ( 27.) The testimony in deposition of Superintendent Lester_ __ also revealed a lack of systematic attention to the quality of school facilities. There has been no third-party study of facilities for \"ten or twelve years.\" (CX 446 at 59) There has been no internal study \"reduced to writing\" \"in the last four or five years.\" M. There has been no improvement plan adopted by the school board in the last five years. (CX 446 at 60) Asked to describe the criteria used in comparing facilities, the superintendent replied \"eyeball sight.\" (CX 446 at 62) The Superintendent testified that \"[i]t's just our goal to keep every facility at its present state as best we possibly can.\" (CX 446 at 60) He also testified that Fuller Junior High was equal to Jacksonville (without identifying the particular Jacksonville 9 facility he referenced). (CX at 61-62) The Superintendent did 16 . .. ----- --------- contend that there was .a list of priority projects in the Plant Planning Division; he had very limited knowledge of its contents. (CX 446 at 60-61) (28.) The PCSSD did not present any documentary evidence of priority projects. (29.) Assistant Superintendent Bowles testified, in part: \"I have to say I am in agreement primarily with the ODM's report. our buildings appear in disarray. I'm also aware that there are some conditions in those buildings that are not on a day-to-day basis. They're long term that's been overlooked by staff or people who are supposed to take care of that and it's a problem that we're working on diligently, daily, .t- o try to solve.\" (Tr . 134) He added in a like vein: \"Well, I have to echo what I've heard the superintendent and what everybody else has said. They're all bad.\" (Tr. 136) Mr. Bowles testified that the cabinet ,. will take up ODM's recommendations; he opined \"we'll look at those things that they recommend that we can afford to do and  ; implement them,\" but expressed his \"understanding\" that there is \"very little money. 11 (Tr. 395) (30 . .) The district presented no evidence of consideration of options for securing funding to render school facilities \"clean, safe [and] attractive\", or the prospects of success in this regard. (31.) This evidence negates any conclusion that the PCSSD has. vigorously implemented its voluntary commitments in the area of school facilities. Nothing has been implemented \"scrupulously\" 17 / I or \"diligently.\" o. Multicultural Education (32.) The system's voluntary undertaking regarding multicultural education included the following: \"By 1996-97, the Pulaski County Special School District will have infused multicultural instruction in all curriculum areas. Pulaski County Special School District will be recognized as an institution which values multicultural education and actively practices its philosophy in all classrooms.\" (CX 432, at 4) (33.) In October 1996, the Center for Research on Teaching and Learning, UALR, provided a report titled \"Pulaski County Special School District Multicultural Infusion Evaluation.\" (CX .473) The evaluators identified as a focus of their project the existence of \"tangible evidence\" that \"multicultural concepts and principles are being infused into the PCSSD curriculum.\" (CX 473 ~ at 3) The evaluators questioned whether the \"Multicultural Infusion section of the PCSSD School Profile\" is marked by \"the rigor or validity necessary to evaluate multicultural infusion in the classroom.\" (Ig. at 7) 7 The conclusions regarding analysis of teacher lesson plans were as follows: \"Results of the Lesson 7 They elaborated: \"In many of the 'Neutral' responses, the teacher did not openly violate the goal, but neither was there evidence that the goal had been embraced by the teacher and incorporated into everyday practice. Additionally, from the content of the items themselves, it is evident that these items are more closely related to classroom management than to specific curricular or pedigogical tecniques. Therfore, the items included on the PCSSD School Profile are not adequate to capture the process of infusing multiculturalism into the daily operations of classrooms .... 11 (CX 473, at 7-8) 18 - Plan Analysis indicate that in the lesson plan books of a significant number of the classrooms included in the study, there was evidence of these elements of multicultural infusion having been included on a regular basis. At the same time, over one third of the lesson plan books examined showed no evidence of having included these items in the planning of daily classroom activities. It is possible that teachers did, indeed, include such aspects of  multicultural infusion into their classroom daily practice, but no evidence of planning for such activities was found.\" (CX 473, at 9) The Report set forth six recommendations \"[d]ue to the inconsistency between School Profiles and the ' findings of this evaluation .... \" (CX 473, at 14) These included a suggestion of some third-party administration of the system's assessment instrument . .Ig. The evaluators concluded: \"PCSSD schools and administration should work to develop specific multicultural goals and strategies to implement them, utilizing as much as pract'i cable existing library and media center materials to achieve those goals that are in line with state frameworks.\" .I51. E. Special Education Programs . (34.) The PCSSD's voluntary commitments in the area of special education include the following (CX 432, at 11): .... The other long-range goal involves correcting the problem of overrepresentation of blacks, especially black males, in special education. The goal is to reduce the disparity between blacks and whites by gender and categorical placement. A concomitant long-range goal is to eliminate disproportionality within races in special education. 19 . .. . (35.) The evidence offered by the system (CX 427) does not reflect the gender of special educ~tion students. Therefore, the court can not  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1699","title":"Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998-09-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School integration","School enrollment","School improvement programs","School facilities","School employees","Students","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law"],"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/1699"],"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":["79 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  EDWARD L . WRIGHT (1903 - 1977) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1913 - 1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR. JOHN G. LILf 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 EDGAR J. TYLER CHARLES C. PRICE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 RECEBl\\'J~CK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 . ~ ~ ~u (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 SEP 2 1998 WEBSITE : www.wlj .com ;::~;E/ ~L.5~i!MAN OFFICE OF OF COUNSEL ~~:~~E\\ t0 ~l~c~ .. ~:RGER DESEGREGAJION MONITORINGA~1TNOA~~:tNJ~~s SAMMYE L. TAYLOR M. TOCO WOOD WALTER E . MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E . BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., ~e. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Writer's Direct Olal No . 501-2121273 mjones@wlj .com September 1, 1998 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ., NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR. HARRY S . HURST, JR. TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY. JR . KATHRYN A PRYOR J . MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J . SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . SARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM AINSLEY H. LANG KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON DONS. McKINNEY MICHELE SIMMONS AL LGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES Re: Little Rock School Distrie:t v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC Docket No.: LR-C-82-866 Dear Counsel: Enclosed is The PCSSD's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which was filed today with the Court Clerk. Cordially yours, WRIG T, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP muelJ~/ckJ Enclosure 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. RECEIVED PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS SEP 2 1998 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS OFFICE OF - DESEGREGATION MONITORING THE PCSSD'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BACKGROUND This action was filed on November 30, 1982 by the LRSD against the PCSSD and others.1 Liability was adjudicated against the PCSSD and others on April 10, 1984 and a consolidation of the three school districts in Pulaski County was ordered. Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (hereafter the Court of Appeals), en bane, affirmed most of the findings of liability of the District Court, but reversed the court ordered consolidation and prescribed a different remedy. The Court of Appeals ordered that the boundaries of the LRSD would become those of the city of Little Rock as they then existed. The Court of Appeals also ordered the transfer of the Granite Mountain community from the LRSD to the PCSSD. As a result of these transfers, the PCSSD lost 36% of its tax base, one-third of its schools, and 25% of its students. 1 The LRSD supports the PCSSD in its petition for unitary status. 1 In the same opinion, the Court of f,ppeals ordered all three districts to develop desegregation plans that would distribute students in a way such that each school would have approximately the same racial balance as each district had as a whole. Significantly, the Court of Appeals specifically held that the remedy it then ordered was a complete remedy for the constitutional violations of which the PCSSD had been found guilty; specifically those violations relating to annexations and deannexations, segregated housing, school siting, student assignments, special education, transportation, employment of faculty and administrators, and black participation in school affairs. Thereafter, other proceedings occurred,_ both before the District Court and the _,., Court of Appeals, culminating in 1989 in the Settlement Agreement and the agreed upon Desegregation Plan for each school district. While the present PCSSD Plan was not finalized in all of its particulars until April, 1992, the PCSSD has operated since 1989 under substantially the same plan. It is significant to note that many features of the PCSSD Plan, the lnterdistrict Plan, and the Plans of the other school districts were not specifically mandated as remedial devices by the Court of Appeals. For instance, the six interdistrict schools, while subsequently embraced by the Court of Appeals, were never mandated as part of any prescribed remedy. For that matter, the Court of Appeals never specifically mandated that the PCSSD pursue affirmative action in hiring and in staffing its schools and other operations. Indeed, it held in 1985 that the territorial transfer was the remedy for, among other things, violations in the areas of special education, transportation, and 51781 2 employment of faculty and administrators,. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 434-435 (8th Cir. 1985). Counseling. The PCSSD was released from federal court supervision as regards counseling and guidance programs by order dated March 27, 1996 (Docket #2648). INTRODUCTION 1. The Release of All Claims Against the PCSSD provides: \"In consideration of commitments set forth in the Plans, Joshua forever .discharge[s] the PCSSD of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which in any way relate to racial discrimination, segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutional or statutory rights of school children, based on race or color. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans.\" [Court Exhibit No. CX 417, Pages 1 and 2 of Release of All Claims Against the PCSSD.] 2. The District Court withdrew its monitoring and supervision of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) in the area of student assignments in an Order dated September 18, 1995. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 1.] Since 1989, there have been no allegations of new constitutional violations made against the PCSSD. (UHi 20) 3. The plan has had a marked impact in the way the PCSSD does business with regard to the way it looks at test scores and analyzes that data with regard to the way that kids are placed or not placed. It has impacted the way the PCSSD delivers staff development and its goals in its search for instructional strategies that it hopes would either mediate the affects of the problems that come associated with 51781 3 socioeconomic status, in particular in the.,PCSSD as in others the black population is 9 more heavily impacted because as a group, its income level is poorer. A search for strategies to try to remove any disparity that exists and that would at the same time advance achievement as a whole has had a dramatic impact on the way the PCSSD does business. [Court Exhibit No. CX 439, Pages 8 and 9.] 4. The PCSSD foresees no significant change as to its commitments concerning the interdistrict and magnet schools. [Court Exhibit No. CX 438, Page 22.] 5.  Mr. Bill Bowles, the PCSSD Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation is an African American who has been employed by the District for 28 years. He has served as a teacher, assistant principal, principal and central office administrator. (UHi 23) He was able to assess from whence the Distrl~t started to today and thinks the District has made a lot of progress. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Pages 15 and 16.] 6. Mr. Bowles has been Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation for 13 years.. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Page 4.] 7. Mr. Bowles has been involved with the current desegregation plan from its inception and it is his opinion that the PCSSD has fully implemented its desegregation plan and implemented it in good faith. (UHi 24, 92-93) He further believes that the PCSSD has earned unitary status. 19.:. 8. Some of his job responsibilities are to coordinate the implementation of the District's desegregation plan. He is a liaison person to all other departments for the District's desegregation plan, and is a consultant with each assistant superintendent for the implementation of the desegregation plan. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Page 5:] 51781 4 9. Mr. Bowles consulted with the superintendent and their attorney, Mr. Sam - Jones; and looked at other cases throughout the country. They did some comparative analysis on those cases and this one, considered the fact that they felt their implementation was in good faith and to the point where they felt that they had implemented it with a commitment and to the point where they felt they had done practically all that was required of them. After that consultation, Mr. Lester issued a memo to the other department heads to look at their individual divisions. Each department head felt his department had in good faith implemented the plan as it was written so the go ahead to actually file for un.itary status was given. [Court Exhibit No. ex 441, Pages 8 and 9.] 10. Mr. Jones, Mr. Bowles and the superintendent met individually with each interested board member to explain what they were pursuing. Only one of the African-American board members expressed some concerns. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Page 9.] 11. Mr. Bowles believes federal court jurisdiction has been a good thing for the school District because it has opened some eyes, it has opened the book so-to-speak for everybody to look at and make changes that were obviously necessary within the District. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Pages 18 and 19.] 12. Each month Mr. Bowles looks at the school board agenda and if there is a problem on the school board agenda that might negatively impact desegregation, he is required to submit in writing what that problem is. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Page 20.] 13. In Mr. Bowles' opinion, unitary is not based on the end result. It's based on effort and implementation. [Court Exhibit No. CX 441, Page 60.] 51781 5 14. This court has never been r~quired to order the PCSSD to implement something from its plan that it had failed to implement. 15. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation has time reserved at each Board meeting to report whether or not there is anything on the Board agenda that might negatively impact the desegregation plan. (UHII 406) 16. If that Assistant Superintendent feels there is anything on the tentative agenda which has a negative impact on the desegregation plan, it is removed from the agenda. (UHII 407) 17. While Joshua also has time reserved on each board agenda, it is hardly ever used . .!.Q.,_ 18. There has not been a single incident during the history of this case in which Joshua has initiated, pursed and filed a proposed amendment to the PCSSD plan. (UHi 413) STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 1. Or. Armor advocates a racial balance range of 20 percentage points. For example, if a school district were 65% black, the range would be between 45% and 85% black. (Armor 64) 2. Whatever the range, some schools are going to fall outside of the range because the districts, even if they assign appropriately, could not control who shows up from year to year. Such a failing is not a measure of the intent or of the plan. (Armor 65-66) 3. Even districts that have been declared unitary have some schools that vary from the standard, many times by just a few percentage points. There are schools 51781 6 - - - -- - - ------ - ------------------- in many school districts that for a variety 9f reasons cannot be integrated according to the applicable standard because of geography or distance or hazards or isolation. (Armor 66) 4. For instances, in Savannah, 11 of 44 schools were outside the range of 20 percentage points, yet Dr. Armor testified, and the District Court agreed, that Savannah was unitary with respect to student assignment. (Armor 69-70) 5. At the time the PCSSD was 20% minority, application of its current student assignment test would have permitted a variance of only 5 percentage points in either direction, and is one of the narrowest variances in the history of school desecration. (Armor 86) 6. Dr. Armor did not know of a single school district in the country operating with the narrow rage utilized by the PCSSD in the decade of the 1990s. (Armor 87) 7. Savannah was declared unitary even while it still had three schools that were 80% black and one that was only 31 % black. (Armor 89-90, Ex. 395) 8. Savannah, like the PCSSD, is a geographically very large school district ; and it was difficult to 'disperse students to some of the remoter schools. (Armor 90-91) 9. In the Wilmington case, Dr. Armor testified that the Wilmington schools were racially balanced because in any given year 80% of the schools would be within the court prescribed range. That view was adopted by the court. The Wilmington range is slightly more expansive than the PCSSD range. (Armor 95) 10. The same percentage for the Savannah schools was approximately 75%. (Armor 96) 51781 7 11 . Dr. Armor explained that there would probably be no unitary decision whatsoever if every school had to meet a standard, whatever that standard was, every year or most years. (Armor 105) 12. Dr. Armor says it is virtually impossible to recruit white students to schools that are 90% African-American through an m-m program. (Armor 202-203) 13. Savannah had 11 court ordered magnet schools in 1990 and the district added to that total. (Armor 211) 14. For 1990, Savannah had a target to recruit 1,025 students to the magnets and they were able to recruit 950. (Armor 212) 15. Or. Armor described this as being_ the most successful magnet program in the country. (Armor 213) 16. Dr. Armor determined that out of all of the schools in Pulaski County, that - is, all three districts, only two schools were outside of his racial balance standard, and those two only by a few percentage points. (Armor 219) 17. Dr. Armo.r does not think it is fair in a national sense to have districts subject to widely different concepts of racial balance. He tries to bring a single standard to bear on all cases. (Armor 221) 18. Under Dr. Armor's test, a test accepted by the Wilmington, Savannah, and other courts, the PCSSD is unitary as to racial balance. 19. Pursuant to the racial balance tests applicable pursuant to the Joshua Agreement, as endorsed by the Court of Appeals, the PCSSD schools could range from 20 percent black to approximately 67 percent black, the latter being the black student 51781 8 population which has largely pertained frqm year to year in the LRSD. Pursuant to this test, only Lawson Elementary School remains consistently outside this range. 20. Under the test articulated originally by the en bane court in 1985, the schools in the PCSSD could range plus or minus 25 percent from the then prevailing percentage of either race. For instance, last year at the elementary level the PCSSD was 67 percent other. Twenty-five percent of 67 percent is 17 percent. Accordingly, pursuant to this test, the PCSSD schools could legally array from 16 percent black to 50 percent black. Under this Scenario, only the following would have failed to meet the statistical range: Fuller Emergency for the years 1989 through 1995, Bates Elementary for the years 1994 and 1995, Arnold Drive Elen:entary for the year 1991, Lawson Elementary for the years 1990 and 1992, Oak Grove ele\"mentary for the years 1989 and 1990, and 1991, Pine Forest Elementary for the years 1989 and 1990, and Tolleson for - the year 1989. 21. Statistically, the PCSSD has enjoyed racial balance outcomes superior to every other district declared unitary during this decade. It should be released from court supervision as regards student assignment and racial balance. 22. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring issued its 1997-98 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Pulaski County School Districts Report on January 30, 1998. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Title Page.] 23. Enrollment information dating back to 1988-89 is included in this report. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 1.] Information reported is current through 1997-98. 24. The PCSSD Desegregation Plan recognizes only two racial designations, black students and white students. The plan includes provisions that set goals for 51781 9 balancing the enrollment of these two ractal groups within each school. Except for - interdistrict schools, which have plan-specified guidelines that are static, these goals are based on the percentage of black students enrolled district-wide by organizational levels. Every year racial balance is assessed for each school based on the District's racial balance at each organizational level for that year. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 2.] 25. The PCSSD Desegregation Plan includes guidelines that set racial balance goals for individual schools. The plan set 20% as the minimum black enrollment for PCSSD schools. The maximum black enrollment at all organizational levels is based on a variance of 25% from the annual percentage of black enrollment at ,/ each of the two organizational levels (elementary and secondary). (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 2.] 26. For the 1997-98 school year, the PCS SD had a districtwide elementary student population that was 33% black. The allowable variance in racial balance is calculated by multiplying that 33% by 25% (.33 X .25 = .0825), then adding the product (rounded to 8%) to the total elementary black proportion of 33% (33% + 8% = 41 %) to establish the maximum black enrollment of 41 % in elementary schools. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 2.] 27. Because the plan-prescribed formula used to calculate the targeted racial balance is tied to the District's black enrollment for that particular year, it is not possible to uniformly compare racial balance compliance from year to year without linking a given year's enrollment to that year's acceptable range. Since the target range for racial balance may vary somewhat from one year to the next as district-wide black 51781 10 enrollment fluctuates, it is possible that, due to a change in the District's overall racial ' - balance, a school that was out of compliance one year could have an identical enrollment the following year and yet be within an acceptable range. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 2.] 28. Although the desegregation plan specifies a minimum black enrollment for PCSSD schools, certain provisions of an agreement among the parties (called the Joshua Agreement) can raise the PCSSD minimum and potentially alter the maximum as well. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 3.] 29. The 1997-98 elementary enrollment of 10,832 is the lowest number recorded for the PCSSD in ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 30. Between 1996-97 and 1997-98, the PCSSD has lost 445 (4%) of its elementary students. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 31. Some of the decrease in elementary enrollment that occurred between 1996-97 and 1997-98 was due to the District's reorganization of the Jacksonville junior highs. Jacksonville Junior High South (which previously held grades 7-9) was reconfigured to house grades 8 and 9; Jacksonville Junior High North (which also previously held grades 7-9) was renamed Jacksonville Middle School and began serving grades 6 and 7. Sixth graders were moved from Adkins, Bayou Meto, Dupree, Harris, Jacksonville Elementary, Pinewood, and Taylor to Jacksonville Middle School. This movement resulted in a population shift from the elementary level to the secondary level because some sixth graders, who had previously been counted as elementary students, were counted as secondary students beginning in 1997-98. According to the District, Jacksonville Middle School had 351 sixth graders in 1997-98. Calculations 51781 11 show that the 351 students that were mayed out of the elementary school category for 1997-98 account for 79% of the 445- student decline in elementary population from the previous year. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 32. The number of black elementary students has declined by 72 (2%). [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 5.] 33. The number of white elementary students has decreased by 373 (5% ). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 34. Between 1996-97 and 1997-98, 16 of the 25 elementary schools experienced a decrease in their total enrollment: Adkins has lost 29 students (9%); Baker 2 (1 %); Bayou Meta 14 (2%); Cato 13 (2%); College Station 34 (11 %); Crystal Hill 29 (4%); Dupree 68 (16%); Harris 27 (9%); Jacksonvill(;-139 (19%); Landmark 42 (8%); Lawson 13 (4%); Pinewood 83 (15%); Scott 10 (8%); Sherwood 35 (8%); Sylvan Hills - 9 (2%); and Tolleson 36 (7%). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 35. At Adkins, Bayou Meta, Dupree, Harris, Jacksonville Elementary, and Pinewood, the enrollment decline was at least partly due to the relocation of sixth ~ graders to Jacksonville Middle School, a change which occurred during the grade-level reorganization that involved those schools for 1997-98. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 5.] 36. Since 1988-89, the District has lost 1,421 (12%) of its elementary students. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 37. Significant losses have occurred at 17 schools: Adkins lost 103 students (27%); Bates 277 (37%); Cato 105 (17%); Dupree 118 (24%); Fuller 217 (36%); Harris 411 (60% ); Jacksonville 207 (26% ); Landmark 165 (26% ); Lawson 75 (21 % ); Oak 51781 12 Grove 124 (22%); Oakbrooke 193 (29%);,Pine Forest 106 (18%); Pinewood 217 (32%); Robinson 71 (15%); Scott 96 (45%); Sherwood 185 (33%); and Sylvan Hills 323 (44%). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 38. Enrollment has risen in four schools since 1988-89: College Station has shown a significant increase of 101 students (54%). The other three schools have much smaller increases: Arnold Drive added 20 students (5%), Baker 10 (3%) and Bayou Meta 16 (3%). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 39. The maximum black percentage at any PCSSD elementary school last year was 41 %. Since the desegregation plan specifies 20% black enrollment as the minimum for all schools, the racial balance ranQe for 1997-98 was 20% to 41 % black. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 40. In 1997-98, ten of the 25 PCSSD elementary schools (including the three - interdistrict schools) have fallen outside the target for racial balance, which is two more than the eight elementary schools that failed to meet the racial balance goals last year. [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 6.] 41 . The enrollment at Baker (an interdistrict school which has a minimum goal of 40% black enrollment) is 21 % black, which is 19 percentage points below the minimum for interdistrict schools. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 42. At 14% black in 1997-98, Lawson has fallen well below the minimum goal of 20% black. Since last year, Lawson has dropped two additional percentage points away from the minimum; since 1994-95 (the one year Lawson was within the range), it has fallen nine percentage points. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 51781 13 43. This year, Pine Forest (whic;h had been with in range the last two years) is - below the minimum guideline. The school has failed to meet the minimum target for black enrollment for six of the last ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 44. Of the seven elementary schools that exceed the maximum range of 41 % black enrollment, four are located in the southeast sector of the PCSSD and three are located north of the Arkansas River. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 45. Although within range last year, College Station, at 43% black, is above the targeted range. The school has been above the maximum range for eight of the last ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 46. Although within range for the last ~ve years, Scott, at 43% black, moved above the targeted range this year. The school has been above the range for four of the last ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 47. Bates, Fuller and Landmark have all been outside the target range for the last ten years. This year, Bates exceeds the target range by 15 percentage points, Fuller by 19 points, and Landmark by 4 points. Since 1996-97, enrollment at each of ~ these schools has moved farther above the target range. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 6.] 48. At 53% black, Harris, which has exceeded the target of black enrollment for the seventh consecutive year, is 12 percentage points above the goal. [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 6.] 49. At 46% black, which is five percentage points above the goal and four points higher than last year, Jacksonville continues to exceed the target range. This is 51781 14 I I I I I I I I I I the third consecutive year that the school 'has missed the target range. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 50. Although above the targeted range last year, Taylor is within the range this year. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 51 . In 1997-98, for the third consecutive year, PCSSD's total secondary enrollment has increased over the previous year. The 1997-98 enrollment of 9,192 has risen by 2%, or 174 students (13 black and 161 white), over the number recorded in 1996-97. [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, P~ge 7.] 52. Some of the increase in secondary enrollment that occurred between 1996-97 and 1997-98 was due to the District's reorganization of the Jacksonville junior highs. Jacksonville Junior High (which previously held grades 7-9) was reconfigured to house grades 8 and 9; Jacksonville Junior High North (which also previously held - grades 7-9) was renamed Jacksonville Middle School and began serving grades 6 and 7. Sixth graders were moved from Adkins, Bayou Meta, Dupree, Harris, Jacksonville Elementary, Pinewooq, and Taylor to Jacksonville Middle School. This movement ; resulted in a population shift from the elementary level to the secondary level because some sixth graders, who had previously been counted as elementary students, were counted as secondary students beginning in 1997-98. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 53. Six of the twelve secondary schools have posted enrollment increases between 1996-97 and 1997-98: Fuller Junior, Jacksonville Middle (previously Jacksonville South), Jacksonville Junior (previously Jacksonville North), Jacksonville High, North Pulaski High, and Robinson Junior. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 51781 15 54. The largest increases occur~ed at Jacksonville Junior (246 students or ' - 4 7%) and at Jacksonville Middle (88 students or 13%) and are due to the reorganization of the Jacksonville junior high schools. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 55. All other increases in student enrollment were much more modest: Fuller Junior High (18 students or 2%); Jacksonville High (1 student); North Pulaski High (34 students or 4%); and Robinson Junior High (24 students or 6%). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 7.] 56. Between 1996-97 and 1997-98, five schools have shown a decrease in overall enrollment: Mills High (-70 or 8%); Northwood Junior high (-87 or 9%); Oak Grove Junior and Senior High (-39 or 4%); Robi!1son High (-16 or 4%); and Sylvan Hills High (-25 or 3% ). [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 8.] 57. The 70-student decline at Mills this year nearly offsets the enrollment gain - of 84 students recorded in 1996-97. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 58. Since 1995-96, Northwood Junior High has lost 152 students (15%). [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 59. The current enrollment of 785 at Sylvan Hills High School is a ten-year low. [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 8.] 60. Between 1988-89 and 1997-98, enrollment has fallen in nine of the twelve secondary schools: Northwood, Robinson, and Sylvan Hills Junior Highs; Oak Grove Junior and Senior High; and Jacksonville, Mills, North Pulaski, Robinson, and Sylvan Hills High Schools. (Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 8.] 61. The 1997-98 enrollment in the Pesso secondary schools is 32% black. Using that figure as the basis for calculations, the maximum black percentage at any 51781 16 PCSSD secondary school this year should be 40%. Since the desegregation plan - specifies 20% as the minimum black enrollment for all schools, the racial balance range for 1997-98 is 20% to 40% black. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 62. Both Fuller Junior High and Mills High have remained above the target range for each of the last ten years. At 44% black, Fuller Junior High is four points beyond the maximum target; and Mills, at 48% black, is eight points beyond the maximum goal. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] . 63. The percentage of black stude~ts attending Fuller Junior High has remained fairly stable during the last ten years, ranging from 43% in 1993-94 to 49% in 1995-96. [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 8.] . 64. The racial balance at Mills High has been constant at 48% black over the last five academic years, although the enrollment has increased by 34% during that -  same time period. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 65. No PCSSD secondary schools have fallen below the minimum of 20% black enrollment durin$J the past seven years. In 1988-89, five secondary schools had student populations that were less than 20% black. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 66. As early as 1988-89 in some schools, the PCSSD began offering specialty programs as a means for promoting voluntary desegregation. Eight schools have offered some type of specialty program, and some schools offer multiple programs. Schools which have (or once had) specialty programs are Bates, College Station, Fuller, and Landmark Elementary Schools; Fuller Junior High School; and Jacksonville, Mills, and Sylvan Hills High Schools. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 51781 17 67. At the end of 1994-95, the P,CSSD discontinued the Math and Science Together (MAST) specialty program it had offered at Bates. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 8.] 68. Six of the eight PCSSD schools that offer (or have offered) specialty programs have experienced a slide in total enrollment since the school began a specialty program. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 69. Between 1990-91 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98, Bates' enrollment has shrunk by 172 students (27%). Bates began experiencing a significant decrease in enrollment in 1992-93 and suffered a 12% decline in 1993-94 and another 12% drop after the school's speci~lty program was discontinued at the close of 1994-95. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 70. Between 1988-89 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98, Fuller Elementary's enrollment has decreased by 217 students (36% ). [Court Exhibit No. ex 418, Page 9.] 71. Landmark's enrollment has declined by 104 students (18%) between ' ; 1990-91 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98. The 1997-98 enrollment is presently the lowest recorded in the last ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 72. Jacksonville High has lost 207 students (17%) between 1988-89 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98. (Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 73. Mills' enrollment has decreased by 19 students (2%) between 1988-89 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98. However, in 1994-95 the District added two more specialty programs and enrollment began to climb. Between 1993-94 51781 18 (the year before the addition of the two specialty programs) and 1997-98, enrollment has increased by 195 students (34%). Nevertheless, the current enrollment of 766 represents a loss of 70 students since last school year. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 74. Enrollment at Sylvan Hills High has decreased by 116 students (13%) between 1991-92 (the year the specialty program began) and 1997-98. The current enrollment of 785 is the lowest number recorded in the past ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 75. Enrollment at College Station was 188 students in 1988-89; however, that number jumped 29% (54 students) when the specialty programs were added in 1989-90. Enrollment continued to increase through 1992-93, and has fluctuated each year since. The current enrollment of 289 is near the average enrollment over the last ten years. [Court Exhibit No. CX 418, Page 9.] 76. With the exceptio "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1681","title":"Court filings concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance and ADE's interrogatories to LRSD and NLRSD","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":["1998-08"],"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--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance and ADE's interrogatories to LRSD and NLRSD"],"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/1681"],"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":["45 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, the districts' brief in response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) submission concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, supplemental submission by the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) interrogatories to Little Rock School District (LRSD) re: teacher retirement/health insurance remedies; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) interrogatories to North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) re: teacher retirement/health insurance remedies; 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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT,  Plaintiff,  FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARt\u003cANSAS AUG t O 1998 JAMES o/ ~MACK. CLERK By: LI U.,(\\,1\\/\\j 1\\, OEP CLERK vs.  No. LR-C-82-866  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.,  Defendants,   MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.,  lntervenors,   KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al.,  Intervenors.  ORDER Before the Court is a motion filed by the Arkansas Department of Education ( ADEj requesting a second extension of time to and including August 19, 1998 in which to file reply briefs to the opening briefs previously submitted regarding the health insurance and teacher retirement remedy issues. 'The ADE states in its motion that counsel for the Llttle Rock School District (LRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCssn), and the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) do not object to and join the ADE in this motion. As this Court noted for the record in its prior Order granting the parties' first request for an extension of time to file reply briefs, although the F.ighth Circuit Court of Appeals has released its opinion regarding the health insurance and teacher retirement remedy issues, the mandate from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding this opinion has not issued. Therefore, it is not clear that this Court has jurisdiction to require the parties to brief these issues at this time. Because the parties are in agreement regarding the briefing schedule and the proposed extension, - this Court will grant the ADE's request. The parties have to and including August 19, 1998 in which to file their reply briefs. .,,.. . . }3 i1 8 2 ~ IT IS SO ORDERED TillS /0 day of August 1998. QL.\u0026~ UNITED STATES Dis JUDGE 2  . , .JN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 2 o 1998 OFFICE Ot DESE6REGATION MON1TOR1N6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S BRIEF CONCERNING REMEDIES-ON THE ISSUES OF TEACHER RETIREMENT '  AND HEAL TH INSURANCE On July 20, 1998, the Districts and ADE submitted briefs outlining their positions - 6~ -the appropriate way to calculate a remedy for the Court's finding that the State breached the Settlement Agreement when it changed the manner in which school .district employee retirement and health insurance obligations were funded. After having reviewed ADE' s submission, LRSD and NLRSD advised this Court that they believe \"ADE' s -submission seems to present an acceptable method of calculating the remedy which is consistent with the decisions of this court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.\" Neither LRSD nor NLRSD submitted a proposed remedy of their own. This Court is now presented with two proposals concerning the calculation of a remedy: The method proposed by ADE (and endorsed by LRSD and NLRSDf and the 'Iriethod proposed by,.PCSSD.:,: Asr'discussed beio'w; PCS5D's proposai is flawed and - should'itbt be adoptea'by this C~urt.because (a) it assumes that Equalization Funds are 1  distributed on a pure per-ADM basis, and therefore is inconsistent with the findings of -this Court and the Eighth Circuit that such funds are distributed on an \"equalized\" basis; (b) it includes in the calculation PCSSD's health insurance matching obligations attributable to federally-funded school district employees, costs which were not paid by the State under the Act 34 funding system; and (c) it would produce an unwarranted windfall to PCSSD and the other Districts and would give the Districts compensation beyond that which is necessary to hold the Districts harmless from the effects of the funding changes. A. PCSSD'S J:\u003eROPOSAL IGNORES THE FACT THAT EQUALIZATION FUNDING IS NOT DISTRIBUTED ON A PURE PER-ADM BASIS The first flaw in PCSSD' s proposed remedy calculation is that it is based upon - the assumption that funds distributed for school district retirement and health insurance obligations ( distributed as \"Equalization Funding\") are distributed on a pure per-ADM basis. In the worksheet attached to its brief PCSSD calculates the amount of retirement and health insurance funding it received in 1996-97 and 1997-98 by taking the total statewide teacher retirement and health insurance obligations for all school districts for each year and dividing it by the total ADM count for all districts to arrive at an \"amt. distributed per ADM.\" PCSSD then multiplies that number by its previous year's ADM to arrive at the figure that is supposed to represent the amount of State retirement or health insurance funding it received. 2  C. PCSSD'S PROPOSED REMEDY WOULD PRODUCE DIVERGENT  RECOVERiES BETWEEN THE THREE DISTRICTS AND WILL RESULT IN UNW ARRAN'fED WINDFALL RECOVERIES The third and most significant flaw in PCSSD' s proposed remedy is that it would give the Districts more funds than the previous retirement and health insurance \"program\" would have given them had it not been changed in the 1995 legislative session, and therefore PCs.SD' s proposal violates the Eighth Circuit's command that no remedy be fashioned that produces a \"windfall\" recovery to the Districts. Moreover, PCSSD' s proposed calculation would produce an anomalous result under which each Pulaski County school district would be entitled to State funds sufficient to satisfy a different \"percentage\" of each District's actual retirement and health insurance obligations. 1. PC~SD's Proposal That The Districts Receive More Than 100% Of Their. Retirement And Insurance Obligations Violates The Eighth Circuit's Directive That The Districts Not Receive A Windfall In its instructions to this Cqurt on remand the Eighth Circuit directed that a remedy be fashioned that places the Districts \"in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed.\" At the same time, however, the Eighth Circuit recognized that the remedy should not produce a \"windfall\" recovery that would place the Districts in a better position than that which they enjoyed under the prior method of retirement and health insurance funding. PCSSD' s proposed remedy must be rejected because it would result in an unwarranted windfall to the Districts. 4  Prior to 1996-97 the funding \"program\" ensured that approximately 100% of the Districts' required retirement and health insurance contributions be paid by the State. Yet under PCSSD's proposed remedy, PCS.SD would be entitled to receive state funds equal to 101.2% of its 1996-97 retirement obligation, 101.02% of its 1997-98 retirement obligation, and 103.79% of its 1997-98 health insurance obligation. Moreover, PCSSD would be entitled to keep all of the state funds it received to satisfy its health insurance obligation for 1996-97, even though PCS.SD' s own analysis indicates that PCSSD received state funds sufficient to satisfy 107.62% of its actual health insurance obligation for that year.3 PCSSD's proposed analysis - and any similar analysis that would give any District more than 100% of its retirement and insurance obligation - would run afoul of the Eighth Circuit's direction that a \"hold harmless\" remedy be fashioned that results in no \"windfall\" recovery to the Districts. 2. PCSSD's Proposal Would Result In Divergent Levels Of Funding Between The Three Districts Moreover, PCSSD's proposed remedy calculation makes little sense and should be rejected because, under PCS.SD' s method, each District will receive State funds sufficient to satisfy a different \"percentage\" of its health insurance and retirement obligations. Under PC5.5D's proposal, its appropriate \"percentage level\" of funding should be determined by calculating the total retirement and health insurance obligation of all other school districts (including LRSD and NLRSD), calculating the 3 The inequity of this result is further illustrated by the fact that, under PCSSD's own analysis, the other 310 school districts in the state received from the State, on average, funds sufficient to satisfy 99.67% of their health insurance obligation. 5 - total amount of State funds distributed for those purposes to all other school districts (including LRSD and NLRSD), and calculating what \"percentage\" of this total obligation of these districts is covered by state funds. Under PCSSD' s proposal, PCSSD would then be entitled to funds sufficient to pay for this same \"percentage\" of its obligations. If this same methodology is adopted for each Pulaski County District,4 it would undoubtedly result in each District being entitled to funding sufficient to constitute a different \"percentage\" of their respective obligations. Because Equalization Funds are distributed in a manner that takes into account the wealth of the district, and given the differences in the relative \"wealth\" of each Pulaski County district, using PCSSD's method might result in PCSSD receiving, say, 103% of its health insurance obligation, while NLRSD and LRSD would be entitled to some different percentage of their respective obligations. There is no reason in law or logic to adopt such a remedy. For the foregoing reasons, ADE submits that PCSSD's proposed remedy, and any remedy that would result in any District receiving more than 100% of its retirement and health insurance obligations, must be rejected. 4 Under PCSSD's proposal, presumably LRSD would calculate its own \"percentage\" entitlement by looking at the state funding and ob'iigations of all other districts (inciuding PCSSD and NLRSD), and NLRSD would calculate its own \"percentage\" entitlement by looking at the state funding and obligations of all other districts (including LRSD andPCSSD). 6 Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _ I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on August 19, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by first class 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 Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82 - 866RECEllfED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AUG 2 o 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING THE DISTRICTS' BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO ADE'S SUBMISSION CONCERNING REMEDIES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS : INTERVENERS ,'  INTERVENERS ON THE ISSUES OF TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE I. Introduction. The three Pulaski County school districts (the \"districts\") agree that ADE' s submission provides one acceptable method for calculating the amount of Act 917 equalization funding received by the districts' for teacher retirement and health insurance. 1 However, ADE stopped short of granting the districts complete relief. The Eighth Circuit's order requires \"equal state funding ... for all school districts.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1018 ( 8t h cir. 1996) . See LRSD v. PCS SD, slip op. at 27, 1998 WL 352245, *6 (8 th Cir. July 1, 1998). Under Act 917, districts outside Pulaski County received 107% of their teacher retirement and health 1The districts cannot agree at this time that ADE's methodology should be used for future claims to be made by the districts with regard to special education and loss funding. insurance costs. 2 Therefore, the three Pulaski County districts should also receive 107% of their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. See Exhibit 1 attached. II. Discussion. In remanding the issue of damages to this Court, the Eighth Circuit offered the following guidance: The three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts a~e entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFPA plus teacher retirement plus heal th insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. LRSD v. PCSSD, slip op. at 27; 1998 WL 352245 at *6 (emphasis supplied). 2Using Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tristan D. Green, this percentage may be calculated by first subtracting the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of the three Pulaski County districts from the statewide total to obtain the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of other districts in the state. The amount other districts received in excess of their actual costs is equal to the total desegregation adjustment shown in column 4. The total desegregation adjustment is then added to the actual teacher retirement costs of other district. This equals the actual amount received by other districts in the state for their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The percentage of costs received by other districts in the state is determined by dividing the actual amount received by other districts in the state by the actual costs of other districts in the state. In both 1996-97 and 1997-98, this percentage is 107%. 2 To determine the districts ' damages as prescribed by the - Eighth Circuit, this Court must know two numbers: (1) the amount the districts would have received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the old Act 34 funding system; and, (2) the amount the districts actually received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the new Act 917 funding system. Using these two numbers, the districts' damages can easily be calculated by subtracting what the district's actually received under Act 917 from what the districts would have received under Act 34. See Exhibit 1 attached. The amount the districts received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the new Act 917 funding system is no longer in dispute. The districts accept for the purpose of calculating their damages in these cases the amounts set forth in Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tristan D. Green. The parties dispute, however, the amount the districts would have received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the old Act 34 funding system. ADE contends that this amount is equal to 100% of the districts' actual costs. The districts contend that this amount is equal to the percentage of actual costs received by districts statewide (which is 107%). Resolution of this dispute should be guided by the Eighth Circuit's opinion in the workers' compensation case. In that case, the Eighth Circuit defined the workers' compensation \"program\" as \"equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d at 1018. Thus, the 3 Eighth Circuit found that this Court \"correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" l,g ( emphasis supplied) . 3 Likewise, the State must disburse teacher retirement and health insurance funding to the districts \"in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" The nature of the State's violation of the Settlement Agreement dictates a remedy which ensures no disparate impact on the three Pulaski County districts. As the Eighth Circuit explained in the workers' compensation case, disparate funding violates the anti-retaliation clause of the Settlement Agreement. The court stated: The program in effect at the time of the Settlement Agreement, as we see it, was equal state funding of workers' compensation for all school districts. Thus, the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, so long as the change is, in the words of the Settlement Agreement, \"fair and rational\" and of \"general applicability.\" We see this portion of the Settlement Agreement as an anti-retaliation clause. Its purpose, by its very words, is to prevent the State from cutting other programs in order to pay for its desegregation commitments. If, for example, the State had passed a statute decreasing or eliminating workers' compensation 3Specifically, this Court stated: (T]he Court does find that the state must assist the three Pulaski County school districts to the same degree that it is assisting the other districts in the state. Thus, the state must fund the same proportion of the cost of each of the three Pulaski County school district' workers' compensation insurance as it pays for all the other school districts in the state beginning with the 1994-95 school year. Memorandum Opinion and Order filed Jan. 13, 1995, Docket No. 2337. 4 payments for the settling districts only, while maintaining its system of paying the costs to other districts, this portion of the Settlement Agreement would clearly have been offended. The state did not do that, however. Rather, it changed the funding formula for all districts in the State. So long as that change effects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement. That, however, does not end our inquiry. When the State disbursed \"seed money\" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation costs, it paid about one-half of the expense statewide. In the Pulaski County districts, it paid only about one-third of the expense. This disparity arose because the State's formula used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive. The Pulaski County districts are employee heavy compared to other districts, increasing their workers' compensation costs. This result is precisely what the anti-retaliation clause was meant to prevent. It funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state. It is of no moment that the State reached this result in a mathematically consistent manner. The District Court correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide. LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d at 1018 (emphasis supplied). By defining the \"program\" as \"equal state funding,\" the Eighth Circuit's opinion prohibits the State from funding the districts \"to a lesser degree\" than other districts in the state. Using the Eighth Circuit's analogy, the Settlement Agreement would clearly be offended if the State passed a statute funding 100% of the three Pulaski County districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs and 107% of these costs for other districts in the state. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d at 1018. This is exactly what the State did in passing Act 917. As the Eighth Circuit stated in the workers' compensation case, \"It is of no moment that the State reached this result in a mathematically consistent manner.\" Ig. 5 Act 917 violates the anti-retaliation clause of the Settlement Agreement because \"[i]t funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state.\" Id. Therefore, as in the workers' compensation case, the proper remedy is to direct the State to provide the districts funding for their teacher retirement and heal th insurance costs \"in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" Id. ADE may argue that funding 107% of the districts' costs will provide the districts the windfall described by the Eighth Circuit. This argument fails for two reasons. First, the windfall described by Eighth Circuit arises only if the State is not given credit for the amount of teacher retirement and heal th insurance funding provided under Act 917. See LRSD v. PCSSD, slip op. at 27; 1998 WL 352245 at *6. The districts agree with ADE's proposed methodology for calculating the this credit, and both ADE's and the district's damage calculations deduct this amount to avoid a windfall. Second, funding the three Pulaski County districts at 100% would deprive them of additional funding being provided to other districts in the state. Because education funds are finite, funds used to pay teacher retirement arid health insurance costs decrease the amount of funds which can be spent on direct educational programs. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F. 3d at 1018 ( \"Assuming finite funds, workers' compensation payments will decrease funds available for more direct educational programs.\") . Thus, if the average Arkansas school district's teacher retirement and health insurance costs total $1,000,000.00, Act 917 provides the district 6 $1,070,000.00 -- an excess of $70,000.00 over its costs. This excess can be used to fund direct educational programs in addition to other funding received by the district under Act 917. There is no reason why the three Pulaski County districts should be deprived of these additional funds provided to other districts in the state. To the contrary, the districts' desegregation obligations place the districts in a position of greater need than most other districts. III. Conclusion. Act 917 funds 107% of the teacher retirement and health insurance costs of districts in the state outside Pulaski County. In order to fund the three Pulaski County districts in the same percentage, the State must pay the Little Rock School District an additional $8,740,083 for 1996-97 and $9,079,676 for 1997-98; the North Little Rock School District an additional $1,303,417 for 1996-97 and $1,328,590 for 1997-98; and, the Pulaski County Special School District an additional $1,920,359 for 1996-97 and $2,222,213 for 1997-98. See Exhibit 1 attached. 4 Accordingly, the districts pray that the State be ordered to pay these amounts to the districts. 4Exhibit 1 incorporates the total teacher retirement and health insurance costs of the districts as calculated by ADE with the exception of PCSSD. See Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tristan D. Green. ADE's calculations exclude federal employees only for PCSSD. In order to be consistent and fair to PCSSD, Exhibit 1 is based on a total cost for teacher retirement and health insurance calculated by Dr. Don Stewart which includes federal employees. 7 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 8 ------ ristopher He John C. Fendley, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 19th day of August, 1998. Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ John c. Fendley, Jr. 9 Exhibit 1 Summary of Proposed Remedy on Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Issues - Fiscal Years 1997 \u0026 1998 1996-97 1 2 3 4 Total 107% State Districts Actual of Actual Funding Damages District Cost Cost Received !l.:...fil LRSD $13,832,481 $14,800,755 $6,060,672 $8,740,083 NLRSD $4,458,912 $4,771,036 $3,467,619 $1,303,417 PCSSD $9,564,451 $10,233,963 $8,313,604 $1,920,359 TOTAL $11,963,858 1997-98 1 2 3 4 Total 107% State Districts Total Actual of Actual Funding Damages 1996-97 \u0026 District Cost Cost Received !l.:...fil 1997-98 LRSD $14,337,742 $15,341,383.94 $6,261,708 $9,079,676 $17,819,759 - NLRSD $4,606,297 $4,928,738 $3,600,148 $1,328,590 $2,632,007 PCSSD $9,753,866 $10,436,637 $8,214,424 $2,222,213 $4,142,571 TOTAL $12,630,478 $24,594,336 NOTE: Dr. Don Stewart's calculations were used for PCSSD's actual costs. t . ' 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. RECE1,,eo AUG 2 o 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION BY THE PCSSD PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On this day, the LRSD is submitting a proposal which accepts the State's methodology but urges that the districts receive 107% of their costs as compared to the State's proposed 100%. The LRSD submission also supplies the correct cost numbers for the PCSSD making them consistent with how costs were calculated by the State for LRSD and NLRSD. If the Court ultimately determines not to accept the proposal being made by the LRSD today, then the PCSSD reserves the right to argue the adoption of the methodology and outcomes reflected on the attached Exhibits \"A\" and \"B\". Further, the PCSSD does not currently agree that the methodology proposed by the State should be applicable to any other remaining issues or claims that may be advanced in this matter. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Special School Di CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August / 7 , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 STATE TEACHE'.R RETIREMENT CALCULATION 1996-97  DISTRIB. @ ACTUAL COST pcssd only TOT. OTHER STATE TOT. STATE 1995-1996 SOURCE INFORMATION $136,389,292 96-97 ACTUAL STATEWIDE TEA. RET. COST $136,389,292 96-97 STATEWIDE TEA. RET. DISTRIBUTION 447,838.95 TOTAL ADM $304.55 AMT. DISTRIBUTED PER ADM 1996-1997 ACT. COST 1996-1997 STATE HEALTH INSURANCE CALCULATION 1996-97 SOURCE INFORMATION $46,206,825 96-97 ACTUAL STATEWIDE HEALTH INS. COST TR\u0026HIEXP.WK4 1996-1997 DISTRIB. @ ACTUAL COST $46,206,825 96-97 STATEWIDE HEALTH INS. DISTRIBUTION - INCLUDING FEDERAL 447,838.95 TOTAL ADM $103.18 AMT. DISTRIBUTED PER ADM 1995-1996 1996-1997 ACT. COST 1996-1997 1996-1997 TOT. OTHER STATE 396,797.72 $39 020,310 $98.34 $40 940 527 TOT. STATE 447 838.95 $46 206 825 $103.18 $48 480 696 NOTE: HEAL TH INSURANCE ACTUAL COST INCLUDES COSTS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FOR ALL DISTRICTS. 08/18/98 1996-1997 1996-1997 1996-1997 TOT. EXHIBIT I 8 ,. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ., WESTERN DIVISION AUG 2 4 1998 Of-FIGE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO~ 1, ct al. ADE'S INTERROGATORIES TO LRSD DEP\"r.NDANTS RE: TEACHER RETIREMENT/HEAL TH INSURANCE REMEDIES The Arkansas Department of Education requests that plaintiff Little Rock School District respond to the following interrogatories within the time and in the manner specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. INTERROGATORY No. 1: State whether LRSD reported ODM employees as LRSD employees to the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System for the purpose of ATRS' calculation of LRSD's 1996-97 teacher retirement matching obligation. INTERROGATORY No. 2:  If the answer to Interrogatory No. 1 is in the affirmative, state: (a) The name of each ODM employee so reported; and (b) for each such ODM employee, . the amount (in dollars) said employee generated towards LRSD' s total 1996-97 teacher retirement matching obligation. ' . '   '  ' : : ---- - ---  INTERROGATORY No. 8: For the period beginning July 1, 1996 to the present state, for each month, the total number of federally-funded LRSD employees participating in the public school employee health insurance program. For purposes of this interrogatory, the phrase \"federally funded LRSD employee\" means an employee for whom LRSD was required to pay the health insurance contribution rate under Ark. Code Ann.  6-17-1117 and whose salary was paid in whole or in part with federal funds. INTERROGATORY No. 9: State the name, title, employer, business address and telephone number of each and every person who prepared, provided information, or otherwise assisted in the preparation of the response to Interrogatory No. 9. (You need not identify anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses.) Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant ~ ey General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on August 21, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by first class 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 Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones  Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 4 I  IN TH~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AUG 2 4 199B OfflCE0f ~TlON MONITORING PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. ADE'S INTERROGATORIES TO NLRSD . - . . . . . DEFENDANTS RE: TEACHER RETIREMENT/HEALTH INSURANCE REMEDIES The Arkansas Department of Education requests that the North Little Rock School District respond to the following interrogatories within the time and in the manner specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. INTERROGATORY No. 1: For the period beginning July 1, 1996 to the present state, for each month, the total number of federally-funded NLRSD employees participating in the public school employee health insurance program. For purposes of this interrogatory, the phrase \"federally funded NLRSD employee\" means an employee for whom NLRSD was required to pay the health insura "}],"pages":{"current_page":14,"next_page":15,"prev_page":13,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":156,"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}}]}}