{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1700","title":"Court filings concerning LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants, affidavit of Christopher Heller, and PCSSD's petition for release from federal court supervision and analysis of non-compliance with court order","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","Heller, Christopher"],"dc_date":["1997-11"],"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","Joshua Intervenors","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Lawyers","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School districts","Education and state","School attendance","School integration","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants, affidavit of Christopher Heller, and PCSSD's petition for release from federal court supervision and analysis of non-compliance with court order"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1700"],"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":["13 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, response to Joshua intervenors' motion for continuance of hearing; District Court, order; District Court, motion to dismiss appeal against North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to withhold jurisdiction; District Court, LRSD's amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants; District Court, affidavit of Christopher Heller; District Court, supplemental motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) petition for release from federal court supervision; Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, PCSSD analysis of non-compliance with court order; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~N DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NOV O 4 1997 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK 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 RECEn/ED NOV '1 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its response, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD appreciates the court's responsiveness to its need - for a timely hearing on its motion for approval of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. For the reasons set forth below, however, LRSD believes that a short continuance of the scheduled hearing would benefit all of the parties and the court. 2. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan calls for the redrawing of attendance zones in accordance with certain principles described in that plan. LRSD has contracted with a software compfiny to provide boundary planning software for the purpose of drawing attendance zones in accordance with those principles. The necessary maps and student location information have been provided to the software company. Training of LRSD personnel is scheduled to begin on November 17, 1997. Within a few weeks after that date LRSD should be in a position to show the - parties and the court maps, racial balance information and other student assignment information regarding a number of possible student assignment options. This information will show the parties and the court the practical application of the student assignment principles described in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 3. LRSD is also in the process of developing policies and procedures which will govern the implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The parties and the court will have the benefit of more of this information if there is a short continuance of the scheduled hearing date. 4. LRSD has agreed to work with Joshua in a cooperative effort to complete all necessary discovery in a timely manner. The - significant number of witnesses and documents, and the fact that LRSD is currently engaged in boundary planning and development of implementation plans, makes it difficult to do the necessary work to insure an orderly and efficient discovery process and presentation to the court on the scheduled hearing date. 5. LRSD supports a continuance of the scheduled hearing only if the hearing can be rescheduled for a time no later than early February, 199Q. If the hearing is scheduled any later than that, LRSD believes that the court will not have sufficient time to consider the evidence and render a decision which LRSD can effectively implement for the 1998-99 school year. 2 WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD supports Joshua's motion for continuance of the scheduled December 1, 1997 hearing, provided the continuance will not delay the hearing beyond early February, 1998. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By:~ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance of Hearing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 4th day of November, 1997: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sain Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, 1\\R 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 3 --- 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 f:lbomolbd\\yllnd-__ -.............. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 FILED u.s Ql8TRICT COl.!,'!THIU' EAiTIPI~ 01ST1'10T \"\"\"\"' \"\"' NOV O 4 '997 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By (\u003e/ef?lr DEP CLERK Before the Court is the a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors requesting a continuance of the hearing scheduled for Monday, December 1, 1997 regarding the Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") motion for approval of the revised desegregation and education plan. This Court is sympathetic to the reasons stated by counsel for the Joshua Intervenors in support of the requested continuance. However, this matter is of great concern to the Little Rock community. Furthermore, the Court expects the hearing on the LRSD's motion to last for a full week. Because the Court has numerous criminal matters scheduled during the upcoming months, there are few alternative dates available to conduct a hearing on the LRSD's motion. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to continue the hearing on the LRSD's motion for approval of the revised desegregation and education plan currently set for December 1, 1997. However, this Court will wait for other parties involved in the case to file their responses to the Joshua Intervenors' motion before ruling definitively upon the request for a continuance. ,;14-._ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS~ day of November 1997. a$., ; ~ )1~ui- UNITEDSTATES DISTRlCfJGE T+l8 ~UMENT EHTEREO ON DOCKET 8tET ltl COMP~E ~TH RULE Si AN~~RCf OM //- i/- CJ 1 SY~~~~~;;.;;;- 2 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. November 4, 1997 Ms. Dana C. McWay U.S. Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, Mo 63101 Re: 97-2743 EALR JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY LITILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Joshua, et al v. LRSD, et al Dear Ms. McWay: RECEIVED NOV 5 1997 OFFtC0F DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed please find Joshua's motion as it pertains to the NLRSD. The Joshua Intervenors previously set forth in their reply brief at pages 6 to 19 the issues that remain to be decided by the court given the partial settlement. Those pages are attached hereto. Thank you for your attention to this matter. JWW:cac cc: Stephen Jones Enclosures 'RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NOV 5 1997 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA v. NO. 97-2743EALR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MOTION TO DISMISS OFFICE OF DESE~REGATION MONITORING APPELLANT APPELLEE APPELLEE APPEAL AGAINST NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Corne now the Appellees, Joshua Intervenors, and move the Court to dismiss their appeal with respect to the North Little Rock School District Defendants: 1. The Joshua Intervenors and the North Little Rock School - District Defendants have settled their underlying fee dispute and request that this matter be dismissed as to the North Little Rock School Defendants with each party to bear its own costs and fees. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray the Court to dismiss their appeal against the North Little Rock School District with each party to bear its own costs and fees. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 01) 374-3758 ~IVVL, V ~4 Walker, No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~ I, John w. Walker, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon Mr. Stephen w. Jones, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A., 3400 TCBY Tower, 425 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72201 and Mr. Chris Heller, Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark, P.A., 2000 First Commercial Bank Building, 400 E. Capitol, Little Rock, AR 72201, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid on this 4th day of November, 1997.Qh  -~~~ J w. Walker I IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., * In tervenors. * ORDER FILED U.S. DISTi\u003cICT COURT EASTERN DISTR:cr ,\\FW.ANSAS NOV O 0 1997 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: ~ ' j \\1 :)MQG,. \\ OEP CLERK . Before the Court are two very important matters: the Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") motion requesting that this Court approve its revised desegregation and education plan and the Pulaski County Special School District's (\"PCSSD\") motion requesting that this Court release it from federal court supervision. A. Previously, this Court scheduled a hearing for Monday, December 1, 1997 to address the LRSD's motion requesting that this Court approve its revised desegregation and education plan. 1 Now, before the Court is a motion requesting that this Court continue the hearing 1 Docket No. 3062. 071 currently scheduled for the week of December 1, 1997.2 By separate Order, this Court has indicated its reluctance to reschedule this hearing. 3 However, the LRSD has indicated that it \"believes that a short continuance of the scheduled hearing date would benefit all of the parties and the court. \"4 Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors also has indicated that due to his trial schedule and the amount of discovery and preparation necessary for this hearing, the Joshua Intervenors would benefit from a continuance of the scheduled hearing date.5 Therefore, after careful consideration, this Court hereby grants the motion requesting a continuance. The hearing to address the LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan will now commence at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, February 2, 1998. The parties still are expected to conduct discovery prior to and in preparation for this hearing. The discovery deadline is now Tuesday, January 20, 1998, approximately two weeks prior to the date of the hearing. To avoid potential discovery and evidentiary disputes, all parties are directed to exchange exhibits with one another and to provide an exhibit list, as well as copies of their exhibits, to both the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") on or before the January 20 discovery deadline. This Court will not admit any exhibit as evidence at the February hearing which was not produced on or before the discovery 2 Docket No. 3067. 3 Docket No. 3069. 4 Docket No. 3070. 5 Docket No. 3067. 2 deadline in accordance with this Order if any party objects to the exhibit's being admitted on the basis of timeliness. Due to time constraints and in an effort to be fair to all parties involved, the Court still intends to calculate the total number of hours which will be devoted to this matter and then limit accordingly the amount of time each party will have to present testimony and other evidence and to cross examine witnesses at the hearing. B. In regard to the PCS SD' s motion requesting that this Court release it from federal court supervision, this Court is aware that by separate Order the Court granted the Joshua Intervenors an extension to and including November 24, 1997 in which to file their response to the PCSSD's motion.6 Although this Court has not received or reviewed the Joshua - Intervenors' response to the PCSSD's motion, this Court anticipates that a hearing will be necessary on the PCSSD's motion. Therefore, a hearing to address the PCSSD's motion requesting release from federal court supervision will commence at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, March 23, 1998. The discovery deadline is Monday, March 9, 1998, two weeks prior to the date of the hearing. Again, to avoid potential discovery and evidentiary disputes, all parties are directed to exchange exhibits with one another and to provide an exhibit list, as well as copies of their exhibits, to both the Court and the ODM on or before the March 9 discovery deadline. This Court will not admit any exhibit as evidence at the March hearing which was not produced on 6 See Docket No. 3063. 3 - or before the discovery deadline in accordance with this Order if any party objects to the exhibit's being admitted on the basis of timeliness. Again, due to time constraints and in an effort to be fair to all parties involved, the Court intends to calculate the total number of hours which will be devoted to this matter and then limit accordingly the amount of time each party will have to present testimony and other evidence and to cross examine witnesses at the hearing. In conclusion, this Court grants the motion requesting a continuance of the scheduled hearing on the LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan.7 The Court will conduct a hearing on the LRSD's revised plan beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, February 2, 1998.8 The discovery deadline is Tuesday, January 20, 1998. The Court also will conduct a hearing on the PCSSD's motion requesting release from - federal court supervision beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, March 23, 1998.9 The discovery deadline is Monday, March 9, 1998. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 0 day of November 1997. 7 Docket No. 3067. u~ ED$ sTAE\u0026SDIS~TR!CJ~UDGE \"HiS DXlfr-~;;\"J.JT Er-JTE:RED CN DOCKET SHEET IN ;XJMPUANC WITH RULE 53 AI\\J~9(a) FACP ~N // .~ BY_~-------- 8 See Docket No. 3049 for a copy of the LRSD's motion regarding the revised plan. 9 See Docket No. 3057 for a copy of the PCSSD's motion regarding release from federal court supervision. 4 NOV 1 3 1997 IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS LAKE VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS, ET AL. VS. NO. 92-5318 (and consolidated MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION TO WITHHOLD JURISDICTION INTRODUCTION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS\" .\u003c;;ases.}o c:. .._J r - ~ c,,, 0 -n  ri~Em5EJ'ITS_:: 12 C?-:: c::\u003e 'J S~-~- :.~ n . .. ,;--, ,: :.. - .J4 1i~}  - c...:\u003e The PCSSD intervened in this action primarily as reg\u0026rds N ( /) certain state-aid claims that are either pending before or which have been adjudicated by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas . These claims arise from the Settlement Agreement of March, 1989 entered into among the three Pulaski County School Districts, the State of Arkansas, the - Joshua Intervenors and the teacher organizations represented by the Knight Intervenors. Each of the claims, which are more fully described below, flow from contentions by the school districts that legislat i ve changes in state funding, changes which occurred after t his Court's Order of November, 1994, violated the Districts' 1989 Settlement Agreement with the State. The claims that are either adjudicated or pending include claims regarding workers' compensation, loss funding regarding majority-to-minority (M-to-M) transfer students, teacher retirement, health insurance, special education, general loss funding, and, as respects the PCSSD, a decline in overall funding when Act 34 and Act 917 outcomes are compared. 1 THE CLAIMS AND THEIR PROCEDURAL POSTURE On January 13, 1995, the District Court entered its order as regards workers' compensation and loss funding for majority-tominority transfer students. A copy of the decision is attached to the PCSSD motion as Exhibit \"A\". Beginning at page 6 of the January 13, 1995 order, the District Court concluded that: [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 districts' workers' compensation insurance as it pays for all the other school districts in the state beginning with the 1994-95 school year. By requiring the State to assist the Pulaski County school districts to the same degree that it is assisting others, the Districts will not be \"singled out\" for less favorable treatment than the other districts. The January 13, 1995 District Court order adjudicated the issue of loss funding for M-to-M students in favor of the Pulaski County districts. Beginning at page 9 of that order, the District Court found that: It is undisputed that loss funding is a State educational funding program and one that is \"ordinarily the responsibility of the State of Arkansas.\" The Court further finds that the State is deliberately discriminating against the Districts with respect to the provision of loss funding for a decline in enrollment related to the loss of M-to-M students. Whether a district loses a student through ordinary transfer or an M-to-M transfer, the effect on that district's enrollment is the same. No matter how the loss occurs, the disruption to a school district form a net declining enrollment is the same. However, the ADE has decided not to credit the Districts for the loss of students due to M-to-M students. Thus, the ADE has determined to discriminate against the three Pulaski County districts with respect to M-to-M students. 2 The District Court went on to order the State to restore the lost State aid contended for by the Districts in accordance with the calculations set forth by the Districts. The State appealed both issues and the findings of the District Court were affirmed on appeal. 1 On February 18, 1997, the District Court entered its order granting the Districts' motions in respect of teacher retirement and health insurance. By this point, 111 other Arkansas school districts had sought to intervene and _were permitted to file amicus curiae responses in support of the State's position. The Fe~ruary 18, 1997 order is attached to the PCSSD motion as Exhibit 11 B11  The District Court reasoned that: The Court thus finds that there is no genuine factual dispute that instead of directly funding each district based upon the number of employees, the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme with distributes funds on a per ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district. Just as the workers' compensation \"seed money\" formula worked to the detriment of the employee-heavy Pulaski County school districts, so too does the distribution of teacher retirement contributions through 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. The District Court concluded its discussion by noting: As noted before, the desegregation Settlement Agreement provides that \"[f]air and rational adjustments to the 1The January 13, 1995 order also dealt with the issue of the Arkansas Public School Computer Network. That issue has been resolved and need not concern this Court. 3 funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts.\" See Settlement Agreement,  II, 1 L. Even if the Court were to find that the new funding scheme for teacher retirement is an \"adjustment\" to the funding formula which has \"general applicability,\" however, the Court cannot find that it is a \"fair and rational adjustment.\" Because of the added obligations of the three Pulaski County school districts, a funding scheme that does not consider the number of eligible employees is not \"fair and rational.\" February 13, 1997 Order, pp. 11-12. This issue is presently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On April 22, 1997, the District Court entered its order as respects the issue of health insurance. The April 22, 1997 order is attached to the PCSSD motion as Exhibit \"C\". The District Court likewise granted the motions of the Districts reasoning, inter alia that: Because of the settling districts' added obligations, this Court found that the new funding scheme, which does not consider the number of eligible employees, is not \"fair and rational.\" 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 equalization or local funds is not a \"fair and rational\" adjustment to the funding formula. April 22, 1997 Order, p. 5. The health insurance issue is likewise on appeal to the Eighth Circuit. 4 .,,. \"' ;~. -: ? ~ ~ ~ .. ~- While the District Court, in the same order, declined to grant the Districts' motion as respects special education and general loss funding, those issues remain before the District Court for hearing and resolution. Finally, the PCSSD filed its separate motion with the District Court on September 2, 1997 contending that the change from Act 34 to Act 917, the Act before this Court, cost it several million dollars and that the change violates the 1989 Settlement Agreement. This issue remains upon the docket of the Pistrict Court for hearing and resolution. A copy of the PCSSD's September 2, 1997 motion and brief are attached as Exhibit \"D\". The essential grounds for the separate PCSSD motion pending in federal court are essentially set forth in the PCSSD's response to Lake View plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees dated August 29, 1997. CONCLUSION The principal purpose of this motion is to further educate this Court concerning issues pending in federal court and over which the federal courts have taken and continue to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the 1989 Settlement Agreement. This Court will no doubt have to grapple with many, if not all, of the topics discussed above. Indeed, this Court may find useful some of the explanations, rationales and conclusions made by the District Court. However, it is respectfully submitted, this Court should proceed in a manner which recognizes the 5 adjudication or pendency of these issues in federal court and should craft its ultimate orders accordingly. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 CERTIFICATE OF On November Ju , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons. E. Dion Wilson Wilson Law Firm, P.A. 801 Perry Street Helena, Arkansas 72342 Roy C. Lewellen Lewellen \u0026 Associates P. 0. Box 287 Marianna, AR 72360 Mr. Tim Humphries Assistant Attorney General 323 Center, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. James M. Llewellyn Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902 Mr. William Brazil Brazil, Clawson, et al. 913 Oak Street Conway, Arkansas 72032 Mr. Donn Mixon Mixon \u0026 McCauley Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. David Matthews Matthews, Campell \u0026 Rhoads 119 S. Second Street Rogers, AR 72756 Mr. Allen Roberts Allen P. Roberts, P.A. P. 0. Box 280 Camden, Arkansas Mr. Edwin Alford 510 N. Second P. 0. Box 1588 Nashville, Arkansas Mr. David Wilson Ms. Pam Grondin 6 71701 71852 P. 0. Box 1442 Jonesboro, AR 72403 Mr. Malcolm Bobo Department of Finance \u0026 Adm. P. 0. Box 1272 Little Rock, AR 72203 Mr. Don Trimble 1124 MLKing Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Eugene G. Sayre Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones . 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Fayetteville School Dist. P. 0. Box 849 Fayetteville, AR 72702 Mr. Oscar Stilley Central Mall Plaza, #516 Fort Smith, AR 72903 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 7 (see ADE Funding 1997 for complete filing with Exhibits) 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 KnTHERINE KUIGHT, ET AL RECEIVEO NOV 1 3 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS . INTERVENORS INTERVENOP.S AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AS TO STATE DEFENDANTS For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The purpose of this amended fee petition is to address the issues remanded to the district court in the opinion of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals filed on October 14, 1997. 2. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark charges LRSD discounted rates for fees and costs. During the period of time the issues covered by this fee petition were in litigation, Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark charged LRSD $105.00 per hour for partners and $85.00 per hour for associates. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark also charges LRSD reduced amounts for some costs, such as couriers, and does not charge for . other costs, such as meals. During the period of time covered by this litigation, the normal hourly billing rate for Christopher Heller was $160. 00 and the normal hourly billing rate for Clay Fendley was $100.00. 3. Most of LRSD counsels' time concerning the APSCN issue was excluded from the previous fee petition. Two further adjustments are necessary to meet the terms of the Eighth Circuit order. First, the time entry for June 19, 1995 includes, among other entries, some time for drafting an APSCN argument. That time should be reduced by one-half, or a total of five hours, to remove the time spent on the APSCN argument. Second, the time spent on the four hearing days in preparation for and participating in the hearings on the three issues in this case should be 4educed byonethird in order to remove the time devoted to the APSCN issue. Our contemporaneous time records show a total of 3 6. 5 hours spent preparing for and participating in hearings on September 14, 15, 16 and 21, 1994. That time should be reduced by 12.25 hours to reflect the time devoted to the APSCN issue. 4. LRSD is a prevailing party and is therefore entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The amount of attorneys' fees for Christopher Heller should be reduced by a total of 17.25 hours for the reasons set forth above. LRSD is entitled to $39,760.00 in attorneys' fees (Christopher Heller - 244.75 hours x $160.00 = $39,160.00; Clay Fendley - 6 hours x $100.00 = $600.00) and $563.32 in costs. 5. The, fees and costs are supported by the attached Affidavit. WHEREFORE, in accordance with this court's previous order and the decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals filed October 2 14, 1997, LRSD prays for an order awarding it $39,760.00 in attorneys' fees and $563.32 in costs. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Little Rock School district's Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs As To State Defendants has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 13th day of November, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 4 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 AEcen.teo NOV 1 3 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING AFFIDAVIT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS I, Christopher Heller, after being duly sworn, state under oath: 1. The billing statements attached to our original fee petition filed August 30, 1996 reflect the hours worked on this - matter as recorded in contemporaneous time records. All of the time shown on these billing statements has been billed to LRSD and those bills have been paid. 2. During the period of time covered by this fee petition, Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark contracted with LRSD to provide legal services at discounted fees. The discounted rates charged to LRSD were $105. 00 per hour for partners and $85. 00 per hour for associates. 3. I have been engaged in the private practice of law at Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark for sixteen (16) years. My normal hourly billing rate for the period of time covered by this fee petition is $160. 00. That rate is in line with rates typically charged by lawyers of similar experience and ability in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 4. Clay Fendley is an associate with Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark with five (5) years of experience. His normal hourly billing rate during the period of time covered by this fee petition is $100.00. This rate is in line with billing rates for lawyers of similar experience and ability in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 5. My time in this case was devoted primarily to the loss funding and workers' compensation issues. During the course of preparing the previous fee petition, I reviewed the billing rec.ords in an effort to exclude time which was devoted to matters on which LRSD did not prevail, including the APSCN issue and our petition for reconsideration to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In consideration of the Eighth Circuit order filed October 14, 1997, and upon. further review of the time records attached to the original petition, I have determined that the time entry for June 19, 1995 should be reduced by five hours to remove the time listed as \"drafted APSGC (sic) argument.\" 6. The time entries for the hearing dates, September 14, 15, 16 and 21, 1994, a total of 36.5 hours, should be reduced by onethird, or 12.25 hours, to remove the time spent on APSCN issues. The number of .h ours for which LRSD should be awarded fees should therefore be reduced from 262 in the original petition to 244.75 for my time. The amount of attorneys' fees should be reduced by a total of $2760.00, from $42,520.00 in the original petition to $39,760.00. 2 7. As can be seen from the billing statements attached to the original fee petition, the time expended on this matter was originally recorded and billed as part of the general Little Rock School District desegregation case file (LI230-90). Following the district court decision, a separate file was established (LI230- 159). In reviewing the general file, I was very conservative in my effort to segregate the time which was devoted to the issues in this discreet matter. Many time entries which were more probably than not related to this matter are not included in the fee request. Further affiant sayeth not. 3 ATTESTATION I, Christopher Heller, the undersigned herein, state that the foregoing Affidavit is true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge \u0026 belief. Dated this 13th day of Novem "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1670","title":"Court filings concerning LRSD approval of revised desegregation and education plan and PCSSD petition for release from federal court supervision","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Knight Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning LRSD approval of revised desegregation and education plan and PCSSD petition for release from federal court supervision"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1670"],"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":["29 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion for approval of revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, Joshua intervenors' request for a hearing to develop procedures for the consideration of the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) for the approval of a revised plan; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision; Court of Appeals, ruling; Court of Appeals, reply brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al.; District Court, Knight intervenors' response to motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply to the Joshua intervenors' request for a hearing to develop procedures for the consideration of the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) for the approval of a revised plan; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for an extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) petition for release from federal court supervision; District Court, three orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Joshua intervenors' first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for approval of the revised desegregation and education plan  This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE U ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. O. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL . DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED OCT 8 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDA TS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSD MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Knight Intervenors, et al., by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL LAW FIRM. for their Motion, state: 1. They were served with a copy of the Little Rock School District's Motion for Approval of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan on September 29, 1997. 2. Due to several of the leaders of the Knight, et al. Intervenors being out of town, there will be insufficient time to frame a response to its Motion. 3. Knight, et al., Intervenors should be granted an extension of ten (10) days in which to respond to the Motion. WHEREFORE, Knight, et al., Intervenors prays that it be granted an additional ten days or until October 19, 1997, to respond to the Motion for Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and that they be granted all other relief to which they may be entitled Respectfully submitted, Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on October 6, 1997 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building. Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JE::-.iNJNGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard W. Roache!! .,- ----- .. - 'RECEIVED FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT !:ASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS - OCT 9 1997 OCT 7 1997 OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, Cl.ERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REQUEST FOR A HEARING TO DEVELOP PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF THE LRSD FOR THE APPROVAL OF A REVISED PLAN On November 30, 1995, the LRSD filed a motion for an order - dismissing this case retroactively. This court, which had by that time considerable knowledge about the quality of plan implementation efforts in the LRSD, denied the motion on March 11, 1996. This court reasoned in part (at 8): The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments (although some improvements have been made). Therefore, the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years, the logistics and complexity of this case are such that this Court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering an order of dismissal at this time. On September 26, 1997, the LRSD filed a brief motion and a short memorandum seeking \"approval of LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan.\" Despite the foregoing ruling, the memorandum, incorporated by reference in the motion (para. 1 - 10), asserts that \"LRSD has now substantially complied with its obligations under the plan for six years.\" AT 1. It also characterizes the new plan as one which \"leaves it to the district's professionals to determine the best means to fulfill each obligation.\" At 4. In brief, officials found to exhibit frequently \"indifference or outright recalcitrance toward (their] commitments\" asset that they are entitled to have the court approve a largely standardless plan. Put another way, LRSD asserts the right to have approved a plan under which a number of unidentified persons define the content of the district's obligations, as they go along. It is apparent that the motion of the LRSD presents - substantial questions, warranting careful consideration. The predicate for this view is not limited to the foregoing general observations about the past performance and the degree of discretion granted by the plan. First. LRSD cites the Supreme Court decision in Rufo v Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992), concerning modification of a consent decree. That decision holds that a party seeking modification of a consent decree \"bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.\" Id., at 383. It \"may meet it initial burden by showing a significant change either in factual conditions or in law.\" Id., at 384 . In considering factual matter, it is appropriate to evaluate whether a party \"made a 2 reasonable effort to comply with the decree .... \" Id., at 385. Second. Once a party has met its burden of showing a factual or legal matter warranting modification, the court \"should determine whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances.\" Id., at 391. This can not be said is there is simply an effort \"to rewrite a consent decree so that is conforms to the constitutional floor.\" Id. Third. The Court of Appeals applied Rufo in this case to a proposal concerning the closing of Ish Incentive School. LRSD v PCSSD, 56 F3d 904, 912-15 (8th Cir. 1995). In approving that proposal, the court emphasized with regard to the replacement school for Ish students, \"King will be integrated.\" Id., at 914. In the light of the foregoing factors, including the - standards governing in the case of a request for modification of a consent decree, the Joshua Intervenors seek a hearing to discuss at least the following factors. (1.) An opportunity for intervenors to conduct discovery. The LRSD relies to a considerable extent on assertion. The plan refers to policies (unspecified) in many areas. The meaning of the educational component of the plan is not self-evident. The quality of implementation efforts is relevant under Rufo. The impact of the student assignment proposals on desegregation is significant in view of the appellate ruling in this case cited above. (2.) The need for a report or reports by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the nature and the quality of 3 LRSD implementation in key areas. The LRSD seeks to dilute its obligation to address achievement disparity, as wells racial disparity in other areas. Compare the initial portion of the Interdistrict Plan to the new plan. It is appropriate to request ODM to determine whether the LRSD made an organized effort to eliminate the achievement disparity and other racial disparities to the extent possible, before changing the plan. Rufo addresses the quality of implementation efforts, and cautions against efforts to move to the \"constitutional floor: -- from the provisions to which a party voluntarily agreed. (3.) The possibility of a delay in the consideration of the motion until the court of appeals reviews the denial of a fee award to intervenors' counsel. The parties should be on equal - footing when addressing such fundamental changes in the plans. That is not the case now. (4.) A time period for the intervenors to respond to the motion, whatever the court's reaction to these issues. District court decisions cited by the LRSD do not warrant the relief sought by the District. In the Denver litigation, the court found in 1987 that \"the defendants have made a sincere and strenuous effort to meet the requirements of the October 1985 Order.'' Keyes v School District No. 1, 653 F. Supp. 1536, 1540 (D. Colo. 1987); see also Keyes, 902 F. Supp. 1274, 1286 (D. Colo. 1995) (\"The District has complied in good faith with the Interim Decree entered by this Court in 1987.\"). The court in the Dallas case voted significant improvement in the district's 4 implementation efforts over time. Tasby v. Woolery, 869 F. Supp. 454, 457, 460, 477 (N.D. Tex. 1994). This case does not present a parallel situation. Here, the court has found implementation to be deficient. E.g., Order of March 11, 1996, at 8-9. (5.) The district's request that ODM monitoring continue to be restrained. In intervenor's view, as noted, ODM monitoring should focus on key elements of the current plan and that the ODM monitoring role should be consisitent with the one which the Court of Appeals established. (6.) The actions, advice and recommendations provided by the court or through the ODM to the school district which actions. advice and recommendations have not been otherwise shared with the intervenors. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the court to set a hearing for the purpose of developing procedures for the consideration of the motion of the LRSD for the approval of the revised plan. The Intervenors further respectfully request that ODM monitoring be resumed and continued in the interim and in the manner contemplated and directed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. With respect this requested relief, Joshua also respectfully requests that the court and the ODM disclose any and all information, assistance, advice and counsel which, it or anyone associated with the court, have provided to the Little Rock School District or any of its employees, board members or agents during the past year, during 5 - the time when monitoring was abated. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading was s~ry~ via United States mail to all counsel of record on this ~ day of October, 1997. 6  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF ., V . NO . LR - C - 8 2 - 8 6.it. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL NECEn,m DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. DCi 14 1997 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT I ET AL. OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION INTRODUCTION The PCSSD believes that it has earned unitary status. It asks this Court co examine the record that has been made, to hold a hearing 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. In this peticion, 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 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 mos~ 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. ~he Court of Appeals also ordered the transfer of the Granite Moun~ain 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 t o 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 comolete remedy for the constitutional violations of which the PCSSD had been found guilty; specifically those violations relating to annexations and deannexatior.s, segregated housing, school siting, student 1The LRSD supports the PCSSD in its petition for unitary status. assignments, special education, transportation, employment of faculty and administrators, and black participation in school affairs. Thereafter, o~her 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 =inalized 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 ~n 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: \"[I)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 3 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: [l] Proper resolution of any desegregation case turns on a careful assessment of its facts. Green, supra, at 439, 88 S.Ct., at 1694. Here, as 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 former 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 af:irmed the district court's declaration of unitary scatus in Coalition 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 former 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 II were particularly addressed.\" Green, 391 U.S. at 435, 88 S.Ct. at 1693. However, the Green Court also made clear that in examining the problem of racial imbalance in 4 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.\" Id.; 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 Green 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 Wilminoton Court also commented upon federal court supervision in general. Addressing the Supreme Court's decision in Jenkins, the Wilminoton 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.C~. at 637), we underscore that the phrase \"to the extent praccicable\" 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 [**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 5 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: 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 Court, on remand, to adjust the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD in two respects: (1 ) by transferring the Granite Mountain area from LRSD to PCSSD; and (2) by expanding LRSD so that the new boundary line becween 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.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, supra, 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 Circ. 1986) (per curiam) . Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1377 (8th Cir. 1990) 6 It is significant to note that many features of the PCSSD Plan, the Interdistrict 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 Soecial School District, 778 F.2d 404, 434-435 (8th Cir. 1985 ) . To be sure, these topics and others are prominently featured in the Plan. Some are among the Green 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. were 1985. THE GREEN FACTORS I. RACIAL BALANCE AND STUDENT ASSIGNMENT The guidelines for racial balance in all three districts initially addressed and laid down by the en bane Court in 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); 7 Milliken I, 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. PCSSD, 778 F.2d at 433. 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 earlier district court orders with respect to these schools, school districts may, where necessary, be permitted to depart from this remedial guideline in that school enrollments may 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 8 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: 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 9 (\"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 che 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; (6) 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 74 elementary schools in DCSS, 18 are over 90% black, while 10 are over 90% white. Id., at 31a. 112 s.ct. ac 1438. Despite these statistical outcomes, the United States Supreme Courc found that the system was unitary with respect to student assignment and racial balance. As we will examine below, the track record of the PCSSD is far superior to that of the 10 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: I I 89-90 I I Total I 21,607 I I % Black I 26 I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EIGHT YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON 90-91 I 91-92 I 92-93 I 93-94 I 94.95 21,597 I 21,062 I 21,633 I 20,426 I 20,417 26 I 27 I 28 I 30 I 31 I 95-96 I 96-97 I 20,534 I 20,295 I 32 I 33 Since 1989, the composition of the District's elementary schools has been as follows: School Adkins Elem Total % Black Arnold Drive Elem Total % Black Baker Elem Total % Black Bates Elem Total % Black Bayou Meto Elem Total % Black Cato Elem Total % Black Clinton Elem Total % Black College Station Elem Total % Black Crystal Hill Elem Total % Black PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EIGHT YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON' 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93.94 371 360 352 420 411 40 36 39 36 37 387 411 408 390 348 18 16 14 18 23 294 291 268 283 294 27 30 25 27 25 698 638 737 680 599 47 46 47 45 45 602 596 611 648 649 2 2 2 1 1 656 655 663 650 569 21 24 21 21 22 242 279 310 326 277 40 38 34 33 40 776 746 40 43 94.95 95-96 96-97 397 343 312 39 36 38 375 380 381 25 24 22 304 318 318 24 27 24 550 485 464 53 56 54 639 635 628 1 2 3 523 552 542 23 22 22 661 661 739 49 50 47 316 309 323 43 41 41 791 790 778 45 46 46 21995-1996 School Racial Balance Monitoring Report: LRSD PCSSD Dated January 30, 1996, by Office of Desegregation Monitoring, Docket No. 2614 11 I I I School 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 Dupree Elem Total 470 414 431 458 428 435 462 438 % Black 20 21 24 23 22 22 26 26 Fuller Elem Total 587 560 529 524 473 431 381 375 % Black 57 56 58 57 63 58 57 59 Harris Elem Total 633 616 605 546 479 331 325 303 % Black 31 32 34 40 47 44 50 53 Jacksonville Elem Total 796 817 844 847 763 759 752 731 % Black 32 28 27 27 31 37 41 42 Landmark Elem Total 563 566 522 518 498 499 484 504 % Black 47 46 44 46 46 43 41 43 Lawson Elem Total 334 345 331 321 304 305 308 294 % Black 19 15 16 14 16 23 19 16 Oak Grove Elem Total 572 573 515 469 438 435 451 421 % Black 12 14 13 24 24 22 23 24 Oakbrooke Elem Total 678 659 629 592 600 449 455 453 % Black 25 21 18 18 21 22 23 24 Pine Forrest Elem Total 625 677 658 518 434 455 498 456 % Black 14 14 15 20 21 19 20 21 Pinewood Elem Total 614 619 631 619 580 549 579 543 % Black 27 27 27 30 31 29 31 35 Robinson Elem Total 450 433 443 420 411 388 387 382 % Black 22 22 23 25 24 22 25 21 Scott Elem Total 203 207 205 191 147 158 136 127 % Black 37 34 34 35 34 32 36 35 Sherwood Elem Total 518 448 443 490 450 459 463 416 % Black 24 24 26 24 26 24 27 25 Sylvan Hills Elem Total 755 802 755 735 685 424 444 422 % Black 18 16 17 18 23 21 25 24 Taylor Elem Total 455 468 423 420 388 409 420 397 % Black 24 28 26 26 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1671","title":"Court filings: District Court, motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-09-26"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School board members","Joshua Intervenors","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1671"],"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":["43 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITILE 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 OFFiCE OF DESEGREGATiOiu t,10.'JITORINJ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD'S REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD\") states: 1. This court has expressed the view that modifications of LRSD' s Desegregation Plan might be appropriate. The court has properly recognized that the parties themselves must develop and present any proposed modifications, but has provided expert testimony concerning potential areas for modification. The court further assisted the plan modification process by providing LRSD a period of time during which the district could  concentrate its efforts on developing plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. Order, December 27, 1996. LRSD has prepared a modified plan for the purpose of providing improved education and desegregation. LRSD' s Revised Desegregation and :Education Plan is attached as Exhibit A to this motion. 2. LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was developed in accordance with the plan amendment process. All of the parties to this case received early drafts of the plan and had the opportunity to make suggestions concerning the plan. LRSD amended the plan in response to suggestions made by various parties. In addition, the Joshua Intervenors were specifically asked whether they bad any ideas for improving the LRSD Desegregation Plan. Joshua did not make any suggestions for plan modifications. Although much of the contact soliciting responses from other parties was made by telephone, the correspondence which reflects the distribution of LRSD' s Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and our solicitation of responses from the other parties is attached as Exhibit B to this motion. 3. On September 18, 1997 the LRSD Board of Directors voted unanimously to adopt the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and to present it to the district court for approval. The comments of the board members, attached as Exhibit C, show that they gave serious consideration to the plan and that they understand the important commitment they have made to work for the success of the plan if it is approved by the district court. Representatives of the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce and the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools expressed to the board their strong support for the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 4. The United States Supreme Court has emphasized in the recent cases of Freeman v. Pitts and Missouri y. Jenkins that the district court's end purpose in a desegregation case is not only to remedy the violation to the extent practicable, but also to restore state and local authorities to control of a school system that is operating in compliance with the Constitution. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a means by which this court can 2 accomplish both the maximum practicable desegregation within LRSD and the restoration of local control to the LRSD Board of Directors and the citizens of Little Rock. 5. LRSD's current desegregation plan was designed to operate for a period of six years. It is too detailed, too complex and too rigid to provide LRSD the greatest possibility for long term desegregation. The primary architects of the old plan are no longer with the district. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan retains the core desegregation commitments found in the old plan, but is premised on the belief that a solid education program provides the best foundation for long term desegregation. 6. The new plan also provides the flexibility necessary for LRSD to adapt to changing educational and demographic conditions. LRSD has more freedom under the new plan to adjust the means by which it seeks to reach its desegregation and education goals without unnecessary court involvemenL Under the present plan, every detail concerning implementation of the plan is a part of the plan itself and cannot be changed without involving the court. 7. This court previously found that LRSD would benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD Desegregation Plan. Order, December 27, 1996. LRSD asks the court to continue the temporary hiatus from monitoring during the court's consideration of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 8. As part of the effort to allow the parties to focus on the development of modifications to the LRSD Desegregation Plan, LRSD withdrew its motion for reconsideration of this court's ruling on LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. The court granted LRSD a period of time to and including September 30, 1997 within which to refile its motion 3 for reconsideration. LRSD asks that that deadline be extended until a reasonable time following this court's final determination with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 9. This Motion For Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation And Education Plan should not be construed as a waiver of the positions expressed in the Motion to E.nd Federal Court Jurisdiction. 10. LRSD's memorandum brief in support of this motion is hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the accompanying brief, LRSD moves for an order approving its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and, during the pendency of this motion, extending this court's December 27, 1997 Order with respect to monitoring and with respect to LRSD's right to refile its motion to reconsider the court's ruling on LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Ir. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By:~(?_-~~ ~C. Fendley, Jr. ' Bar No. 92182 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 26th day of September, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ~e.~fJ C.F~ 5 I. Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan September 18, 1997 Prior A~reements and Orders. This Revised Desegregation and Education Plan shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Lillie Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") with the following exceptions: A. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (\"Settlement Agreement\"); 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 court of appeals interpreting or enforcing paragraphs A. through D. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. II. Obligations. A. LRSD shall use its expertise and resources to comply with the Constitution and provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools and to ensu_re that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD; B. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures, including but not limited to recruitment practices and reasonable measures to maintain a pool of qualified AfricanAmerican applicants, designed to ensure that LRSD hires qualified African-Americans in EXHIBIT A proportion to their percentage in the relevant labor market; C. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures, including but not limited to reasonable measures to maintain a pool of qualified African-American candidates, designed to ensure that LRSD promotes qualified African-Americans in proportion to their percentage of the pool of candidates eligible for promotion; D. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that to the extent practicable the percentage of African-American certified personnel in each LRSD school is within plus or minus fifteen percentage points from the percentage of AfricanAmerican certified personnel in the district as a whole; E. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure to the extent practicable that the certified personnel at one race, African-American schools (2. 90% African-American) is comparable with the certified personnel at other LRSD schools with regard to years of teaching experience and number of teachers with advanced degrees; F. LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable; G. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education; H. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline; I. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African- 2 Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses and the gifted and talented program; J. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section V. of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; K. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students; L. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure an equitable allocation of financial, technological and educational resources to LRSD schools; M. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable maintenance and repair of LRSD facilities; N. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services; 0. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that every LRSD school provides its students a learning environment free from discrimination; and, P. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure LRSD substantially complies with its obligations under this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. III. Student Assignments. A. Attendance Zones. Before the 1998-99 school year, LRSD attendance zones shall 3 be redrawn in accordance with the following guidelines: 1. Neighborhood Schools. LRSD shall assign students to area1 elementary and junior high/middle schools based on reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zones drawn to create as many truly desegregated schools (from forty to sixty percent AfricanAmerican) as reasonably practicable, except as provided in subparagraph 2. below; 2. Exception. Where a reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zone will result in an elementary or junior high/middle school which is less than twenty percent African-American, LRSD reserves the right to either: a. Draw the attendance zone at less than full capacity to allow for the voluntary transfer of African-American students to the school; or, b. Create one or more satellite attendance zones of primarily African- American students. 3. High Schools. LRSD shall assign students to area high schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each high school shall be within plus or minus twenty percentage points from the percentage of African-American students for high schools as a whole and so that, to the extent practicable, a stable and predictable feeder pattern exists from LRSD junior high/middle schools. B. Voluntar:y Student Transfers. Beginning in the 1998-99 school year, the following guidelines shall govern voluntary student transfers: 1. Desegregation Transfers. LRSD students whose race constitutes more than 1The term \"area\" school shall refer to all LRSD schools except magnet and interdistrict schools. 4 sixty percent of the population at their attendance zone school shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school where their race constitutes less than forty percent of the student population subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 2. Racial Isolation Transfer. LRSD students whose attendance zone school is a one race, African-American school (2.. 90% African-American) shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 3. Magnet Program Transfer. LRSD students shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school to participate in a designated magnet program subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 4. Employees' Child Transfer. LRSD employees who reside in the LRSD may choose to have their children attend the same school or campus at which the employee works, not including Magnet schools, subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 5. Special Circumstances Transfer. Upon a showing of a special need arising out of circumstances unique to a particular student, a student may, at the sole discretion of LRSD, be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 6. Outside Students. LRSD schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will improve the racial balance of the district as a whole and of the school to which the student wishes to transfer and subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; and, 5 7. Transportation. LRSD shall provide transportation to voluntary transfer students with the following exceptions: (i) employee's child transfers, (ii) special circumstances transfers, and (iii) transfers from outside Pulaski County. C. Magnet Programs. The designated magnet programs at this time are the following: 1. Rockefeller Early Childhood Program; 2. King High Intensity Learning Program; 3. Washington Math Science Program; 4. Henderson Health Science Program; 5. Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Program; 6. Central International Studies Program; and, 7. McClellan Business Communications Program. LRSD reserves the right to modify or discontinue designated magnet programs and to establish new magnet programs. D. Middle Schools. LRSD shall establish a schedule for the orderly conversion of some or all of its junior high schools to middle schools for grades six, seven and eight and move the ninth grade to high schools. As a part of this conversion, LRSD reserves the right to change the grade level structure at all of its schools, including magnet schools. E. School Construction/Closing. LRSD shall construct two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, Garland Elementary School shall be closed. F. Modification Standard; During the term of this Revised Desegregation and 6 Education Plan, LRSD shall not recommend additional modifications to attendance zones or grade level structure or the construction, enlargement or closing of any additional schools unless: 1. Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable; or, 2. The LRSD Board of Directors determines (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. G. Racial Balance. This Revised Desegregation and Education Plan recognizes that the desegregation of LRSD to the extent practicable does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced. Accordingly, nothing in this Revised Desegregation and Education 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. IV. lnterdistrict Schools. LRSD and the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") shall operate Interdistrict Schools in accordance with the following: A. PCSSD lnterdistrict Schools. PCSSD shall operate Baker Elementary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary and any new elementary school constructed in Chenal Valley as Interdistrict Schools; B. LRSD lnterdistrict Schools. LRSD shall operate King Elementary, Romine Elementary and Washington Elementary as lnterdistrict Schools; 7 C. Racial Composition. The ideal composition at interdistrict schools shall be as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the Interdistrict School; D. Reserved Seats. PCSSD shall reserve at least 200 seats at Clinton Elementary and up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill Elementary for interdistrict transfer students from LRSD; E. Recruitment. LRSD and PCSSD agree to implement programs at Interdistrict Schools designed to attract interdistrict transfers and to work cooperatively to recruit interdistrict transfers to Interdistrict Schools; F. Outside Students. Interdistrict Schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will assist the Interdistrict School in achieving its ideal racial composition; and, G. Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the home district for interdistrict transfers from Pulaski County to Interdistrict Schools. V. Student Achievement. A. Early Childhood Education. LRSD shall implement an early childhood education program which shall include a HIPPY program and a four year-old program with no less than 720 seats. B. Reading/Language Arts. 1. Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement the following strategies to improve academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently to make accurate meaning out of words on a page; 8 b. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences; c Promote thematic instruction; d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills; e. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; f. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction; g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; h. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement; 1. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences; J. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms; and, k. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day. 2. Intermediate Grades. LRSD intends to implement the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades four and six: a. Adopt as a goal that by completion of the sixth grade all students 9 will master and use daily higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences and for personal growth and enjoyment; b. Promote thematic instruction; c. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts, mathematics, science and social studies instruction; d. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; e. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; f. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement; and, g. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classroom. 3. Secondary Schools. LRSD intends to implement the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades six2 through twelve: a. Adopt as a goal that upon graduation all students will read independently to make meaning in all subjects areas every day as necessary to be successful workers, citizens and life-long learners: b. Establish specific reading comprehension learning objectives for the language arts, mathematics, science and social studies curricula; c. Revise the language arts curriculum to include greater emphasis on 2LRSD recognizes that the sixth grade was previously included as an intermediate grade. The sixth grade is also included here since it will be a transition year into middle school. 10 reading for meaning and on expressing comprehension of reading through writing and speaking; d. Expand the use of a second Language Arts class at all secondary grade levels and establish procedures for identifying eligible students and, where practical, assigning students to their regular Language Arts teachers; e. Provide appropriate training to secondary teachers for implementation of these strategies; f. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices. C. Mathematics. LRSD shall implement the following strategies to improve mathematics instruction: 1. Revise the mathematics curriculum to include a smaller number of concepts at each level, the use of manipulatives and problem solving and critical thinking and train teachers on its implementation; 2. Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum; 3. Provide resources for early intervention with students with mathematical problems and for training teachers on early intervention; and, 4. Revise the mathematics curriculum to increase the number of students successfully completing Algebra I and higher level mathematics courses. D. Funding. LRSD shall continue to provide additional funding to Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell and Rockefeller elementary schools in accordance with the current formula as described 11 in August 16, 1995 report of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. E. Alternative Education. LRSD shall provide alternative educational opportunities to the extent practicable for those students unable to succeed in a traditional learning environment. F. Parental and Community Involvement. LRSD shall establish a parental and community relations linkage system to facilitate parental and community involvement in LRSD schools and the operation of LRSD. VI. Teacher Assignments. A. Beginning in the 1998-99 school year and for the term of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD reserves the right to reassign teachers and/or prohibit teacher transfers as reasonably necessary to ensure: 1. that to the extent practicable the percentage of African-American certified personnel in each LRSD school is within plus or minus fifteen percentage points from the percentage of African-American certified personnel in the district as a whole; and, 2. that to the extent practicable the certified personnel at one race, African- American schools (2.. 90% African-American) is comparable w~th the certified personnel at other LRSD schools with regard to years of teaching experience and number of teachers with advanced degrees. B. Reasonably Necessary. Reassigning and/or prohibiting the transfer of a teacher shall not be reasonably necessary where the desegrative impact would be substantially outweighed by the educational benefits of allowing a teacher to remain in his or her present assignment or to transfer to another assignment. 12 VII. LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: A. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance; B. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the Superintendent; C. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to all employees; D. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance; E. Utilization of a reporting system whereby employees can report noncompliance without fear of retribution, including an employee hotline; F. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of individuals responsible for the failure to report noncompliance; and, G. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. VIII. Plan Modification Process. Before filing with the district court a proposed modification of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD shall follow the procedure set forth below: A. LRSD shall submit to the other parties and to the Office of 13 Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") its proposed modification along with an explanation of the circumstances justifying modification and the educational and financial impact of the proposed modification. B. Comment Period. Along with its notice of the proposed modification, LRSD shall establish a reasonable period of time (no less than ten days) for the parties and ODM to submit comments, recommendations or suggestions related to the proposed modification. C. Recommendation and Response. After the close of the comment period, LRSD shall file with the district court and serve on the parties its recommended modification and, at LRSD's discretion, a response to comments made by the parties and ODM. D. Hearing. Absent good cause shown, no party shall be permitted to raise an issue in opposition to LRSD's recommended modification unless that issue was raised by the party during the comment period. IX. Continuing Jurisdiction. A. General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan during its term. Nothing in this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan shall effect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement with the exception of the Pooling Agreement. B. Process For Raising Compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the party seeking to raise the issue shall follow the procedure set forth below: 1. The party shall as soon as reasonably practicable give the LRSD 14 Superintendent or his designee specific written notice which includes the following: a. the paragraph(s) of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan at issue; b. the names of all students involved, if any; c. the names of all LRSD agents or employees involved, if any; d. all facts of which the party is aware relevant to the compliance issue; and, e. a copy all documents in party's possession relevant to the compliance issue. 2. The written notice 1s intended to provide LRSD with all relevant information related to the compliance issue known to the parry so that LRSD can assess its compliance on the same basis the party. 3. LRSD shall conduct a reasonable investigation of the alleged noncompliance and shall provide the party a written response within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice from the party or such later time as agreed. 4. If the party is unsatisfied with LRSD's response, the party shall within 30 days of receipt of LRSD's response submit the compliance issue to ODM or the district court's designee for facilitation of an agreement between the parties. 5. If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by ODM or the district court's designee, the party may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. 6. Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, LRSD shall 15 be free to implement the programs, policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with - this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The term of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan shall be three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year. XI. Transition. The 1997-98 school year shall be a transition year in preparation for implementation of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. During this transition period, LRSD shall implement the May 1992 Desegregation Plan and Interdistrict Desegregation Plan to the extent they are consistent with this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. However, there shall be no ODM monitoring or litigation concerning LRSD's implementation of the May 1992 Desegregation Plan or the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Rather, ODM shall monitor LRSD's preparation for implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and act as a resource for LRSD in that process. XII. Unitarv Status. At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 16 FRIDAY, ELDRED GE \u0026 CLARK 1411SCH(L H. FIIIOAY (11221114} WILLIAM H. IUTTON , , .A . .IAM(S W . WOOIIE IYIION M. EIS(MAN . .lllll . , P'.A . .10 D. IELL. P' .A . A l'ARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDlfALS AND l'ROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW  C . ECHOLS . ,. . A . SA. IUTTllllY , ,. .A . ElllllCl S . UIISEllllY , l\".A . LAllllZEUllllE, P' .A . OSCAII E. OAVl8 , .IA ., , . A . JAMES C . CLAAl , JA .. l\".A . THOMAS, . LEGGETT, l\" .A . JOHN O[W[Y WATSON, P' .A . ,AUL I . IENHAM Ill , l\" .A. LAIIIIY W. IUllll , fl . A . A. WYCI.LIFF NISl[T , Jl't ., fl . A. JAMES EOWAl'IO HA.lllll'IIS, l\" . A . J . l'HILLII\" MALCOM , l\" .A . JAME  M. SIMl'SON, l\" .A . JAMES M. SAXTON , , .A . J . SHErH[l'IO l'IUIIELL Ill , fl . A. DONALD H. IACON . l\" .A . WILLIAM THOMAS IAXT11 . ,. .A . WALTER A . l\"AULSON II , l\" .A . IAIIIIIY E. COl\"LIN , l\" .A . lllllCHAIIO 0 . TAYLOR , P' .A . JOIEl'H I . HURST, Jfl . , fl .A . [LIZAIETH IIOll[N MUflllllAY , , . A . CHfllSTO,HEl't HELLER , , . A . LAUllllA HENSLEY SMtTH , , . A . IIOIUIT I . SHAF[llll , fl .A . WILLIAM M. GIIIFFIN Ill , fl.A. MICHAELS . MOORE , l\" .A . DIANE 9 . MACl.[Y , , .A. WAL TOI M. EIEL Il l , l\" .A . I.EVIN A . CIIASS , l\" . A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JII ., l\" .A . John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING \u003c400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3-413 TELEPHONE 501-378-2011 FAX NO . 501-378-21\u003c47 June 5, 1997 Re: Little Rock School District Work Teams Dear John "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1678","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and appendix","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","Pulaski County Special School District"],"dc_date":["1997-09-11"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and appendix"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1678"],"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":["38 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  EOWARO L WRIGHT ( 19031977) ROBERTS LINDSEY 1191 3-1991 I ISAAC A SCOTT JR JOHN G LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW GORDON S RATHER .JR TERRY L MATr-lEWS DAVID M POWELL ROGER A GLASGOW C DOUGLAS BUFORD . ..;R 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 CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L LOWTHER .R CHARLES L SCHLUMBEq;GER SAMMYE L . TAYLOR WALTER E . MAY ANNA HIRAI GIBS0'.\"11 GREGORY T. JONES H KEITH MORRISON Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building Suite 510 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX t501) 376-9442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A MAY M TODD WOOD September 11, 1997 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas RE: LRSD v. PCSSD (State Funding) Dear Ms. Brown: 72201 SETTINA E BROWNSTEIN WALTER MCSP4.0DEN ~OGER O ROWE \"IIANCY BELLHCUSE \"\"'~y JOHN O DAVIS .UOY SIMMONS HE\"IIRY ... IMBERLY WOOC n,;c~EQ ~AY F CO'\u003c JR \"'IARRY S HURST .R TROY A PRICE PA.TRICIA A SIEVERS .. AMES M MOOCY ..;R \"'(ATHRYN A PRYOR .J_ '-1ARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCCC -.... \"EVIN W KENNEDY .:EARY J SALL,NGS C-RED M PERKINS Ill W ILLIAM STUART JAC~SC'.\"11 \\.tlCHAEL O BARNES STEPHEN R :..ANCAS7ER .. UOY \\1 ROBINSON 9E:'SY MEACHAM .\\ INSLEY H :..ANG i\u003cYLE R W ILSOS ::ON S McKINNEY \\.tlCHELE SIMMONS AL-G::.::: -\u003cR IS TI M \\.tOOOY .J CH ARLES OOU GHEE=l:Tv \\.t SEAN HATC!-i We enclose a copy of the brief and appendix we sent to the 8th Circuit on Monday, September 8, 1997. ALJ:MM Enclosures Very truly yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS (-'- C I --- Angell Jones Legal Assistant   -   IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 97-1794EALR NO. 97-1855EALR NO. 97-2394EALR NO. 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. SEP 1 2 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING APPELLANT APPELLEES APPELLANTS APPELLEES Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright BRIEF OF APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones, III (76060) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 97-1794EALR NO. 97-185SEALR NO. 97-2394EALR NO. 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. Appeals from the United States District Court APPELLANT APPELLEES APPELLANTS APPELLEES for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright BRIEF OF APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones, III (76060) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The State and Intervenors maintain that summary judgment was inappropriate both as a matter of law and because there were contested factual matters among the parties. For there to be a legally disputed fact, the disputed fact must be both material and the dispute genuine. The State disputed the fact that sums previously appropriated by the legislature as line items for teacher retirement and health insurance are now part of the overall appropriation for equalization funding. Because the proof left no room for reasonable minds to differ, the so called dispute cannot be characterized as \"genuine\". The State also contended there was a disputed issue of fact concerning the mechanism for distribution of equalization funding claiming that it interpreted the distribution in one fashion and the districts another. Because the District Court accepted the State's explanation, this dispute, if it was ever legally cognizable, played no role in the District Courts' decision. Further, in the final analysis the District Court's interpretation of these two matters amounts to an interpretation of new state law and is therefore a legal conclusion properly reached by the District Court. As this is a matter of significant financial impact upon the PCSSD, and implicates the continued proper functioning and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, it respectfully requests fifteen minutes for oral argument. i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Summary judgment was appropriate because the \"facts\" alleged by the State and the Intervenors could not be genuinely disputed. In addition, the analysis conducted by the district court, and the essential conclusion she made, amount to conclusions of law since she was required to interpret new state legislation. The PCSSD was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the change from the old to the new funding system cost it over $5.5 million this past school year. The State's decision to change its manner of funding for health insurance premiums and teacher retirement matching was not a fair and rational change in the funding system because, as was the case in the workers' compensation appeal, the State changed from a cost-based system of distribution to one in which a district's student population drives the distribution. Just as in the case of workers' compensation, a change to a system in which student populations largely dictate the distribution of State funding ignores costs, is not fair and rational and is not in accord with the Settlement Agreement. ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT TABLE OF AUTHORITIES COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE ARGUMENT I. II. III. IV. CONCLUSION STANDARD OF REVIEW THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DISTRICTS BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GENUINELY DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACT MATERIAL TO THE DISTRICTS' CLAIMS AND BECAUSE THE ISSUES WERE, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, QUESTIONS OF LAW. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE DISTRICTS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW .............. . THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE PCSSD IS A WINNER UNDER THE NEW SCHEME IS PLAINLY WRONG CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE iii Page i ii iv 1 5 5 5 12 20 29 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996) LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (1985) STATUTES AND RULES: 14 12 Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)2 ............... 6 OTHER AUTHORITY: U.S. CONST. Art. VI., cl. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 iv I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COUNTERSTATEMENT OP THB CASE Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) does not quarrel with the State's and Intervenors' history of the case and their description of the outcomes. A couple of minor clarifications are in order, and will be set forth below. There is, however, a major matter set forth in both Statements which is wrong and this will be addressed first. In the concluding paragraphs of the State's brief, as well as elsewhere throughout, the State contends that: .... [t]he fact that these three Districts in the aggregate and individually are \"winners\" under the new formula should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them. 1 State Br. at p. 24, [Emphasis supplied.] Contrary to the State's assertion that the PCSSD was a \"winner\", and as it will demonstrate in Section IV, the PCSSD lost over $5,500,000 this past school year because of the new funding system. The State also argues: ADE submits that in this context it was particularly inappropriate to isolate and rule on the changes in teacher retirement and health insurance funding without giving any legal weight or effect to the undisputed beneficial effect the new funding system had on the Districts. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement authorizes or even suggests that such a piecemeal dissection and comparison of certain discrete aspects of the old and new funding systems is appropriate, and nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires or permits the Districts to be insulated from having to make the 1It should be noted that the Settlement Agreement speaks in terms of \"impact\" and requires no showing of \"intent\". State App. at p.98. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I sometimes difficult choices and deal with changes in the law that all other school districts in the State must grapple with. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or in any notion or [sic] equity or common sense permits the Districts to be relieved of aspects of a new funding system that they do not like without taking into account those aspects of the new funding system that operate to their benefit. The Intervenors contend that: The Districts received more State aid under the new formula than under the old formula. Int. Br. at p. 10. The PCSSD has now examined the effects of the new funding system as a whole upon the PCSSD and will demonstrate, relying upon data obtained from the State, that the new funding system as a whole cost the PCSSD at least $5,500,000 this past school year. At this rate of loss, the State will recoup within approximately five years all of the desegregation case settlement money it ever paid the PCSSD. Other Matters The three Pulaski Districts did not move to intervene as plaintiffs in the Lake View case. They simply intervened as parties to protect and represent, in state court, the rights, protections and safeguards they possessed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement over which the District Court has I jurisdiction. PC App. at p. 58. I I I I Also, the State paid the districts $130,000,000 to settle the state's legal liability to these three Districts and secured 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a Release and Dismissal. They did not pay these sums simply to help the Districts pay for some of their desegregation costs. The sums specified by the State that would result in increased M-to-M payments to the Districts are not supported by any citation to the record. However, even if these amounts are accurate, the increases are accounted for by annual increases in overall State appropriations and by the fact that instead of being paid directly by the State, teacher retirement and health insurance are now paid through the new formula and, as the district court explained in her orders, this method of payment short-changes the three Pulaski Districts as compared to most other districts in the state. State Ad. p. 5. Thus, while this manner of payment does operate to increase M-to-M payments, it comes at the expense of reduced State aid overall to the PCSSD. The Intervenors contend that the declaration of Winston Simpson, Superintendent of the Bryant School District, is uncontradicted on the issue of employee costs. In fact, an examination of this declaration reveals that Mr. Simpson examined only certified salary costs (such as teacher salaries) and not the overall employee costs for the PCSSD which includes non certified staff. However, the record developed in this case from previous hearings is uncontradicted that employee costs in the PCSSD consume more than 80% of its annual budget, PC App. at p. 87 1 4, and that its average teacher salary ranks as the 5th or 6th highest in the State. PC App. at p.2-3. What Mr. Simpson's analysis really shows is that the PCSSD spends 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I substantial money on items other than certified salaries, such as desegregation. The Intervenors contend that the Districts are seeking to take funds from the public school fund that would otherwise go, they claim, to the students of other school districts in Arkansas. Int. Br. at p. 17. The three Districts neither contend for nor do they expect such a result. Rather, they presume, and indeed recommend, continuation of that which has pertained in the past. In the past, the State has transferred the amounts necessary to make desegregation payments from the state general revenue fund and placed those sums in the public school fund for distribution to these three Districts. Thus, monies appropriated for education are not simply taken from the public school fund. State App. at p. 360 1 B. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ARGUMENT I. STANDARD OP' REVIEW. The PCSSD addresses the Appellant's points here only as necessary, in Point II below. II. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN P'AVOR OF THE DISTRICTS BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GENUINELY DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACT MATERIAL TO THE DISTRICTS' CLAIMS AND BECAUSE THE ISSUES WERE, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, QUESTIONS OF LAW. The Intervenors correctly point out that the standard in the Eighth Circuit is that a genuine issue of material fact must exist and if there is a disputed fact, the disputed fact must be material and the dispute genuine. Int. Br. at p. 7. [emphasis supplied] It is the latter point upon which the District focuses, i.e, the purported dispute is not, at bottom, genuine. The State contends there were two \"core factual matters\" disputed by the State, and that because they were disputed summary judgment should have been denied. State Br. at p. 17. The first \"dispute\" was whether or not the money the state previously paid outside the formula as teacher retirement and health insurance matching is now being distributed within the new formula. Because it was so obvious that this is the case, it was unreasonable for the State to dispute this fact. First, simple mathematics prove the point. As the district court observed, the public school fund was forecast to rise by more than $200,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 above the levels which existed at the time of the Lake View decision. State Ad. at p. 7. When the 1995-96 appropriations for teacher retirement 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ($130,000,000) and health insurance ($42,815,000) are combined, the sum equals $172,815,000. Subtracting this sum from the $200,000,000 increase still leaves $27,185,000. Combining this with the forecasted increase leaves $227,185,000 over and above the last appropriation that included teacher retirement and health insurance as line item appropriations. Thus, clearly the money represented by the prior line item appropriations is still being appropriated, just in a different fashion. If simple mathematics do not suffice, then the admission of Dr. Bobbie Davis, Assistant Director for Finance and Administration at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) should. She testified that dollars that were previously part of identified funds were consolidated into the new equalization funding scheme. State Ad. at p. 8. This admission by the top financial official at the State Department of Education is binding upon the State pursuant to Fed. Rules of Evidence 80l(d)2. Further, as noted by the District Court, the State's own budget documents demonstrate the same treatment. (\"Transportation Aid ... eliminated as a separate line item and incorporated into the new school funding formula\"; \"[e]liminated at-risk funding as a separate line item and combined approximately $30,000,000 into State equalization formula\"; [e]liminated all at-risk funding ... and shifted approximately $30,000,000 into State equalization aid\"). State Ad. at p. 8. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In addition, the District Court correctly credited the uncontradicted testimony of Dr. Benny Gooden for the same proposition. Dr. Gooden heads the Fort Smith School District, a lead intervenor in this appeal. State Ad. at p. 8. The district court also properly relied upon the testimony of Dr. Charles Dyer, Superintendent of the Alma School District, the lead school district in the original State funding formula litigation, Alma v. Dupree. Finally, the State's funding expert in the Lake View case, Dr. Robert Rossmiller, likewise stated his belief that the money previously appropriated for teacher retirement and health insurance was put into the pool of money that would flow through the new equalization formula. State Ad. at p. 9. In the face of this, it is readily apparent that the money that previously was paid outside the formula by the State for teacher retirement matching and health insurance simply became part of the new overall appropriation to be distributed on an equalized per student basis under the new formula. For the State to claim otherwise in the face of such evidence is to simply elevate form over substance. In the final analysis, the issue of whether these sums continued to be appropriated or not is really not a \"factual\" matter at all. One of the tasks of the District Court was to interpret Act 917 and the accompanying appropriation legislation, Act 1194. She did so and her interpretation, that the appropriation continues, is a legal conclusion. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This is consistent with the position the State took during the Workers Compensation hearing. In the midst of continuing questioning of Dr. Shaver concerning his opinion as to whether or not Worker's Compensation was a program under the Settlement Agreement, the State finally objected as follows: MR. HUMPHRIES: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this continued line of questioning. The -- the argument is a legal one that the Settlement Agreement says that the State share that the State shall continue to pay its share of any programs which -- for -- for which the districts now receive state funding. And that's a legal argument. THE COURT: Well, I will certainly sustain that objection ... PC App. p. 16. Clearly, the phrasing of the objection was not limited to Worker's Compensation but to \"any programs\". Distribution Per ADM The other core \"fact\" identified by the State concerns the manner of distribution of funds under the new act. The State contends now that the Districts contended below that the new formula distributes funds on a pure per student basis. State Br. at p. 17. The State argues that because funds are distributed pursuant to an equalizing formula, the amount of equalization funding each district will receive depends in part, among other things, upon the district's local wealth. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I While the State may misapprehend the argument of the Districts below, suffice it to say that the district court did not. Indeed, in her February 18, 1997 order, the district court quoted from Arkansas budget documents for the proposition that: Act 917 now requires State Equalization Funding to be distributed to districts based on the number of students, Average Daily Membership (ADM), equalized by the wealth of the district. The purpose of this funding is to equalize the disparities of property wealth throughout Arkansas. State Ad. at p. 8. [emphasis supplied] that: Later in the same order, the district court plainly stated The Court thus finds that there is no genuine factual dispute that instead of directly funding each district based upon 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. State Ad. at p. 9. [emphasis supplied] The Districts do not contend that the distribution is a pure per student distribution as contended by the State. Rather, it is the contention of the Districts that distributing such funds through a formula which is driven by ADM (Average Daily Membership) discriminates against them because it ignores actual costs for teacher retirement and health insurance. Further, the State is correct when it states at page 18 of its brief that: Because it is distributed pursuant to an equalizing formula, the amount of equalization funding each district will receive depends, among other things, upon the district's local wealth. State Br. at p. 18. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Indeed, this aspect of the new funding formula exacerbates the problem even more for these Districts since they vote high millage which further reduces their State aid under the new scheme. PC App. p. 52. What really matters, however, is that the District Court understood the state's point. However the State may now mischaracterize the position of the Districts below, the fact remains that the District Court understood and articulated the distribution distinctions now being made by the State. Stated another way, that which the State contends was a matter of fact in dispute between it and the Districts below was not a factor in the District Courts' decision. The record made in the Worker Compensation's hearing is instructive here. The state's witness in that proceeding, Dr. Robert Shaver2 , testified that prior to the change in the law requiring school districts to fund their own Worker's Compensation program, the state simply received a bill from the Worker's Compensation Commission and paid it on behalf of the school districts by withdrawing money from the public school fund. PC App. p. 11. He further testified that in 1993-94, the last year the state paid these costs directly, the claims I experience was $5,200,000. PC App. p. 12. The previous year the experience was $8,200,000. PC App. p. 13. While the record for I that proceeding contains only \"rounded off\" numbers, the average I I I I of those two years is still $6,700,000. Thus, it would 2Dr. Shaver was the top financial official at the Arkansas Department of Education. PC App. p. 17 and 18. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I reasonably appear that the State's appropriation of 6.6 million dollars that has been characterized by the State as \"seed money\" in its brief (State Br. p. 19) was in actuality an average of the two years immediately preceding the change in the law. Thus it would appear the appropriation that the State made several years ago, and continues to make, for Worker's compensation assistance is virtually identical to how it has handled Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance. It is still distributing the same respective sums of money but because the distribution is now driven primarily by ADM's rather than cost, the three districts in Pulaski County are shortchanged. The State's persistence in seeking to shift from a cost basis, which was fair and rational as respects these three districts, to an essentially ADM driven basis, makes the legal analysis for the present appeal not logically different from the analysis that pertained in the Worker's Compensation appeal. This new manner of distribution results in these three districts receiving proportionally less money for these state mandated costs than most other districts in the state of Arkansas. Once again, the District Court's ruling on this matter necessarily represented her interpretation of the distribution mechanism outlined in Act 917 resulting in her legal conclusion concerning the operation of State law. Thus, in the final analysis, the State cannot in reality present a case of disputed facts since the District Court was essentially making reasoned interpretations of State statutes. 11 I I I I I I I III. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OP SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AP'PIRMED BECAUSE THE DISTRICTS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. At page 10 of their brief, the Intervenors assert that: By petitioning the District Court for orders directing the state to divert millions of dollars from students outside of Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County Districts, they would have the Court ignore the clear Arkansas Constitutional mandate of \"equal treatment\" to which all students are entitled. (Citing Dupree v. Alma, 651 S.W.2d 90, 279 Ark. 340 (1983). Continuing, they contend that: However, equal treatment to all students must be the concern of the Court, because it is right, it is fair and rational and it is the rule of general applicability in Arkansas. (Citing Dupree and Lake View.) Int. Br. at p. 10. I I This argument was advanced in this case by the State in the I Court of Appeals years ago. The en bane court in 1985 disposed I I I I I I I I I of that argument in the following language: [Fn.l] The State argues that we cannot require it to spend more money in one school district than another, because to do so would conflict with a recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas requiring, under the State Constitution, substantially equal per-pupil funding throughout the State, DuPree v. Alma School Dist. No. 30, 279 Ark. 340, 651 S.W.2d 90 (1983), and with a statute implementing this opinion, Ark. Stat. Ann.  80-850.10 - 80-850.22. This argument is insubstantial. Under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. CONST. Art. VI., cl. 2, the Fourteenth Amendment overrides any inconsistent state statute or constitutional provision. (Arnold, J. concurring.) 778 F.2d at 437. What also appears to be lost upon the intervenors is the fact that the PCSSD is not on a par with the intervening school districts. The Intervenors have not been required to 12 I I I I I I I I I I 1- 1 I I I I I I I desegregate. The PCSSD desegregation budget alone is $12,500,000, representing 11.07% of its total budget. PC App. p. 88. It no longer receives the stream of payments from the State that the Settlement Agreement provided. That has ended. What the State should not be permitted to end is it's commitment to continue to make the payments for programs as promised in the Settlement Agreement. While the State pretends that its funding for Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance has ended, the programs most surely have not. All that has changed is that the PCSSD must now pay the bills and that the State no longer provides a method of distribution for those monies that comports with the Settlement Agreement. The distribution of what used to be funds paid directly for teacher retirement and health insurance is, in operation, identical to the seed money analysis previously made by this Court and the district court as regards workers' compensation. In the latter instance, the distribution was simply made to the school districts based on enrollment. Here, the distribution, while made through the new formula, is still done in a way in which students (ADM) drive the distribution rather than cost. While it is true that certain features of the formula operate to raise or lower the amounts districts now receive for teacher retirement or health insurance, the fact remains that the distribution is student driven. The legal infirmities and violations of the settlement argument are further addressed beginning at page 21. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Intervenors' Employee Cost Argument The intervenors, in particular, persist in challenging what has become the law of the case. They continue to attack the previous findings of the District Court, as accepted by this Court (Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 83 F.3d 1013 at 1018 (8th Cir. 1996)) that the three Pulaski Districts are employee heavy and have high employee cost. While the Intervenors rely only upon an affidavit that the PCSSD has had no opportunity to contest or explore, (as we discuss further beginning at page 15) the fact remains that the District Court had direct testimony from the State's witness in the Worker's Compensation hearing to this effect. In an exchange that is part of the record on appeal from the Worker's Compensation appeal, the District Court heard the following from Dr. Shaver: Q. And you would agree that of the districts in the state, Pulaski and Little Rock are singled out, if you will, by operation of this statute and this premium structure to pay the two highest premiums? A. I -- by by virtue of its number of employees and salaries that would seem to be the case. THE COURT: Yes. By virtue of the number of employees and the salary, but you're giving them money based on the number of students. THE WITNESS: That's true. THE COURT: Yes, that's their problem. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PC App. p. 14. At the same hearing, the State acknowledged that the record in this case is a continuing one. PC App. p. 15. Dr. Simpson need not have gone to the trouble of going to the Arkansas Department of Education for his information since it was already a part of this case by October 1, 1993. At a hearing held on the PCSSD budget that date, counsel for the teacher's union tried the same tact attempted by Dr. Simpson in his affidavit. After first positing to Dr. Stewart3 the percentage of the total budget committed to teacher compensation, which percentages ranged from 54% to 56%, the following exchange occurred in open court between counsel and Dr. Stewart of the PCSSD: Q. Now, those figures pretty dramatically illustrate that the teachers in this district are not getting these big pay increases as far as a percentage of the total budget of Pulaski County, are they? A. I don't think that's what those figures represent at all, Mr. Roachell. Q. What do you -- what do you think they represent? A. Well, they represent exactly what you said they represent. Those numbers that you just read represent the total amount of the district budget, the total percentage amount of the district budget that has been spent on teacher salaries, and to turn that into what 3Dr. Stewart is the chief financial officer of the PCSSD. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I you said it meant is totally ridiculous because that's not what it meant at all. PC App. at pp. 4 and 5. In the same hearing, it was established that the PCSSD then ranked #6 in the State out of 311 districts in average teacher's salaries as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education. PC App. at p. 2. Accordingly, all that can be divined from Dr. Simpson's analysis is that because the PCSSD has one of the highest average teacher salary payments in the State, it must be spending an extraordinary amount of money on other things, such as desegregation. The point was driven home by Dr. Stewart at the same hearing: Q. For instance, in looking at this -- and I'm just going to do a couple of these, your Honor -- the Rogers School District in the what some people refer to as the growing -- located in the growing affluence of northwest Arkansas ranks behind the Pulaski District at position No. 8? A. You got the list. Q. All right. To the best of your knowledge, is there any desegregation going on in Rogers, Arkansas? A. No. In fact, having worked in that county for seven years, definitely no. 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q. We rank just -- we rank just behind Springdale, although perhaps with these recent adjustment, we're ahead of them. To the best of your knowledge, is there any desegregation going on in Springdale? A. No. Q. Perhaps to state the obvious, would that translate into meaning they're not spending any money on desegregation? A. Yes. PC App. p. 3. It is clear that the District Court understood the significance of all this. When the District Court was questioning the Union's witness at the October, 1993 hearing, the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: The cost of living and the comparable wage patterns. Do you ascribe any weight at all to the fact that PACT is a signatory to this very expensive Settlement Agreement? THE WITNESS: I don't disagree with that. Help me out. I'm -- I'm not sure -- THE COURT: Should that be -- I mean, should I consider that or should the district consider that? When you say you consider three things in determining the pay raise, one is ability to pay, two are comparable wage patterns, and three is cost of living. THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE COURT: And I imagine that these comparable wage patterns in many districts are -- the districts aren't facing what this district is facing. THE WITNESS: I -- I -- THE COURT: They don't have to come to Susan Webber Wright's court -- THE WITNESS: Yeah. You -- THE COURT: -- and be dressed down -' THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE COURT: and they don't have to go along with this burdensome Desegregation Plan. THE WITNESS: I understand. THE COURT: And PACT was part of this. THE WITNESS: I understand that. THE COURT: Well, should I consider that? I think I should -- THE WITNESS: Well -- THE COURT: -- quite frankly. PC App. pp. 6 and 7. The Intervenors' Lake View Argument The Intervenors spend much of their brief analyzing the State court decision in Lake View apparently under the assumption that the Districts contended in federal court in the present proc "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1673","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief for appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD)","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1997-09-08"],"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","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief for appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1673"],"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":["135 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FRIDAY , ELDREDGE\u0026: CLARK H(IUCH(L H FRIDAY ( 1117 - tlI WllLIAW H tUTTON . r A JAM(I W WOO\"[ IYIIIIOH M (ll(MAN. JIii . ,. A JO( 0 IILL. ,. A . A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIV IOUAL5 ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOC ' A TIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN C . (CHOlt , ,. A J 4M(I A IUTT,.Y , ,. A . FIIUQ(IIIIIClt  . Ullll(IIIY , f' A . H f L.41UL\" ,. A  All  DAVIS, JIii . f' A (8 C CLAfllt. Jl4 , f' A MAI,. LEOOETT. ,. A H Q[W(Y WATIION , f' A . it4Ul I . l(NHAM Ill. f' A l Al'lftY W 8Ul41C8 , r A. 4 WYCS:L!FF Hl81T J l4 .. ,. A J AM(! 0 WAl40 H411111!1, r A J l\"tHlL l r MALCOM , I\" A J ,t,M(!I M SIMrSOH,,. A . J A.M(!I M S AXTON , r A .J 5H(,.H(l4 O jlfUSS(lL Ill. f' A OQ H,t,LO M IACON , f' A . WILL IAM THOMAS 8AXTUt . r A . WAlf11 4 ,.AUl.8ON II, ,. A . IAIIIIIIY (. COf'llH, t' .A .IIICHAltO 0 . TA.YL014 . ,. A .J OIH'H I HUlll9T , JII . f' A . HIZA8(TH lll081N WUIIJ,.AY . ,. A . CHltllTO,.IHIIII H(ll.11 . ,. A L AUlllA H(NIH(Y SMITH , ,. A . lt08(11T S SHAF(ft , f A . WIL LI AM ltol 0141FFIH Ill. ,. , A . M ICH AEL 5 . M0014( . f' A . DIAM( S WACS:(Y . f A WAL TEii M (l(l Ill . 1' A l(VIN A CR ASI . ,. A WI LLIAM A . WAOO(LL. JIit  f' A , Mr. Michael E. United States Gans Court U.S. Court \u0026 Custom 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL 8UILO INO 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , ARKA ... SAS n:o 1- l4tl TELEPHONE 50t - J7e-:o, I FAX ~O. 501 -l7 S- 214 7 September 8, 1997 of Appeals House 9 COTT .J l ,t,HC,t,I T ., \u0026 M -l A Y L( ,:0 11tt[Y  4 ~ O l(ltf I l(A.CW .1 111 J l( ( llltQWN ., 4 .J AW(I C 14C(II .J Iit  \u0026 M,t,IUIY 4 U OHT  4 ICOf T H ru c,c . ,- 4 .JOH N CL A'l\"\"OH Jl4HOOL,.\"'f OU Y ,t,l fO H W40( . , 4 it'I IC[ .:. 0Aflt0H(II ., 4. fO H I A ,- .10 H8 . !' .A Q ,t,V IO O Wll!IOH ,- 4 .J(FF .. (Y M WOO ..  . ,. 4 A\"\"O\"(W \" TU llfloj[Jt , ., .A Q ,t,VIO W U IIA.F . ,. A C All l A G i,.Al,..HOU\" JOH M C ;:(HOLE Y J \" A. Lll90 N !l lLI.VCS JO NA.MN C '10OSE VL7 II ,:HIIISTO r't-tEllt L AW SO -\" Gll(OO IIY O \"AYLOII TO NY L. WILC O X F\" AH C. HICS:WAM l (TTY; O(MOIIY IAIIIAll4 .J .IIAHO J A.W(I WI !Ml TH CUFFOIIJO W r'L U WC[-OAHIEl l \"l(lltllt lHG ~;: .. 4 LLISO H J :o,nfWH~ TOCO 4 a 1111 [LLE H W ,J W(HS HELEfrH \"II ~AYOEII J ASCH I . \"t(HOIIE-, 9UIAH )rif CHll.O ~9 o, c:uH W I LLIAM J 5W ITH 8 S ClAAl Wllll4W L. ... EAIIY ,  A WIL LI AM L. 4T TO M . II  4 {50 I 370  5C~ Re: Court of Appeals No. 97-1794, 97-1855 , 97-2394 and 97-2406 (Consolidated) Dear Mr. Gans: Brief CJH/k Enc. cc: I have enclosed for filing the Little Rock in the above-referenced matter. School \\..,. Christopher Heller All Counsel Dist:::-ic-:'s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APPELLANT v. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al .ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al v. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al Nos. 97-1794EALR, 97-1855EALR, 97-2394EALR and 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) Appeals from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division APPELLEES APPELLANTS APPELLEES Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE, CLARK 400 w. Capitol Ave. Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF THE CASE. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. ARGUMENT TllLZ o:, COll'l'D'l'S I. Th Diatriot Court Did ot Rely Upon Diaputed xaterial :raota ii . . l . . \"   6 II. Th Diatriot Court correctly :rollowed Recent Precedent III. Other Iaauea ltaiaed By AD And Intervenor Do ot warrant aeveraal CONCLUSION i 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '!'ULS 01' \u0026U'l'BOIU'!'XU DuPree v. Allla School Dist. No. 30 279 Ark. S.W. 2d 90 (1983) .... Jenkins v. Missouri 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 21468 (8th Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . 18 . 1 LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996 ...... 5,9,10,16 LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) 18 ii I I BTA'l'DDl'I' OP ~ CASB I Th s1tt1g1nt AsJr1uaent I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Little Rock School District (LRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), collectively the \"Districts,\" brought this case to enforce the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case settlement Agreement. For the second time, this Court has been asked to interpret those parts of the Settlement Agreement which protect the Districts from the loss of State funding for programs which were funded at the tiae of the settlement and from retaliatory action by the State because of the settlement. Two separate and distinct coponents of the Settlement Agreement are at issue in this appeal. First, because of the relatively small amount of the financial settlement in this case, 1 the State of Arkansas agreed to continue to fund all of the programs for which the Districts received state funding at the time of the settlement: 1The Settlement Agreement requires the State of Arkansas to pay to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD a total of nearly one hundred thirty million dollars, including a twenty aillion dollar loan to LRSD. ADE Appx. Vol. 1, pp. 110-124. By comparison, the State of Missouri has paid the Kansas City School District approximately two hundred fifty million dollars for restoration of the district's physical facilities and approximately nine hundred fifty aillion dollars for educational and other prograJ1s. Jenkins y, Missouri. 1997 u.s. App. LEXIS 21468 at *22- *23 (8th Cir. 1997). This Court recently approved an agreement by which Missouri will be released from any further obligation upon the payment to the Kansas City School District of an additional three hundred twenty aillion dollars over three years . .lg. at *l. The Kansas City School District has fewer students than the Districts in this case. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II.E continuation of Existing Funding In addition to any paYJlent described elsewhere in this agreeaent, the State will continue to pay the following costs:      (6) The State' share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funding. ADE Appx. Vol.l, pp. 92-93. It is undisputed that the Districts are now required to fund certain programs, including teacher retirement and health insurance, which were funded by the State of Arkansas at the time of the settlement agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p.385. The second provision of the Settleaent Agreement at issue in this case prohibits the state from retaliating against the Districts because of the aettleaent: II.L Prohibition of Punitive Action The State shall take no action (including the enactment of legislation) for the purpose of retaliating against the Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of this Litigation or this settlement. ADE Appx. Vol. 1, p. 98. 2 2This section of the Settlement Agreement also prohibits legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate, but creates an exception for fair and rational adjustaents to the funding formula which have general applicability even if those adjustaents reduce the proportion of state aid to any of the Districts. The Districts have not claied that the State's new funding formula has had a substantial adverse impact on their ability to desegregate. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Th J'Undinq roraul Before 1995, the State bore the entire burden of funding the teacher retirement and health insurance programs for all Arkansas school districts. Direct state funding of teacher retirement and health insurance was discontinued by Act 1194 of 1995. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 357-58. Act 1194 also changed the State's aethod of appropriating funds for teacher retirement, health insurance and other programs fro a line it81l appropriation to a general appropriation. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 352-53. School districts are now required to pay the total cost of these programs. undisputed ract1 The material facts of this case are not in dispute. Teacher retirement and health insurance were programs fully funded by the State of Arkansas at the time of the Settlement Agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 385. The Settlement Agreement requires the State to continue to pay its share of any and all programs for which the Districts received State funding at the tiae of the Settlement Agreeaent. ADE Appx. Vol. 1, pp. 92-93. One hundred thirty aillion dollars was appropriated for teacher retirement for the 1995-96 school year (ADE Appx. p. 387- 88; Amicus Appx. pp. 143-45) and before the new funding scheme was adopted, the Arkansas Department of Education requested $134,500.00 to fund teacher retirement for the 1996-97 school year (ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 387-88). Nearly forty-three million dollars was budgeted for \"public school employee insurance\" for the 1995-96 school year. ADE Appx. Vol 3, p. 352. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The state adopted a new funding formula, Act 917 of 1995, to take effect at the beginning of the 1996-97 school year. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 321-50. A related law, Act 1194 of 1995, requires that school districts fund their own teacher retirement and health insurance programs beginning with the 1996-97 school year. ADE Brief, p. 7; ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 357-58. The new funding laws contain no specific appropriation for teacher retirement or health insurance. Most State funding under the new State funding system is distributed on a per ADM basis as equalized by the relative wealth of the funded district. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 376. Distributing State funds on an equalized basis aeans pursuant to a method that takes into account a district's local revenue and which gives aore State funds to poorer districts than richer districts. ADE Brief, p. 6. other xatt1r1 In its statement of the case, PCSSD has addressed and clarified several other matters contained in the ADE and Intervenor briefs. LRSD adopts PCSSD's position with respect to those matters. 8omRY OJ' UCl1JIID'l' The undisputed facts in the record are sufficient to uphold the district court's grant of swaary judgment. The district court's finding that funds which in past years were appropriated specifically for teacher retirement and health insurance are now included within a larger general appropriation is a logical 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I conclusion based on the undisputed evidence and not an imperaiasible resolution of a disputed fact. ADE's contention that there exists a dispute as to whether its new funding formula distributes funds on a~ per-student basis as opposed to an equalized per-student basis is also incorrect. Both district court opinions at issue here clearly show the district court's understanding that funds are distributed on a equalized per-student basis as the State contends. This case is governed by this Court's decision with respect to the workers' compensation program. LR.SD y, PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). The actions of the State at issue here are very similar to the actions the State took to discontinue the State funded workers' copensation program and then to distribute workers' compensation funding on a per-student basis. The State's effort to redistribute teacher retirement and health insurance program funds on an equalized per student basis, rather than a basis which bears any rational relationship to the nwnber of employees in a school district or to the cost of those programs, should be rejected. The distribution of funds on an equalized per-student basis results in LRSD receiving State funding for a much smaller percentage of its teacher retirement and health insurance costs than the percentage received by other districts outside Pulaski County. Thia result is precisely what the anti-retaliation clause of the Settlement Agreeaent was eant to prevent. ,Ig. at 1018. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UGUJODl'l' I. Th Di  t.riot Court Di4 IIOt ly Upon Di pute4 Material J'aot The Arkansas Department of Education contends that the district court ignored or resolved two factual issues which \"were central and essential to the Districts' claims.\" ADE Brief, p. 14. ADE described the \"two key disputed factual issues\" as follows: First, that there is \"an identifiable amount of dollars distributed as Equalization Funding that are 'ear-marked' to satisfy school districts' teacher retirement and health insurance matching\"; and second, that \"these identifiable and ear-marked 'retirement' and 'health insurance' funds are now being distributed on a pure per-student3 basis\" as opposed to an equalized per-student basis. ADE Brief, p. 16. There is, in fact, no issue at all with regard to the second \"factual dispute\" described by ADE. Both district court opinions below clearly adopted ADE's position. In its order granting summary judgment on the teacher retirement issue, the district court found that the State's new funding scheme \"distributes funds on a per-ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district.\" ADE Add. p. 9 (emphasis supplied). In its opinion granting SWllllary judgment on the health insurance issue, the district court held \"that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based 3ADE uses the terms \"per-ADM basis\" (ADE Brief, p. 16) and \"per-student basis\" (ADE Brief, p. 14). The terms are roughly equivalent. ADM means average daily membership. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling Districts to pay health insurance matching from equalization or local funds is not a \"fair and rational\" adjustment to the funding formula.\" ADE Add. p. 17 (emphasis supplied). ADE's contention that there exists in this case some dispute about whether the new funding formula distributes funds on a \"pure per-student basis, as opposed to an equalized per student basis,\" is simply wrong. If there ever was a dispute, it has been resolved in ADE'\u0026 favor. The State's contention that there is a material dispute about whether the new funding formula distributes certain funds that are \"ear-marked\" for teacher retirement and health insurance is also insubstantial. Teacher retireaent and health insurance were programs fully funded by the State at the tiae of the Settlement Agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 385. There were specific appropriations for teacher retirement and health insurance for the 1995-96 school year. ADE Appx. p. 387-88; Amicus Appx. pp. 143-45. Act 1194 of 1995 discontinued itemized State funding for teacher retireaent and health insurance beginning with the 1996-97 chool year. Finally, overall State funding for Arkanaaa public schools is greater for the 1996-97 school year than it was for the 1995-96 school year by an amount which exceeds the total 1995-96 State payments for teacher retirement and health insurance. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 352-53. These established facts are sufficient to support the district court's finding that \"it is only logical to conclude that sums 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I that were previously either paid directly by the State or appropriated as line iteaa for distribution to the Districts must be components of a fund that is forecast to be over $200,000,000.00 more than it was at the tiae of the Lake View decision.' ADE Add. p. 7. The state is contending that if the Districts cannot find a line item appropriation for teacher retirement and health insurance, then those programs, which have been funded by the state for decades, are not funded under the new school formula. The district court reached the only logical conclusion. Funding for teacher retirement and health insurance is contained in a large, unitemized appropriation under the new funding formula, and those funds are distributed on an equalized per-student basis rather than a basis which bears soae relation to the number of employees or actual costs. 4Even the intervenor\u0026 seem to see the logic of the district court's conclusion. In describing the change from the old program funding systell to the new student funding system, they say: The money is there but the requirement to pend a specific amount on employee health insurance, for example, is gone. Intervenor\u0026' Brief, p. 20 (emphasis supplied). The Intervenor\u0026 go on to say that our argwaent that the Settlement Agreement has been violated with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance funding ignores the fact that the funds are still provided  Intervenors' Brief, p. 21. 8 I I II. Th Pitrict \u0026r BntitlO To emunnn Judgment A A Matter I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Of Lay Thia case is governed by the terms of the settlement Agreement. In deciding the eaning of the terms in the Settlement Agreement, and their application to the facts in this case, the district court carefully followed the oat recent precedent established by this Court. As a result, the district court reached the correct conclusion under the law of this case. The precedent followed by the district court was established in LRSD y, Pesso, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). In that case, this court determined that State funding of workers' compensation was a \"program\" for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and held that funding the Districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state violates the Settlement Agreement . .lg. at 1017. Although the State added a slightly different twist in its effort to redistribute funding for the teacher retir .. ent and health insurance prograJU1, the facts are close enough to the workers' compensation case to warrant the same result. In the workers' compensation case, the districts argued that payment of workers' compensation costs was a \"program\" for which they received \"State funding\" at the time of the Settlement Agreement. LRSD y, Pesso. 83 F.3d at 1013, 1017 (8th cir. 1996). This Court agreed, but defined the \"program\" as \"equal state funding of workers' compensation for all school diatricts.\"5 .lg. 5NLR.so will argue that programs such as teacher retirement and health insurance which were funded by the State at the time of the settlement cannot be discontinued even by a change in State funding 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I at 1018. This court concluded that \"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.\" l.s1- The State argues that the teacher retirement and health insurance programs have been eliminated for every district in the State and, because the \"change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement.\" lg. However, aa with the worker' compensation case, there is more to the story. To eaae the transition fro a State funded to a district funded workers' compensation program, the State disbursed \"seed oney\" which paid about one-half of the workers' compensation expense statewide but only about one-third of the expense for the settling Districts. The disparity arose because the State used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive. l.sl- This Court held that the distribution of workers' compensation \"seed money\" violated the settlement: Thia result is precisely what the antiretaliation 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 oent that the State reached this result in a aathematically consistent anner. 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. which is determined to be fair, rational, and generally applicable. LRSD agrees with that argument. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In thia case, the legialature ha said that beginning with the 1996-97 school year funding for teacher retirement and health insurance is a district, rather than a State, responsibility. The state has also moved from a line item appropriation which shows specific funding for health insurance and teacher retirement to a general appropriation of funds to be distributed, for the most part, on an equalized per-student basis. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 317-366. Statewide, the amount of money which flows through the public school fund is greater for the 1996-97 school year than it was for the 1995-96 school year. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 352-53. ADE argues that because none of the aoney in the expanded public school fund is \"ear-aarked\" for teacher retirement or health insurance, this case does not fit within this Court's ruling which required fair distribution of workers' compensation seed money. ADE Brief, p. 19-22. All the State has really done is to strip away the labels from the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. The funding for those prograas has been shifted from a line item appropriation to a general appropriation. Funds for teacher retirement and health insurance are now combined with other funds to be distributed on an equalized per-student basis as \"equalization funding.\" ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 352. The State is playing a shell gaae, contending that if the Districts cannot find the pea, it does not exist. The district court was not fooled. It was clear to the district court that \"what used to be funded as a line item was 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I folded into the 1996-97 appropriation for State equalization funding.w ADE Ad. pp. 8-9. Simple logic dictates wthat sums that were previously either paid directly by the State or appropriated as line iteas for distribution to the districts ust be component of [the new equalization) fund .... w ADE Ad., p.7. This Court should affira the di trict court. If the State can avoid responsibility for continued funding of the teacher retirement and health insurance programs simply by moving the funds into a general appropriation to be distributed on an equalized per-student basis, the Settlement Agreement requirement of continued funding and this Court's decision concerning workers' compensation seed aoney will have been rendered meaningless. This is not a case where the State has treated all Arkansas school districts the same with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance funding. The State has changed the way it distributes funding for those prograas in a way that favors districts outside Pulaski County. Instead of simply paying the actual costs of those programs statewide, the State has elected to distribute on an equalized per-student basis the funds which would have gone to pay for the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. The impact of the State's distribution of teacher retirement funds according to the number of students rather than the number 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of teachers in LR.SD can be easily shown.' The State budgeted $130,000,000.00 to pay teacher retirement statewide for the 1995- 96 fiscal year. ADE Appx. Vol., 3, p. 352. The average daily membership for the State for the 1995-96 school year was 443,516 students. A per student distribution of those retirement funds would yield $293.11 per student. Distribution of that amount based on LRSD's average daily aeabership of 22,385 students would result in a state teacher retireaent payaent of $6,561,267.00. This is only about two-thirds of the aaount actually paid by the State to LR.SD for the 1995-96 school year when the calculation was done on a per-teacher rather than per-student basis. The State appropriation of $130,000,000.00 for the 1995-96 school year should have been sufficient to fund the entire cost of the teacher retirement program statewide. Before the establishment of the new funding program, ADE sought an appropriation of $134,500,000.00 to fund the statewide teacher retirement program for the 1996-97 school year. ADE Appx., Vol. 3, pp. 387-88. That amount also should have been sufficient to fund the entire cost of the statewide teacher retirement program. The result of the state aoving teacher retirement funds into a general appropriation and distributing those funds on an 'we understand that ADE uses an equalized per-student distribution rather than a pure per-student distribution. Largely because its aillage rate is the fifth highest in the state (ADE Appx., Vol. 4, p. 583), LR.SD is a relatively rich school district for the purposes of the new funding formula. Accordingly, LR.SD would actually receive less funding on an equalized per-student basis than is shown in this example. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I equalized per-student basis is that LRSD will receive two-thirds or less of its teacher retirement costs while the average funding level statewide exceeds one hundred percent of teacher retirement costs. The results are the same for employee health insurance. The estimated statewide health insurance contribution for the 1996-97 school year is $42,815,000.00. ADE Appx. Vol. 2, p. 245 and Vol. 3, p. 352. This money is distributed through the new funding formula on an equalized per-student basis which bears no rational relationship to a particular district's costs for employee health insurance. As a result, the State paid 109.95 percent of the cost of employee health insurance statewide excluding Pulaski County. ADE Appx. Vol. 2, p. 245. The average funding in the Pulaski county school districts is 71.39 percent. LRSD receives only 53.41 percent of its cost of employee health insurance payments. The district court correctly held \"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 equalization or local funds is not a 'fair and rational' adjustment to the funding formula.\" ADE Ad., p. 17. III. other 11,v IAi IY N\u003eI  xntervenor1 Do 1ot warrant lYral ADE and the Intervenor\u0026 have raised several other issues, none of which warrants reversal of the district court opinions. Both appellants contend that the new funding formula is 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I beneficial to the Pulaski County School districts since they received aor State funding this year than they did last year. The Intervenor\u0026 completely misstate the District' claim: The Districts allege that the total funding is less under the new funding formula than under the prior funding foraula. Intervenor Brief, p. 8. In fact, the Districts argued that they receive less than they would haye received had the same amount of money been distributed for the 1996-97 school year under the old Act 34 formula instead of the new Act 917 formula. Intervenor Appx., p. 68. The Intervenor\u0026 seem to think that the district court resolved a conflict between the Districts' position that they would have received a greater amount of funding for the 1996-97 school year had the available funds been distributed under the old Act 34 formula and ADE' position that the Districts received more State aid this year than last year. Intervenor Brief, pp. 8- 9. There is no conflict. The district court accepted PCSSD's position \"that its total State funding in 1996-97 will be less under the new foraula than it would haye been under the old.\" ADE Ad., p. 12. ADE's exhibit which purports to show that the Pulaski County districts will receive more State funding for the 1996-97 school year than they did for the 1995-96 school year (Intervenor Appx., p. 170) is not in conflict with PCSSD's position that it would have received aore money for 1996-97 under Act 34 than it does under the new funding scheme. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ADE seems to admit that any increase received by the Pulaski county districts for the 1996-97 school year was proportionately smaller than increases received by other Arkansas school districts (ADE Brief, p. 25), but argues that the settling districts are \"winners\" under the new formula so their increased state aid \"should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them.\" ADE Brief, p. 24. First of all, the Settlement Agreement requirement of continued funding of existing programs does not require a finding of discriminatory intent in order to prove a violation, only a discriminatory impact. The workers' compensation issue was decided by this Court without any discussion of ADE'a intent. LRSD y, PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). Second, a simple hypothetical shows the flaw in ADE's reasoning. Assume that a large amount of money was added to the public school fund and that ADE intentionally devised a formula to minimize the amount of aoney that would go to the Pulaski County achool districts. Ass\\llle also that as a result education funding doubled statewide under a formula which increased funding for the Pulaski County school districts by only one percent. Would the Pulaski County school districts be precluded from claiming a violation of the Settlement Agreement simply because the small increase in their funding made them \"winners\"? The Intervenor\u0026 claim that the Pulaski County districts are seeking \"to divert millions of dollars from students outside of 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County districts.\" Intervenor Brief, p. 10. That contention is completely unsupported and is absolutely untrue. The state's 1994-95 expenditure for public schools was only forty-eight percent of the total net State general revenues. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 324. The state's practice has been to transfer funds from general revenues to the public school fund in order to pay the costs associated with the Settlement Agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 359-60. The Pulaski County districts did not ask the district court to divert any money from districts outside Pulaski County. There is no reason that the funds necessary for the State to meet its settlement obligations should come from the public school fund rather than from general revenues. The Intervenors argue that the Districts do not care about \"equal treatment\" of students and are seeking to enforce the Settlement Agreement \"simply because they believe they need more money.\" Intervenor Brief, p. 10. They are apparently forgetting that the Settlement Agreement provides a remedy for years of state imposed segregation. Had the state adopted a policy of equal treatment rather than segregation decades ago, we would not have this lawsuit today. The State cannot avoid its responsibilities under the Settl-ent Agreement simply by contending the Arkansas Constitution requires equal treatment. The response to that ar(JUllent is found in Judge Arnold's concurrence in a previous appeal in this case: The State argues that we cannot require it to spend more money in one school district than 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I another, because to do so would conflict with a recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas requiring, under the State Constitution, ubstantially equal per-pupil funding throughout the state, DuPree Y, Alma School Dist. No, 30, 279 Ark. 340, 651 s.w. 2d 90 (1983), and with a statute iapl8lllenting thi opinion, Ark. Stat. Ann. SS 80-850.10 - 80-850.22. Thia argwaent is insubstantial. Under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. CONST. ART. VI. , cl. 2 , the Fourteenth Amendment overrides any inconsistent state statute or constitutional provision. LRSD y, PCSSD. 778 F.2d 404, 437 n. 1. (8th Cir. 1985) (Arnold, J. concurring). The Intervenor\u0026 point out, correctly, that funds paid to the Districts by reason of the Settlement Agreement are not included in determining the appropriateness of public school funding under state law. Intervenor' Brief, p. 16. Nothing in state or federal law requires that uch fund be included in any calculation to determine the equity of a state school funding scheme. Inexplicably, however, the Intervenor\u0026 go on to argue that \"(t)he State funding syst8Jll will be put at risk when compliance with the federal range ratio requires additional funding to other districts as a result of any increase in funds to the Little Rock School District which will result from the district court's order.\" Intervenor Brief, p. 17. This argument is simply wrong and is in conflict with the position of the Intervenors, taken on the previous page of their brief, that funds paid by reason of the Settlement Agreement are not included in the calculation of the federal range ratio. 18 I I I I I I "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1669","title":"Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) separate motion for summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula","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)","Pulaski County Special School District"],"dc_date":["1997-09-02"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School facilities","School employees","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) separate motion for summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula"],"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/1669"],"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":["158 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript 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 RECEIVED V. LR-C-82-866 SEP 3 1997 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS omc OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORIN6INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PCSSD SEPARATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF THE STATE FUNDING FORMULA The PCSSD for its motion states: INTERVENORS 1. As a result of the change from Act 34 to Act 917, including the overall funding increases which accompanied Act - 917, the PCSSD lost over $5,500,000 in State aid this past year as compared to what it would have received had Act 34 continued in existence at the higher appropriation levels. In contrast, the average increase in State aid per district was 12.64% under Act 917. 2. The case law, the orders of this Court, and the Settlement Agreement prohibit this disparity. 3. This Court should order that the State aid received by the PCSSD this past school year be increased to the state average increase of 12.64%, an increase of $6,496,896. 4. In the alternative, this Court should award the PCSSD the $5.5 million it lost when one compares Act 34 outcomes to Act 917 outcomes. # 5. This motion is accompanied by an updated Affidavit of Dr. Donald Stewart, together with accompanying exhibits, additional exhibits, and by a memorandum brief. The PCSSD incorporates by reference its previous statements of material facts and orders of this Court. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that it be funded for the previous year at the level of the State average or, in the alternative, that it be awarded the sums it lost when Act 917 replaced Act 34, for its costs, attorneys' fees and all proper relief. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By-;n_.xJ_~ M .... ~~= Jones I}o/ (76060) At~for Pcpn 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September J- , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 J : j hsl 0S0 . 030 umuel Jn 3 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTL!:MENT AGREEMENT March, 1989 (As Revised September 28, 1989) EXHIBIT I .L - K. District Budgets The Districts may  utilize the-  receipt of funds paid pursuant to this settlement to balance previous years' budgets and if this is done, neither the previous year's deficit nor such fund usage will be regarded as a violation of State law. L. Prohibition of Punitive Action The State shall take no action (including the enactment of legislation) for the purpose of retaliating against the Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of this Litigation or .th is settlement. The State will enact - no legislation which has a substantia~ adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. Fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts. M. Rededicated Millages The court ordered on December 29, 1986 (reinstated Jan. 7, 1987) the rededication of certain millages of the Districts. It was the intent of the Districts and the court that all millages _due to expire before the year 2007 be rededicated. The - motion seeking the extension, however, failed to list 98 10 fN TI-IE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR rnE EIGHTI-1 CIRCUIT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APPELLANT V. LITIT.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. APPELLEES ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. APPELLANTS V. LITIT.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. APPELLEES Nos. 97-1794EALR. 97-1855EALR. 97-2394EALRand 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Hon. Susan Webber Wright APPELLANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S OPENING BRIEF I WINSTON BRYANT, Attorney General By: TIMOlHY G. GAUGER Arkansas Bar No. 95019 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l ( 50 l) 682-2007 EXHIBIT Finally, and most important, the changes in funding of teacher retirement and health insurance matching differ significantly from the workers' compensation issue in that, unlike-the change in workers' compensation funding (which involved a change in only one discrete aspect of the funding scheme while leaving the rest of the scheme unchanged) the district court had before it a wholesale change in the funding scheme, in effect an entirely new funding system designed from scratch. ADE submits that in this context it was particularly inappropriate to isolate and rule on the changes in teacher retirement and health insurance funding without giving any legal weight or effect to the undisputed beneficial effect the new funding system had on the Districts. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement authorizes or even suggests that such a piecemeal dissection and comparison of certain discrete aspects of the old and new funding systems is appropriate, and nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires or permits the Districts to be insulated from having to make the sometimes difficult choices and deal with changes in the law that all other school districts in the State must grapple with. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or in any notion or equity or common sense permits the Districts to be relieved of aspects of a new funding system that they do not like without taking into account those aspects of the new funding system that operate to their benefit At the very minimum, the fact that these three Districts in the aggregate and individually are \"winners\" under the new formula should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them. 24 'llnitea States Court of ~ppeafs for tk 'Eigl,,tli Circuit NO. 97-1794 ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL APPELLANT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL APPELLEES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge ~ppe{{ant's tJJrie,f JAMES M. LLEWELLYN, JR. #66040 THOMPSON AND LLEWELLYN, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 Telephone: 501-785-2867 Facsimile: 501-782-8046 Attorney for Appellant 111 School Districts EXHIBIT I 3 THE DISTRICT COURTS ORDER SHOULD BE REVERSED AS A MATIER OF LAW The Districts' Motion for Summary Judgment challenges that portion of the new school funding formula they view as unfavorable while ignoring other portions from which they would admittedly benefit. The Districts receive more state aid under the new formula than under the old formula. Greene Declaration, App. 170. By petitioning the District Court for orders directing the state to divert millions of dollars from students outside of Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County Districts, they would have the Court ignore the clear Arkansas Constitutional mandate of \"equal treatment\" to which all students are entitled.4 While the Settlement Agreement permits \"Fair - and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability . . . \". Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement March, 1997, Add. 18, the Districts suggest, by implication, such an adjustment should not apply to them simply because they believe they need more money. There is probably not a school district in Arkansas that does not believe it needs more money. However, equal treatment to all students must be the concern of the Court, because it is right, it is fair and rational and it is the rule of general applicability in Arkansas. Du Pree and lake View. 4 DuPree v. Alma, 65 l S.W.2d 90, 279 Ark. 340 ( 1983). App. 172 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SC~OOL 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. AFFIDAVIT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS My name is Don Stewart and I am Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs of the PCSSD. Attached as Exhibit A to this affidavit is information I received from the Arkansas Department of Education which permitted me to compare total state aid received by each school district in - 1995-96 to total state aid they received for 1996-97. From this information, I was able to prepare Exhibit 11 B11 which demonstrates that the PCSSD experienced a net increase in State aid this year of only 1.12 percent. This compares to a state total of 12.09 percent increase per district which percentage rises to 12.64 percent when the PCSSD State aid is subtracted from the state-wide totals. Attached as Exhibit \"C\" is a letter the PCSSD received from Mr. Kunkel, Coordinator for Local Fiscal Services requesting the return of growth funding in the amount of $81,165. As requested, this sum of money has been returned by the PCSSD to the State and the PCSSD will receive no growth funding for 1996-97. However, were loss funding still in place, the PCSSD would be eligible for loss funding for the 1996-97 school year. Exhibit 11 0 11 is the latest printout received by the PCSSD from EXHIBIT I 4 - the State. The total sum set forth was adjusted by the State to reflect the overpayment of che $81,165. I certify.that che calculations set forth in these various exhibits were e1~her directly performed by the Arkansas Department of Education or were calculaced from databases furnished to me by the Arkansas Department of Education. It is entirely possible chat some of the State aid levels for some of the districts reflected in Exhibit \"A\" may have changed since the State furnished its dacabase to the PCSSD. However, for purposes of the present analysis and claim, the PCSSD believes that the calculations and conclusions set forth in the various exhibics are reasonably accurate. If, however, the Arkansas Department of Education desires that the PCSSD utilize updated information, the - PCSSD will be more chan willing to comply as soon as such information is furnished to it from the Arkansas Department of Education. FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI day SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN of A-U,,4 ,-r-, 1997. J My ComIT\\ission Expires: .: JZ\u003c.,-'Ulf; ;_') -~ QC k-l I --- TO before me, a notary public, this2Y NotarPublic 2 -1.,. COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE: 96TO97 WK4 I LEA i COUNTY 101,AHKANSAS 102 AHKANSAS 104 1 ARKANSAS 105 ARKANSAS 201 ASHLEY 202 ASHLE'Y 20JASHLEY 302 BAXTF.R 30:1 RAXTER 304 RAXTF.R 401 RENTON 402 RENTON 40:1 DENTON 404 BENION 405 BENTON 406 BENTON 407 BENTON 501 BOONE 502 BOONE 503 BOONE 504 BOONE 505 BOONE 506 AOONE 601 BRADLEY fi02 BRADLEY 701 CALHOUN 801 CARROLL R02 CARROLL R03 CARRO~L 901 CHICOT 'l02 CHICOT 903 CHICOT 1002 CLARK ! 1003 CLARK 1101 C:I AY I 1104 CIAY I 110fi CLAY 1701 CLEnllRNE DISTRICT OE'WITT GILLE'Tl STlllTGART HUMPHREY CROSSETT FOUNTAIN HILL HAMBURG COTTER MOUNTAIN HOME NORFORK RENTONVILLE DECATUR GENTRY GRAVETTE ROGERS SILOAM SPRINGS PEA RIDGE ALPENA BERGMAN HARRISON OMAHA VALLEY SPRINGS LEAD HILL HERMITAGE WARREN HAMPTON RERRYVILLE FIIHEKA SPRINGS /\u003c,HErN FOREST I1irRMOTT IEIIIJORA 11 AKFSIOE AHKAl\u003eElPHIA c;uRDON lr.ORNING PI\u003c;r.0TT I !CLAY COUNTY !coNr.ono AOM FOR I 1995-1996 JQ 1,278 94 287. 10 2,268 54 288 83 2,760 47 283 86 1,812 03 60640 3,845 95 500 22 5,107 53 553 15 1,147 53 1,284 30 8,656 66 2,510 38 910 51 474 74 820 99 2,894 62 385 11 863 22 404 14 607 37 1,763 43 917 27 1,562 17 1108 31 1,232 84 1,012 81 935 13 1,220 59 2,407 09 R93111 1.2:10 2R 1,001 97 736 R6 473 16 AOMFOR 1996-1997 I I NUMBER PERCENT CHANGE ' CHANGE 1st Q 1,2:12 17 285 22 2,211 .18 280 02 2,720 43 299.19 1,777 53 619 65 3,898 14 518.94 5.444 47 589 99 1,144 64 1,30560 9,375 04 2,594 68 946 35 50802 808 48 2,81554 372 62 89981 384 671 594 09 1,756 02 901 031 1,590 96 8011351 1.23996 : 1,002 761 915 21 1 1,163 43 2,442 37 I 918 351 1.248 49 1 1,039 74 I 72995, 468 )CJ (46771 (1 BR (57 36 (8 81 (4004 15 33 (34 50 13 25 52 19 18 72 33694 36 84 (2 89 21 .30 718 38 84 30 35 84 33 28 (12 51 (7908 (12 49 36 59 (19 47 (13 28 (7 41 (16 24 28 79 0 04 7 12 (1005 (19 92 (57 16 35 28 24 54 1R 21 37 77 (f, 91 (4 77 .3 66%1 -065% -2 53% -3 05% -1.45% 5.40% -1 .90% 219% 1.36% 3 74% 660% 666% -025% 166% 8 30% J 36% 3 94% 701% -152% -2 .73% -3 24% 4.24% -4 .82% -219% -042% -1 77% 164% 000% 0 58% -099% -2 13% .4 68% 1 47% 2 75% 1 48% :i 77% 0 94% -101% TOTAL 1995-1996 STATE AID S:J .041.llfi5 1 $610,743 S5.055.029 $886.831 $6,293,054 $881,650 $5,552.298 $1,830,298 S7.724.759 S1 .437 .262 $9,575,525 S1.525.271 S2, 157,190 S2, 174,171 $19,498,428 $6,005,872 S2.765,315 S1 .542.232 $2,638,593 $6,575,634 $1 ,265.575 $2,543.767 $1,202,421 $1 ,672,214 $4 ,941 ,446 $1,993,857 S4 ,223,025 $546,953 $3,611.2151 S3.272.036 S2.76R,6:l8 I $3 ,364,464 $6,019,989 $2,291 ,087 S3. 133.616 $:\u003e, 769.~\u003e46 s2.096. :100 $ 1,49:1 ,6761 TOT. SELECT. 1996-97 AID 12-27-96 S2.9138.74!l : S735.795I $5,6:15,639 $840,659 $7 ,015.296 $915,885 S5.309,8116 $1 ,915,093 $8,699,379 $1 ,463,375 $12,814,870 $1 ,642,592 $2,696.660 S2,716.828 $24,269.301 S7,207, 164 S3,254,057 Sl ,742,722 S2,757,022 S6,662,071 S1 .181,713 S2,931, 110 Sl.100,367 Sl ,675,076 S5,174,627 S2.077,037 S4,270,083 S850.028 $3,719.161 $3,150.098 S2,724,351 S3,413.368 S6,430,653 S2,540,432 S3.407.51l6 $:J, 117,026 $2,135,236 $1 ,532,464 ADO. BASE FUNDING $~,A .ll91 , so 1 S230.360 S2,195 S176.954 $8,954 S151 ,191 so so $32,806 so so S184,411 so so so S40,470 S75,857 S265,098 so S122,656 so S24.500 S200,713 S26,465 S173,331 I S26,6531 S157,437 $102,722 $8,631 $66,162 so $23,556 S91 ,651 S104 ,682I $65,2131 S:17 ,663 GROWTH FACILITY FUNDING so: S16,661 I' so so so so so S6,227 so so S235,001 so S37.266 S46,518 S192,472 S39,737 S55,653 S19,573 S18,502 so so S13,446 so so so S14,122 so $17,293 so so so so so so so so so $8, 1171 - COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE: 96TO97 WK4 rJ ~ FISCAL FISCAL ISOLATED DEBT TOTAL ALL AMOUNT PERCENT CRISIS CRISIS AID SUPP 1996-97 AID CHANGE CHANGE LEA COUNTY DISTRICT LOC. RES. TRANS. 101 ARKANSAS DEWITT $68.436 $15.772 S:l .131 .648 $119.71131 295% 102 ARKANSAS GILLETT $80.642 S3.468 Sfl36.566 $225.82:lj 36911% 104 ARKANSAS STlJTTGART $51.458 $5.917.457 S862.428 17 06% 105 ARKANSAS HlJMPHREY S802 so S643.6r\u003e6 (S43.175 -4117%1 201 ASHLEY CROSSETT S94.658 S7.286.908 S993.854 J 15 79% I 202 ASHLEY FOUNTAIN HILL S1.253 S17.171 S14 .704 S957.967 S76.317 ; 866%1 203 ASHLEY HAMBURG S93.117 S77 .814 S5.632.008 S79.710J 1 44%1 302 RAXTER COTTER S48.873 S1.970.193 S139.895; 7 64% 303 RAXTER MOUNTAIN HOME S530 S60.805 S8.760.714 Sl .035.955I 13 41% 304 RAXTER NORFORK $-48,651 S36,349 S1,581 ,181 S143.9191 1001% 401 BENTON RENTONVILLE S101,882 S13,151 ,753 $3.576,2281 37 35% 402 RENTON DECATUR $20,593 $1 ,663,185 $137,9141 904% 403 BENTON GENTRY S32,257 S2.766,205 S609,015 28 23% 404 BENTON GRAVETTE S31,613 S1 ,586 S2,980,956 $806,785 37 11% 405 BENTON ROGERS S205.440 S24.667.213 S5. 168,785 26.51% 406 BENTON SILOAM SPRINGS S140,034 $7,386,935 S1,381,063 2300% 407 BENTON PEA RIDGE S64, 108 SJ,373,818 S608,503 2200% 501 BOONE ALPENA S42,062 S25,930 $1,870,757 $328,525 21 30%1 502 BOONE RERGMAN S35.430 S63.764 S2,950,595 $312,002 1162% 503 BOONE HARRISON $46,396 $6,973,565 $397,931 605% 504 BOONE OMAHA $45.434 S32,278 $1,259,425 ($6,150 -0.49% 505 BOONE VALLEY SPRINGS S12.890 S66.271 SJ. 146,375 $602,608 23.69% 506 ROONE LEAD HILL S30,805 S21,523 $1,152,695 ($49.726 -4 14% 601 ARADLEY HERMITAGE $62,907 $23,748 $1.786,231 $114,0171 682% 602 BRADLEY WARREN S32.799 S60.540 SS,466,679 $527,233 1067% 701 CALHOUN !HAMPTON $31,065 S12,271 $2,162,960 $169,103 848% 801 CARROLL IRFRRYVILLE S43.871 $79,194 $4,566.479 $343,454 813% 802 CARRO~L jrtJREKA SPRINGS S8.985 so S904,959 $356,006 6545% 803 CARROLL \\\u003c;IIEEN FOREST S37.485 S108,936 S4.023.01!l $405,604 1122% 901 CHICOT 1 nERMOTT $26,518 $85,433 S3.364.771 $92,735 2 83% I 902 CHICOT !FlJllORA S64.716 S34.381 $2,832.079 $63,441 2 29% .. I 903 CHICOT IL AKESIDE S58.856I S102,935 S3.641,321 $256,857 7 59% i 1002 CLARK IAIIKADELPHIA $25,051 SB8,711 S6,544,415 $524,426 8 71% I 1003 CLARK lc;uRDON S9,365 S53,902 $2,627,255 $336,166 1101 14 67% CLAY C:ORNING $26.772 $3,526,009 S392,393 12 52% 1104 CLAY PIGGOTT $23,729 S3.245,437 S475,891 17 18% 1106 CLAY CLAY COUNTY S12,924 I S42,447 $2,255,820 $159,520 761% 1201 CLEBURNE CONCORD S22,99ol $26,768 S1,628,002 S134,326 899% - - COMPARISON or lOTAL STATE AID l()fl!J-96 TO 1996-97 FILE. 96T097 WK4 ((') ~ ADM FOR ADM FOR NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL TOT. SELECT. ADD. BASE GROWTH 1995-1996 1996-1991 CHANGE CHANGE 1995-1996 1996-97 AID FUNDING FACILITY LEA COUNTY DISTRICT 30 1sI a STATE AID 12-27-96 FUNDING 1202 CLEAUHNE l1tERER SPRINGS 1.47078 1,536 52 65 74 4 47% , S:I.0ll0 .91ill S:l .fl1'l.Dll so $27.4:18 1203 CLERIJRNE I ' Sl ,9:12.717 S:17 .564 ' S13.27'l QUITMAN 631 .81 626 82 (4 99 -079% Sl ,830.0551 1204 CLERIIRNE WESl SH)E 51809 547 .44 29 35 567% S964,458 ' S 1,233,844 so S14 ,844I 1205 CLEOURNE WILBURN 194 03 219 37 25.34 13 06% S700,645 S712,880 S31,281 sol 1301 CLEVELAND KINGSLAND 351 37 338.20 (13 17 .3 75% S919,711 S888.531 S6.660 sol 1303 CLEVELAND RISON 674 04 658.43 (15.61 -2 32% S2. 108. 141 S2.043,272 S54 .513 so 1304 CLEVELAND WOODLAWN 50698 517 64 10.66 2.10% Sl ,536.283 Sl ,794.266 S74 ,759 S21,619 1401 COLUMBIA EMERSON 407 .21 398.07 (914 -2.24% S559,099 S557.478 so so 1402 COLUMRIA MAGNOLIA 3.135 87 3,139.38 3 51 011% S7 ,495.865 S8.658.396 S276.956 so 1403 COLUMBIA MCNEIL 329.63 324.71 (4 92 -1.49% Sl .057,953 S974,465 S28.688 so 1404 COLUMAIA TAYLOR 30940 284.92 (24 .48 .7 91% S786,832 S730,722 so S10,361 1406 COLUMAIA WALDO 535 42 523 33 (12.09 -2 26% Sl,685.013 Sl .645.579 S30. 159 so 1407 COLUMBIA WALKER 244 .18 24687 269 110% S825.379 S805.851 so S2.870 1503 CONWAY NEMOVISTA 413 33 403 96 (9.37 -2 27% Sl .381,667 Sl.337.212 S45.167 SB,718 1505 CONWAY WONOERVIEW 480 38 491 04 1066 2 22% Sl.492.467 Sl ,624,610 S37 ,603 S18.617 1507 CONWAY SO CONWAYCO 2,638 42 2,663 91 2549 097% S7. 116,952 S7,493, 193 S259,518 so 1601 CRAIGHEAD BAY 617 32 649 35 32 03 519% Sl ,896,161 S2,092,589 S62,491 so 1602 CRAIGHEAD WEST SIDE 1,428 36 1,515 03 86 67 607% S4 .094,071 S .773,608 S184.145 S21 .463 1603 CRAIGHEAD BROOKLAND 937 21 99688 5967 6 37% S2.866.614 S3.230.607 S109.517 S22.197 1605 CRAIGHEAD BUFFALO ISLAND GEN 91166 894111 (16 85 -1 85% S2.579,779 S2,610.054 S76,029 S10,644 1608 CRAIGHEAD JONESBORO 4,700 51 4,733 68 33 17 071%1 SI0,021,324 S11.322,739 S181 ,0JJ S51 .856 1611 CRAIGHEAD NETTLETON 2,076 87 2.147 OJ 70 16 J 38% $4 ,517,292 S5.271.245I S237,969 S52.102 1612 CRAIGHEAD VALLEYVIEW 1,060 47 1,11602 55 55 524% S2.835,001 S3.516.569 S187,903 S63.758 1611 CRAIGHEAl1 1 RIVERSIDE 821 92 846 54 24 62 300% S2,481,685 S2.645.855; S58.842 so 1701 CRAWFORD ALMA 2,622 32 2.64104 1 18 72 071% S8.511 ,288 S8,957,302 $340,832 S61,158 1702 CRAWFORl1 ' r.EOARVILLE 847 08 889 77 42 69 504% S3,041 ,769 $3,032,572 S46.935 sol 1703 CRAWFORD M()UNTAINOURG 789 96 829 601 39 64 ' 502% S2,677.202 $2,727,452 $44 ,8311 so 1704 CRAWFO,~D ' MIii flERRY 47:1 23 495 13 21 ool 4 63% Sl ,442.:192 Sl ,645,334 S51 .020 S12.612! 1705 CRAWF'oRD VI\\N flllHFN 5.00'l 96 5.131 03 , 121 071 2 42% S14 .433.8:J6 S15,814,880 S516,736 S71.779 ; 11101 CRITTENDEN Clll\\WI OROSVII IE 408 11 :160 251 (47 86 -11 7:1% $1 ,255.364 1 $949,652 $0 so ., I 1802 CRITTENDEN rllHLE 919 17 922 97 3 80 0 41% S2,940,458 $12.053 so I $2,711 ,485, 1803 CRITTENI IFN WFST MEMPHIS 5,979 29 5,958 04 (21 25 -036% $17.007.315 i $18,381,695 $542,658 so 1804 CRITTENDEN MI\\HION 2,859 21 , 2,868 07 8 80 0 31% $8,166,542 S8.826.606 S270.345 S25,272 : 1805 CRITTENOEN TURRELL 462 26 465 74 J 48 0 75% Sl ,558.612 Sl ,496,608 S:18.414 S0 i 1901 !CROSS ;CROSS COUNTY 777 92 733 78 1 (44 14 -567% S2.101 . 192 Sl ,927.532 so S6.733 1 1903,CROSS ' PARKIN 563 67 549 32 (14 35 -2 55% Sl .680,802 Sl ,643,5031 S10,695 so, 1905 CROSS 1 wYNNE 2.8:19 60 2.838 84 I (0 76 -003% Sll .090.531 1 $8,8411.356 S286.813 soi 2001 jOALLAS \\cARTHAGE 198 68 187 281 (11 40 -5 74% S471 .501 S457,611 so S5.234 , - - - -:r COMPARISON or TOTAL S rA TE AID 1995 96 TO 1996-97 FILE : 96T097 WK4 FISCAL FISCAL ISOLATED DEBT TOTAL ALL AMOUNT PERCENT CRISIS CRISIS AID SUPP. 1996-97 AID CHANGE CHANGE LEA COUNTY DISTRICT LOC. RES. TRANS. I 1202 iCLEBlJRNE HEBER SPRINGS $55.502, S3.902.07R 1 $821 .110, 2665% 1203 ,CLERIJRNE OlllTMAN $30,666 $7,807 $2,022.053  $191 ,998 1049% 1204 CLEAIJRNE WEST SIDE $53,804 $1 ,652 $1,304 .144 1 $339.6861 35 22% , 12051CLERIJRNE WILBURN $61 ,289 $14 ,506 $3,193 $823.149 $122,504 1 17 48%1 1301 CLEVELAND KINGSLAND $41 ,413 so S936.604 $16,8931 184% 1303 , CLEVELAN[) RISON S55,996 S59,892 $2,213.673 S 105,532 501%1 1304 \\CLF.VF.LAND WOODLAWN S34 ,381 S41 ,809 Sl .966,834 S4 30,551 28 03%1 S16,9971 I 1401 COLIIMAIA EMERSON S18,618 so $576,096 3 04%1 1402 I COLI IMBIA MAGNOLIA S59.266 $8.994.6181 S 1,498. 753! 1999%1 I 1403 1COUJMRIA !MCNEIL S12,379 so Sl ,015,5321 ($4 2.421 -4 01%1 1404 ICOlllMRIA TAYLOR $22.142 S7.652 so $770,877 , ($15.955_ -2 03%1 1406 COLlJMRIA WALDO S5.626 S16,490 Sl ,697.854 S12.841 0 76% 1407 COllJMRIA WALKER S5,888 S9.895 S35,636 S860.140 S34.761 4 21%1 1~,03 CONWAY NEMOVISTA S37,715 $46,919 $1 ,475,731 S94 ,064 681% j 1505 CONWAY WONlJERVIEW S59,230 S22,379 $1.762.439 S269,972 1809% 1507 CONWAY SO CONWAYCO $26.843 S142,261 $7,921,815 $804,863 1131% 1601 CRAIGHEAD RAY S3,812 $59,807 $2,218.699 S322.538 17.01% 1602 CRAIGHEAD WEST SIDE S72.084 $113,321 $5.164 ,624 Sl .070.553 2615% 1603 CRAIGHEAD BROOKLAN[) $13,971 , S76,951 $3,453,243 S586,629 20 46% 1605 CRAIGHEAD RUFFALO ISLAND CEN S20.736 $2,717,463 $137,684 534% 1608 CRAIGHEAD JONESBORO S86,973 $11,642,601 $1 ,621,277 1618% 1611 CRAIGHEAD NETTLETON $55,304 $5,616,620 $1 ,099,328 24 34% 1612 CRAIGHEAD VALLEY VIEW $2,477 $59,322 $3,830.029 $995.028 3510% 1613 CRAIGHEAD RIVERSIDE $39,301 $2.743,998 $262,313 1057% 1701 CRAWFORD ALMA $581 ,542 $9,940,834 $1 ,429,546 16.80% 1702 CRAWFORD CEDARVILLE $44,387 $25,9231 $54,410 $3,204 ,227 $162.458 5 34% 1703 CRAWFORO MOUNTAINBURG $58,698 : $111 ,549 $2,942.530 $265.328 991%1 1704 CRAWFO~O MllLBERRY I ' S37,307 $1 ,746.273 $303,881 21 07%, $27 ,7561 1705 CRAWf:ORD VANRUREN $445,044 $16,848,439 $2,414.603 16 73%1 I 1801 CRITTENDEN !CRAWFORDSVILLE $16,137 so $993,545 ($261,819 -2066% .. I 1802 CRITTENDEN ;FARLE I $26.092 S2.978.603 $267,118 985%  I 1803 CRITTENOEN WEST MEMPHIS $161 .569 S1 9.085,9 22 $2,078,607 12 22%1 I 1804 CRITTENDEN ' MARION I I $214,276 $9.336,499 $1 ,169,957 14 :l:1%1 11105 CRITTENDEN TURRELL S60.165 $1.595, 187 $36,575 2 35%1 1901 ( ROSS I CROSS COUNTY $69,11 21 $14 .512 $2.017,889 ($83,303 .3 96%1 1903 ;CROSS f'ARKIN I $1 .654.1981 1WYNNE I so ($26,604 -158%1 1905,CROSS $174 ,205 $9,309.374 $1 ,218.843 2001 OALLAS \\r:ARTIIAGE $199,509 1 $2,627 1507%1 S6fi5. IR1 $193,680 41 08% COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE 96TO97 WK4 \\0 0... ADM FOR ADM FOR NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL TOT. SELECT. ADO. BASE GROWTH 1995-1996 1996-1997 CHANGE CHANGE 1995-1996 1996-97 AID FUNDING FACILITY LEA I COUNTY DISTRICT ]Q 1st a -1 70\"J STATE AID 12-27-96 FUNDING I 2002 [)Al I AS ' SJ .ll8J.90'l S4 .0114 .2 71 1 S1fi9.1118 so / FORDYCE 1,377 81 1.)5443 (23 311 2003 OALLAS SPARKMAN 333.65 316 16 (17 49 -5 24% S907.5361 S828.2114 so 1 so 1 2101 OESHA ARKANSAS CITY 162.72 169 29 6 57 4 04% S156.603  $118.263 sol S23.689 2102 OF.SHA DEL TA SPECIAL 305 82 286 14 (1968 -644% $812,468 $668.098 soi so 2104 DESHA DUMAS 2.126 29 2,088 59 (37.70 -1.77% $6,604 ,223 S6,528.573 $196.515 so 2105 OESHA MCGEHEE 1,459 23 1,431 .35 (27 88 -191% $4 ,232.312 S4 ,520.753 $119.703 so 2202 DREW r\u003eREW CENTRAL 1.176 66 1,210 20 33 54 2 85% S3.579.087 S3.629,443 $47 ,591 so 2203 DRF.W MONTICELLO 2.137 57 2,128.17 (9.40 -0.44% $6,173.807 S6,707.646 S82.688 S50,857 2301 FA\\JLKNER CONWAY 7,141 52 7.365 57 224 05 3.14% S18.063,372 S20,290.719 so so 2303 FAULKNER GREENBRIER 2,015 78 2,082.74 6696 3.32% S6.497 ,965 S7, 128.424 S190.242 S57.428 2304 FA\\JLKNER GUY-PERKINS 271 .96 291 90 1994 7.33% S884.028 S997,906 so S12.834 2305 FAULKNER MAYFLOWER 815.11 861 .46 46.35 5.69% S2,607, 185 S2.852,496 S99,563 S22,781 2306 FAULKNER MT VERNON/ENOLA 346 72 364 99 18.27 5 27% S1 .053.849 S1.155.81J S26.152 S2.834 2307 FAULKNER VILONIA 2,024.48 2,166 28 141 .80 7 00% S6,962.519 S7.619,846 S13.976 S70,726 2401 FRANKLIN AL TIIS -OENNING 278 88 278 08 (080 -029% S687.461 S678.552 so S3,550 2402 FRANKLIN CHARLESTON 804 07 794 06 (10.01 -1 24% S2,304.242 S2.500.026 S34 .0J0 S21 ,992 2403 FRANKLIN COUNTY LINE 590 22 593 52 J JO 056% S1 ,558.842 S1 .659.994 S65,085 S16,49J 2404 FRANKLIN OZARK 1,515 45 1,561 54 46 09 J 04% SJ,913.415 S4 .400.107 S114 ,560 so 2405 FRANKLIN PLEASANT VIEW 272.16 279 751 7 57 2 78% S793,468 $818,827 so S11 , 14J 2501 FULTON MAMMOTH SPRING 506 71 489 29 (17 42 .J 44% $1 ,697,554 Sl .563,435 $30.7591 so 2502 FULTON SALEM 767 56 754 661 (12 92 -1 68% $2,333.839 S2.348, 127 $55,2481 so 2503 FULTON VIOLA 457.36 466 45 909 199% Sl ,383,916 Sl ,416.903 S46.3271 so 2601 GARLANO CUTTER-MORNING ST 53668 563 14 26 46 4 93% S1 ,533.986 Sl,702.629 S32.7861 so ?602 GARLANO FOUNTAIN LAKE 1.108 61 1,120 11 1 11 50 1 04% S603, 141 Sl .247.271 1 soi S50,682 2fi03 GARLAND HOT SPRINGS 3.437 66 3.327 15 (110 51 -3 21% S6.688.675 S6,938,622 sol S32.216 2f\u003e04 GARLAND 1 .IESSIEVILLE 638 69 690 39 51 70 809% S379,899 S546,451 so so 2fi05 GARLAND I AKE HAMIL TON 3.353 24 3.471 02 117 78 3 51% S9.168,774 St0.559,526 S169.892 SS0.965 2f,()6 GARLAND 11 AKESIDE 2.330 98 2.433 74 102 76 4 41% SS.0116.106 S6.510.4CM so S70.792 2607 GARLA~b I MOI /Nl AIN PINE 651 76 696 19 44 43 6 82% S 1,790.5731 S2.077,428 S73.2?5 Sl9,074 2703 GRANT ' l 'OYFN 404 03 443 101 39 07 967% Sl ,439.850  S1,599,382 so S15,036 7705 GRANT , s ,trmDAN 3,72006 3,811 27 91 21 2 45% S 10,262.59 11; S11 .807.650 S4 22.7461 S77 ,375 2801 GREENE I \u003eELAPLAINE 304 98 296 951 (8 OJ -2 63% S924.048 Sl.022,272 S23.952 1' S29,357 21103 GREENE \\MAnMADUKE 695 90 701 9111 6 08 0 87% S2.11l 1.4117 I S2.381 ,055 s 110.2r,4 $36,728 21107 GREENE !' ;RF.ENE CTY TECHNIC 2,412 98 2.429 11 16 13 067% $7.076,230 S7,795.716 S299,907 $59.046 21106 GREENE NE ARKANSAS 2.720 46 2.781 61 1 61 15 2 25% $7 ,477,732 S7 ,813,828 S 103,726 so 2901 HEMPSTEAD RLEVINS 530 54 556 75 26 21 4 94% S 1.5118.980 Sl.728,237 so so 2903 ,HEMPSTEAD HOPE 3.143 55 3.109 78 (33 77 -1 07% S8.728.936 S9, 176.445 S309.298 so 2905 HEMPSTEAD SARATOGA 28660 266 54 1 (20 06 .7 00% Sllll5.494 S728.559 so so - - - COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE : 96TO97 WK4 ..) a.. FISCAL FISCAL ISOLATED DEBT TOTAL ALL AMOUNT PERCENT CRISIS CRISIS AID SUPP. 1996-97 AID CIIANGE CHANGE LEA 1 COUNTY DISTRICT LOC. RES. TRANS. 2002 ! OAI LAS ,FORDYCE $45.697 $8fl.909 $4 .JAfl.G!ll $504.7AA 1:100% $7 .9951 ' 2003 j OALI AS 'SPARKMAN $14 .334 $46.696 $897.30'1 ($10.227 -113% 2101 OESHA ARKANSAS CITY $58.890 $0 $200.842 $44 .239 28 25% i 2102 Dr-SHA DELTA SPECIAL $35.143 $34.341 $2.358 S739.940 ($72.52fl -8 93%1 2104 DESHA DUMAS $124.930 $6.850.018 $245.7951 3 72% 2105 OF.SHA MCGEHEE $130.606 $4.771.062 $538.750 , 12 73%1 2202 DREW DREW CENTRAL $86.641 S63, 181 S3.826,856 S247.769: 692%1 2203 OREW MONTICELLO S11 .008 S142.668 S6.994,867 S821 .060 13 30% 2]01 FAIILKNER CONWAY S392,437 S20.683. 156 S2.619.784 14 50% , 2303 FAllLKNFR GREENBRIER $14 ,039 S263.174 $7,653.307 S1 .155.342 j 11 7fl I 2304 FAULKNER GUY-PERKINS $19,746 S4 ,657 Sl ,035.143 S151 .1151 17 09 ! 2305 FAULKNER MAYFLOWER S62.713 S3,037,553 $430.368 1651% 2]06 FAULKNER MT VERNON/ENOLA $34,329 so S1 ,219.128 $165,279 1568% 2307 FAULKNER VILONIA $13,862 S330.229 $8,048.639 $1 ,086,120 1560% 2401 FRANKLIN ALTUS-DENNING S1,817 S8,328 $692,247 $4,766 069% 2402 FRANKLIN CHARLESTON S31, 136 $2,587,186 $282,944 12 28% 2403 FRANKLIN COUNTY LINE $36.925 $21,811 $1 ,800,308 $241.466 1549 2404 FRANKLIN OZARK S12.843 S89,227 $4,616,737 $703,322 17 97% 2405 FRANKLIN PLEASANT VIEW S13.499 S19,280 $2.930 $865,679 $72,191 910 2501 FULTON MAMMOTH SPRING $17 ,500 $30.925 $18.090 $1 .660,709 ($36.845 -2 17% 2502 FULTON SALEM $57.941 $76.728 $2,538.044 $204,205 8 75% 2503 FULTON VIOLA S66.193 S14 .007 $1,543.430 $159,514 11 .53% 2601 GARLAND CUTTER MORNING ST $3,426 $35.886 $1 ,774,727 $240,741 1569% 2602 GARLAND FOlJNTAIN LAKE S2.885 so $1,300,838 $497,697 61 97% 2fi0] GARLAND HOT SPRINGS I $15.915 $6,986,753 $298,078 4 46% 7604 GARLAND I.IESSIEVILLE S43.519 so $589,970 $210,071 55 30% 2605 GARLAND LAKE HAMIL TON S32.791 S218.597 S11 ,031 ,771 $1,862,997 20 32% 2606 GARLAND LAKFSIDE S68.542 $6.649,7:18 S1 ,563,632 30 74 2607 GARLAr-:ID MOlJNT AIN PINE S36,304 S41 ,398 S2.247.429 S456,856 25 51% 2703 GRANT POYEN $73,962 S15,930 so S1.704 .310 $264,460 18 37% 2705 GRANT SHFRIOAN S109.399 S247,550I S12,664 ,720 $2,402,129 23 41 2801 GREENE IDELAPtAINE S 14.953 SfiR.756 so S1,159,290 $235,242 25 46%1 2803 GREENE 1MARMADUKE S24,987 S51 ,2221 S2,604 ,256 $422,769 1938%1 2807 GREENE ;\u003c;REENE CTY TECHNIC $53,012 S175,666 S8,:J83.347 $1 ,307,117 11147%1 2fl0R GREFNE IN E ARKANSAS S97.750 S8,015.304 S537,572 7 19%1 2901IHEMPSTEAO ,1LEVINS $39.444 S15,468 S1,78J.149 S194.169 12 22% 2903 HEMPSTEAD IHOPE $]1 ,0131 S201 ,4fl0 S9,6R7 .2231 S958,287 10 9fl I 7905 HEMPSTEAD \\SARATOGA S58.203 i S6,97R Sll24 ,7~,3 . (S60,741 -6fl6% ! - - I. COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE 96TO97 WK4 ci.. ADM FOR ADM FOR NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL TOT. SELECT. ADO. BASE GROWTH 1995-1996 1996-1997 CHANGE CHANGE 1995-1996 1996-97 AID FUNDING FACILITY LEA COUNTY DISTRICT JQ hlQ STATE AID 12-27-96 FUNDING I I 2906 HrMf'SlEAO Sf'RING HILL 412 94 451 31 38 37 9 29%1 S1.J1Ul33 Sl .534.083 S 14.6201 S4 48111 3001 HOI SPRING OISMARCK 903.40 943 59 40 19 4 45% S2.703.39'l $3.045.087, S 161l.073 S19,0801 3002 HOT SPRING GLEN ROSE 961 .08 983 79 22 71 2 36% S3.043.974 S3,422.231 Sl 1,706 S43,799 3003 IIOT SPRING MAGNET COVE 677 77 723 38 45 61 6.73% S1 .644.850 S2,035.675 so S20.283 I 3004 HOT Sf'RING MALVERN 2,722 49 2,653 75 (68.74 -2 52% S7.605,392 S7 ,796.149 S255.556 3005 HOT SPRING OUACHITA 40997 381 .77 (28.20 -6 88% Sl ,267,543 S1.217.545 S17.777 $4,65so7l 3102 HOWARD ll)IERKS 60801 627.89 19.88 3.27% Sl.473.910 Sl ,719.922 S18,321 so 3104 HOWARD MINERAL SPGS 535.46 531 65 (3 81 -0.71% S 1.673.781 Sl,737,894 so sol 3105 HOWARO NASHVILLE 1,837.78 1,841 .52 3.74 0 20% S4 ,897,393 S5.335.245 S148,958 so 3106 HOWARO UMf'IRE 112 94 108 55 (4 39 -3 89% S277,089 S211 .505 so so 3201 INDEPENDEN BATESVILLE 2.282 37 2.249 88 (32 49 -1 42% S5.676.270 S6.172.829 S167,481 so 3202 INOEPENOEN CORD-CHARLOTTE 28941 292 88 3 47 1 20% S920.774 S929.268 S20.874 so 3203 INDEPENDEN CUSHMAN 36540 388 50 23 10 6 32% S1.448,487 Sl ,355.848 S3.080 S6,649 3206 INOEPENDEN NEWARK 751 43 747 74 (3 69 -049% S575.930 so S27.187 so 3209 INDEPENOEN SOUTH SIDE 1,379 42 1,363 53 (1589 -115% S5,068, 173 S4,598.882 S92, 188 so 3210 INDEPENDEN SULPHUR ROCK 282 90 295 10 12 20 4 31% S479,934 S573.817 so S7 ,882 3211 INDEPENDEN MIDLAND 673 72 683 72 1000 148% S2.448.494 S2,286.734 S64 .637 so 3301 IZARD C:AUCOROCK 503 85 513 35 9 50 1 89% S1 ,607,127 S1 ,662.308 so S18.6591 3302 IZARD MELBOURNE 545 12 538 45 (667 -1 22% Sl,525,610 Sl ,534.140 S24 ,156 so, 3303 IZARO MOUNT PLEASANT 280 41 301 65 21 24 7 57% S897,039 S923,852 S10,376 so' 3306 IZARO IZARO COl INTY 622 41 66206 3965 6 37% S1.68J,788 Sl,841 ,655 S48.567 so 3403 JACKSON NEWPORT 2,12039 2,087 41 (32 98 -1.56% S5,850,617 S5,574.888 S7 .138 sol 3404 JACKSON SWIFTON 260 45 264 05 360 1 38% S681,928 S820.616, so S11.185j 3405 /.IACKSON .IACKSON COUNTY 663 60 66064 (2 96 -0 45% Sl.714,539 S1,736,JOO S60.970 so, 3501 JEFFERSON AL THEIMER UNIFIED 724 92 715 31 (9 61 -1 33% S2,0J0,959 Sl,946.189 so  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1672","title":"Court filings concerning release of four-year-old seats, summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula, Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator, and LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-09"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Southwest Junior High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School administrators","School employees","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning release of four-year-old seats, summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula, Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator, and LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1672"],"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":["26 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion to release four-year-old seats; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) separate motion for summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator; District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator; District Court, two orders; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  This transcript 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 OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORma INTERvENoRs INTERVENORS MOTION TO RELEASE FOUR-YEAR OLD SEATS For its motion to release four-year old seats, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD has encouraged parents to register their children for four-year old seats during the regular registration process. Many black parents have registered their children but those children cannot be assigned because of the number of seats which have been reserved for white students. 2. The LRSD engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts during the 1996-97 school year as it prepared for registration for the 1997-98 school year. Attached to this motion as Exhibit 1 is a partial list of those recruitment efforts. Additionally, the information contained in LRSD's quarterly program planning and budget documents, status reports and project management tools serve to supplement this listing. 3. Although most of the schools with four-year old programs have racially balanced programs with no vacancies, seats are available in some four-year old programs and no white students are - on the waiting lists for those programs. The vacancies are shown on Exhibit 2 attached to this motion, which is titled \"1997-98 FourYear Old Applications.\" LRSD seeks permission to fill the vacancies shown on Exhibit 2 with students from the waiting lists. 4. LRSD endeavored to register as many new white students as possible in its four-year old programs. Most of those programs are racially balanced. The seats that still remain vacant should now be released to black students who can benefit from the educational opportunities which will be provided. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District moves for an order permitting it to release the vacant four-year old program seats for the 1997-98 school year to students on the waiting list. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ~:~ Christo:~------ Bar No. 81083 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion To Release FourYear Old Seats has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 2nd day of September, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 - August 25, 1997 To: Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment From: Becky Rather, Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Re: Recruitment Efforts For Four-Year-Old Seats January edition of Little Rock Family Magazine published Public School Issue as a results of our involvement. January 2 Worked with Dawn Jackson in planning neighborhood parent meeting, resulting in a number of west Little Rock parents applying for four-year-old programs and kindergarten. 6 Provided packets to Rector Phillips Morse Realtors 6 Mailed 15,000 Home and School Connection newsletters informing parents of registration. 6 Mailed registration packets to: 7 10 13-14 14 14 16 16-17 16 17 18 21 21 24 27 27 28 30 31 135 Childcare Centers 44 Homeowners Associations 210 Special Interest Patrons of Little Rock 88 Ministers Gave presentation to HIPPY staff Taped promo for Channel 11, \"Always Kids, Educated Choice\" Show and Tell in all schools sponsored and advertised through Alliance for Our Public Schools Presented at Early Childhood meeting Presented at evening HIPPY parent group meeting Sent flyers home with elementary children on registration Posted flyers throughout the city on registration. Attended evening parent meeting in private home of Dawn Jackson. Mailed 400 brochures to PCSSD on Incentive Schools Participated in Saturday Mall show Registration begins through Jan. 31 . Provided information to Christ Temple Church Assist Steve Pintor Realtors Assist Rainey Realty Open House, Incentive and Interdistrict Open House, Elementary Area . Participate in Arkansas Legislative Day on Education with PT A Assist Mc eil Smith Realtors February 3 Evening presentation to network of Executive Women 4 Presentation to Charlotte John Realty EXHIBIT 1 4 6 7 8 11 12 19 20 21 24 24 March 3 4 4 5 10 13 18 19 26 27 April Report to Biracial Committee Parent Involvement meeting Work with CARE office Attend Saturday, Title 1 Parent Involvement program Report to Early Childhood board on 4-year-old registration HIPPY board meeting Attend Kids Count Coalition at Children 's Hospital Meet with PCS SD PT A parents Work with McKay Realty Meet with Janet Jones Realty Meet with NLR PT A parents Assist Byer Agent Realtors Mail assignment letters Report to Biracial Committee Assist Howell Realtors Assembly for Success Assisted Grobmyer Realty Presentation to Janet Jones Realty Spent afternoon with Lisa Woodrow, new relocation specialist for RPM Realty Worked with Barbara Sumpter, new relocation specialist for Entergy Early Childhood Parent Involvement meeting. 1 Kids Count meeting 8 Early Childhood Advocacy Committee 8 PTA Council, Dunbar 8 Meeting at Clinton Elementary 9 Work with Fair Park parents on recruitment 14 Kids Count meeting 15 Four-year-old assignments mailed 15 Worked with Fair Park parents on recruitment May Worked with !!!illlY parents who did not get into 4-year-old program offering assistance and information to best serve those students. 15 PT A Council Gibbs 15 Mailed letters to all parents of white 4-year-old students who did not get into a school of their choice, offering seats in schools with vacancies June 4 Report to Biracial Committee 5 Arranged for and provided program for mid-west Little Rock parents meeting at Books A Million in the evening - 16 July 2 3 7 8 15 16 23 Gained approval to purchase ad in Kids Directory and provided copy emphasizing Incentive schools and four-year-old program Full page ad purchased to run full month in Kids Directory Prepared Four-Year-Old flyer Met with Hispanic organization informing them of programs offered Mailed letters to white PCS SD parents who did not get into program at King or Rockefeller offering other schools with vacancies Notified Communications to prepare \"Check In\" flyers and posters Arranged tour of Rightsell for PCS SD white parents, enrolling 4. Wrote article about school programs for Central Hispanic Newsletter Mailed information letters and flyers to: 68 Childcare centers 33 Community leaders 86 Churches 29 Kids Count Coalition meeting, announced white seats available in program 30 Displayed \"Check In\" posters throughout the city in grocery stores, etc. August 1 Worked with Parents for Public Schools in providing information for Parent Connection hotline We continue to accept applications for P4 program and process and assign all that we can in schools that have vacancies. All white students are advised as to openings that may be available at this time and toured if not convinced. Forms were sent to all schools with P4 so they could FAX in any drops they might find as people checkin. Vacancies are then filled from the waiting lists according to the race of the child who is not coming this year. Sheet1 1997-98 4-YEAR OLD APPLICATIONS NAME OF SCHOOL ENROLLED WAITING LIST BL NBL TOTAL CAPACITY VACANCIE~ %BLACK BL NBL Badgett 18 2 20 36 16 90% 8 0 Bale 18 18 36 36 0 50% 58 4 Baseline 18 9 27 36 9 67% 86 0 Brady 9 9 18 18 0 50% 91 36 Chicot 18 18 36 36 0 50% 72 3 Cloverdale 18 7 25 36 11 72% 88 0 Fair Park 18 18 36 36 0 50% 50 20 Franklin 36 21 57 72 15 50% 82 0 Garland 9 2 11 18 7 82% 42 0 Geyer Springs 18 18 36 36 0 50% 82 5 Martin L. King 36 36 72 72 0 50% 260 52 Mabelvale 9 9 18 18 0 50% 52 4 Mitchell 9 3 12 18 6 75% 71 0 Rightsell 9 9 18 18 0 50% 70 0 Rockefeller 27 27 54 54 0 50% 140 20 Romine 18 18 36 36 0 50% 92 7 Washington 27 27 54 54 0 50% 104 7 Watson 18 4 22 36 14 82% 52 0 Wilson 9 9 18 18 0 50% 70 4 Woodruff 18 18 36 36 0 50% 27 10 *Clinton 25 0 25 25 0 100% 15 0 *Crystal Hill 32 0 32 32 0 100% 36 0 TOTAL 417 282 699 777 78 1648 172 *denote Pulaski Countv Page 1 EXHIBIT 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP 2 1997 EASTERN DIST~~CT OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. 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 AD E's Project Management Tool for August, 1997. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General TIMO Assistant ey General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AD~SPROJECTMANAGEMENTTOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 29, 1997 Based on the information available at July 31, 1997, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 97/98, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-86JtECE.1\\fED PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL SEP 3 1997 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S SEPARATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF THE STATE FUNDING FORMULA Introduction The Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") recently filed - its opening brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the consolidated appeals concerning teacher retirement and health insurance. In the concluding paragraphs of that brief, as well as elsewhere throughout, the ADE contends that: .... [t]he fact that these three Districts in the aggregate and individually are \"winners\" under the new formula should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them. 1 ADE App. Br. at p. 24, attached to motion as Exhibit 2. [Emphasis supplied.] 1It should be noted that the Settlement Agreement speaks in terms of \"impact\" and requires no showing of \"intent\". Agreement at~ L, page 10, attached to motion as Exhibit 1. 1 Contrary to the ADE's assertion that the PCSSD was a ''winner\", and as it will demonstrate below, the PCSSD lost over $5,000,000 this past year because of the new funding system. The ADE also argues: ADE submits that in this context it was particularly inappropriate to isolate and rule on the changes in teacher retirement and health insurance funding without giving any legal weight or effect to the undisputed beneficial effect the new funding system had on the Districts. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement authorizes or even suggests that such a piecemeal dissection and comparison of certain discrete aspects of the old and new funding systems is appropriate, and nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires or permits the Districts to be insulated from having to make the sometimes difficult choices and deal with changes in the law that all other school districts in the State must grapple with. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or in any notion or [sic) equity or common sense permits the Districts to be relieved of aspects of a new funding system that they do not like without taking into account those aspects of the new funding system that operate to their benefit. The Intervenors are equally blunt in their argument to the Court of Appeals: The Districts received more State aid under the new formula than under the old formula. Int. App. Br. at p. 10, attached to motion as Exhibit 3. The PCSSD accepts the challenge of the ADE and the 111 school districts to scrutinize the effect of the new funding system as a whole upon the PCSSD and will demonstrate that the new funding system as a whole is unfair to the PCSSD and violates the Settlement Agreement and previous orders of this Court. 2 Effects of the New System The PCSSD has now obtained updated information from the Arkansas Department of Education which demonstrates precisely how all major categories of State aid were distributed for the 1996- 97 school year. This document, attached to the Stewart Affidavit as Exhibit \"A\", compares all major categories of total State aid from the 1995-96 fiscal year to the 1996-97 fiscal year. 2 Stewart Affidavit, attached to motion as Exhibit 4. This comparison demonstrates that the PCSSD experienced a net growth in State aid of 1.12% this past year as compared to the previous year. Overall, however, the average increase in State aid per school district for this past year was 12.09% before adjustment is made for the PCSSD. When the PCSSD is removed from the calculation, the average overall state increase becomes 12.64%. The Case Law and the Settlement Agreement Prohibit this Disparity As this Court observed in its order of April 22, 1997 regarding health insurance: The appellate court held that 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.'\" . . . . \"So long as the change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement.\" Order, pp. 3-4. (Citations omitted) [Emphasis supplied.] 2This Exhibit A is essentially an updated version of the - analysis accepted by the District Court on February 18, 1997. 3 In commenting further upon the disparity that actually resulted from the funding system, this Court quoted the Court of Appeals' conclusion that: This results in precisely what the anti-retaliation clause was meant to prevent. It funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than the other districts in the state. It is of no moment that the State reached this result in a mathematically consistent manner.\" Order, p. 4. (Citation omitted). The Disparity Is Immense Of the 111 Intervening School Districts, over one-half have 1996-97 State aid outcomes which are right at or which greatly exceed the state average of a 12.09% increase. 3 As drawn from Exhibit A to Dr. Stewart's Affidavit, attached to motion as Exhibit 4, they are as follows: District Fountain Lake Alread Carthage Bentonville Gillett Biggers-Reyno Greenland Yellville-Summit Leslie Junction City Nettleton White Hall Valley Springs Greenwood Increase Over 1995-96 61.97 51. 42 41.08 37.35 36.98 35.75 29.45 27.94 27.12 24.45 24.34 24. 04 23.69 23.34 3Anticipating that the Intervenors may once again make their Parade Magazine argument concerning \"averages\", it should be observed that the Blevins School District, one of the Intervenors, had a statistical increase which is right at the state average and that the Magazine District experienced a State aid increase almost precisely that of the state average when the PCSSD is removed from the calculation. See, infra, p. 5. 4 - - Beebe 22.81 Greene County Technical 18.47 Lavaca 18.30 Ashdown 18.25 Wonderview 18.09 Ozark 17.97 Weiner 17.38 Glen Rose 17.11 Guy-Perkins 17.09 Stuttgart 17.06 Manila 17.03 Alma 16.80 Van Buren 16.73 Mayflower 16.51 Jonesboro 16.18 Pocahontas 16.10 Centerpoint 16.08 Crossett 15.79 Cutter-Morning Star 15.69 County Line 15.49 Winslow 15.30 Oden 14.48 Marion 14.33 Batesville 14.01 Rural Special 13 .44 Wickes 13. 33 Marshall 13. 05 Waldron 13. 02 McGehee 12.73 Magazine 12.67 Smackover 12.34 West Fork 12.32 Charleston 12.28 Blevins 12.22 Booneville 11. 90 So. Conway Co. 11. 31 Green Forest 11. 22 Bryant 10.98 Prairie Grove 10.69 Searcy 10. 52 4 Pulaski County Special 1. 26 4This group of intervening districts is 90.71 white at the elementary level and 91.07 white at the secondary level. See Exhibit 5 attached to motion. 5 Fiscal Crisis Relief Funding The Court will further see from an examination of Exhibit \"A\" that many districts, including many of the intervening districts, received fiscal crisis relief funding as well as fiscal crisis relief funding for transportation. On January 22, 1997, the PCSSD sought an enlargement of time from the State to submit its application for fiscal crisis relief funding. See Exhibit \"8\". The State has distributed all $10,000,000 appropriated for fiscal crisis relief funding for this school year. The PCSSD received no response to its application for an enlargement of time. In the Court's order of February 18, 1997 dealing with separate funding issues, this Court stated the following: 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. The figures that this Court found persuasive were that the PCSSD would receive $3,462,880 less in 1996-97 under Act 917 than it would have received had Act 34 remained the law. The difference became $4,479,527 if the State added more money to the Act 34 formula. See PCSSD brief dated November 18, 1996 at pp. - 3-4 and Exhibit \"A\" to that brief. 6 When the PCSSD prepared these estimates last November, it assumed initially that only $56,000,000 would be added to the equalization formula. That resulted in the decrease of $3,462,880. The decrease of $4,479,527 resulted from the PCSSD assumption, made then, that $80,000,000 might be added to the formula. In fact, with final figures now available, $142,672,000 was in fact added to the formula or available for distribution to school districts. Had Act 34 been in existence, the State would have used approximately $9,911,000 of that increased amount to fund increases in teacher retirement and health insurance, leaving $132,760,638 available for distribution through the Act 34 formula. See Stewart Affidavit5 , attached to motion as Exhibit 4. Utilizing the actual new money that was added to the formula after controlling for teacher retirement and health insurance increases, and utilizing the same methodology that the PCSSD used in Exhibit \"A\" from last November, the PCSSD calculates its actual loss for 1996-97 to be $5,631,491. That is, if Act 34 had remained in operation for this past school year, and utilizing the actual addition to the formula of $132,760,636, the PCSSD lost over $5,600,000 under Act 917 as compared to Act 34. 5This is essentially the same affidavit and calculations, now updated, which the District Court found persuasive on February 18, 1997. To the extent necessary, the PCSSD incorporates by reference its previous statements of material and undisputed facts, prior affidavits, and the prior findings of this Court. 7 At this rate of loss, the State will recoup within approximately five years all of the desegregation case settlement money it ever paid the PCSSD. The State has represented to the Court of Appeals that: [t]he three Districts emerged from the change in the funding system unscathed. In fact, from a state aid perspective the three Districts benefited from the passage of Act 917 when compared to 1995-96, the last year of operation of the old Act 34 system ... For 1996-97 PCSSD received approximately $700,000 more in state aid than it did for the 1995-96 school year. ADE App. Br. at pp. 8-9, attached to motion as Exhibit 6. The fashion in which the State compared aid outcomes for 1995-96 against 1996-97 is meaningless. What must be compared, as the PCSSD has done supra, are aid outcomes comparing 1996-97 State aid under Act 917 versus Act 34 utilizing 1996-97 funding levels for each Act. Thus, the State's boast that PCSSD benefited to the extent of $700,000 becomes picayunish when the proper analysis is made. The District Court has already rejected the $700,000 claim by the State, see Order dated February 18, 1997 at p. 12, attached to motion as Exhibit 7 and, since the calculation by the State was made in December, 1996, it included the $81,000 in growth funding that the State later took away from the PCSSD as we point out infra at page 9. Further, in the same order, in the context of considering the teacher retirement issue, this Court held: Even if the Court were to find that the new funding scheme for teacher retirement is an \"adjustment\" to the funding formula which has \"general applicability\", 8 however, the Court cannot find that it is a \"fair and rational adjustment.\" Throughout these proceedings, the State and Intervenors have consistently argued that the changes in State aid should be viewed as a whole, not piecemeal. They have also argued that when the entire system is considered, the Pulaski County school districts fare better under the new system than under the old. With the fiscal year now ended, the PCSSD can conclusively demonstrate that the State's argument, as to the PCSSD, is simply wrong. As observed above, the PCSSD lost over $5,500,000 under the new system as compared to the old. It trails in the wake of more than one-half of the intervening school districts, was not considered for the fiscal crisis relief funding or extra transportation aid that was lavished upon the wealthy Newark School District (indeed its application for an extension of the deadline was not even acknowledged), and is basically being penalized because it votes one of the highest millages in the state, thus reducing its State aid entitlement under the new scheme. In contrast, Newark, which is either the wealthiest or second wealthiest district in the State, received additional base funding, fiscal crisis relief funding and extra transportation funding. (See Exhibit A to Exhibit 4 to motion at pp. 7 and 8. It qualified for this State aid because it only levies local taxes of approximately one-half those voted in the PCSSD. How can it plausibly be argued by the State that the adjustments it - has made to the formula are \"fair and rational\", at least to the 9 - extent they affect the PCSSD, a relatively poor district, so negatively? The State Revoked the PCSSD Growth Funding Earlier this year, the PCSSD unsuccessfully sought to persuade this Court, via motion for summary judgment, . to restore loss funding. In its response dated February 10, 1997, the State jabbed the PCSSD's claim for the restoration of loss funding stating: in a crowning bid of irony, all three of the Pulaski County Districts are eligible for and will receive growth funding for 1996-97. The Districts' argument that the Settlement Agreement requires the \"reinstatement\" of loss funding under these circumstances is plainly frivolous. The State did pay growth funding to the PCSSD for a period of time, but then revoked it. Despite the rhetorical theatrics of the State noted above, the State did on June 13, 1997 request return of the $81,000 it had paid the PCSSD as \"growth funding\". See Exhibit C attached to motion as Exhibit 4. The PCSSD immediately complied and returned the money. Once again, while not sought directly by this motion, the PCSSD ended the year where it has been for the last several years, a candidate for loss funding with no loss funding available. As a relatively poor school district, should not the PCSSD reasonably expect to be treated at least as well as the average school district in Arkansas, especially when the \"average\" school district has none of the extra commitments and expenditures that the PCSSD has, as repeatedly pointed out by this Court? 10 Conclusion The Intervening Districts have, of course, intervened to protect their gains at the Court of Appeals level and seek intervention again to protect their gains in light of the latest order of this Court. The PCSSD is a relatively poor district when compared to all other school districts in the state of Arkansas. It asks only to be brought up to the state-wide average, i.e., that it be funded to the same degree, as the average school district in Arkansas fared under the new formula. This adjustment will not totally ameliorate for the PCSSD's high special education costs, its loss of loss funding, cuts in residential treatment aid, etc., but it will lend some equity to a situation that is inequitable on its - face, a situation which violates the Settlement Agreement as interpreted by this Court and the Court of Appeals. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court requiring that the Arkansas Department of Education correct its 1996-97 overall State-aid to obtain the result of the same average increase as experienced by the average school district in Arkansas, or, in the alternative, for the sums it would have received in 1996-97 under Act 34. 11 Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 2-, 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 J ,J hslOS0.030 12 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT oF ARKANsPI LED Or-FlCE OF A WESTERN DIVISION u.s. DISTRICT ccuRTnE~tGREGATION MONITORING W E.A.STE;;N CISTRICT ARK.A:'L ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SEP 51997 PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ------;;;:;::;-;O:E;P;\". CELEoRiKi PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO HAVE SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH SCHOOL PLACED IN RECEIVERSHIP AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR LRSD for its Response states: 1. Joshua's Motion arises out of the alleged \"misfeasance and malfeasance of the [Southwest Junior High School) principal, Dr. Walter Marchalek (sic).\" Joshua's Motion, 1 1. Dr. Marshaleck' s competency to perform his duti es is an individual personnel matter. Consistent with this Court's past practice, LRSD respectfully requests that it be permitted to address this matter in accordance with its own internal processes. See Order filed Jan. 23, 1997, Docket No. 2915, attached hereto as Exhibit A. LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion be dismissed without a hearing. 2. LRSD admits that late summer changes in Southwest's master schedule resulted in approximately 80 registered students not having a schedule on the first day of classes. To accommodate these students, Dr. Marshaleck planned to provide hand-written schedules to these students upon arrival. This effort was slowed by the illness of Southwest's registrar who missed the first three days of school. Southwest's attendance secretary was also absent the first day of school due to illness. The effort was further complicated by the arrival of approximately 60 students not previously registered to attend Southwest. These students also needed schedules. Students without schedules were supervised in the cafeteria without incident. Every effort was made, including 16-hour workdays, to provide all students with schedules as quickly as possible. All Southwest students had schedules and were attending class by August 27, 1997. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 3. LRSD denies that \"numerous\" students were \"misassigned\" by Dr. Marshaleck. LRSD admits that one special education student was erroneously assigned to a gifted and talented class as a result - of a data entry error. First priority was given to students with no schedules. As soon as all students had schedules, work began on correcting scheduling errors. The special education student's schedule was corrected on August 28, 1997. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 4. LRSD admits the allegation set forth in paragraph 3 of Joshua's Motion. Individualized education plans are only prepared for special education students. 5. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of Joshua's Motion. 2 6. LRSD admits that one student was slightly injured during an altercation with another student which occurred while a teacher left a class unattended. This was against LRSD policy and appropriate action has been taken in response to this incident. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 5 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 7. LRSD admits that students without schedules were not receiving instruction. LRSD denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 6 of Joshua's Motion. The teaching staff at Southwest has been asked to make every effort to ensure that students who were assigned to class late do not fall behind. 8. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of Joshua's Motion. 9. LRSD admits that it was aware of the scheduling problem at Southwest. LRSD believes it responded appropriately by making additional personnel available to assist Southwest, and the problem has now been resolved. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 10. LRSD denies the allegations  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1648","title":"Court filings: District Court, motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator; District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors in support of their motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator","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":["1997-08-27"],"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","Southwest Junior High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator; District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors in support of their motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator"],"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/1648"],"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.  IN THE UNITED STATES COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 2 7 1997 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS :MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. AUG 2 8 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG INTERVENORS MOTION TO HA VE SOUTHWEST JR. IDGH SCHOOL PLACED IN RECEIVERSIDP AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR The Joshua lntervenors respectfully request that the Court convene a hearing involving the Little Rock School District, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Intervenors in order to review the circumstances that exist at Southwest Junior High School including many violations of the LRSD and Interdistrict Plans adversely affecting the education of black students, and upon appropriate findings determine that it is necessary to have the school placed in receivership, or in the hands of a specially designated authority other than the present principal of the school. For cause, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the court that: 1. Chaotic conditions exist at the schoo~ including but not limited to, numerous students having been kept out of classes for the first five days of school by the principal because they have no schedules through no fault of their own and through the misfeasance or malfeasance of the princip~ Dr. Walter Marchalek and the failure of the leadership of the LRSD to respond appropriat_e,l,y,- to the 1 situation; 2. Numerous students have been misassigned to classes by Principal Marshalek with the result being that some students who were lasi year assigned to special education and/or resource classes are now assigned to gifted and talented classes and vice versa; 3. Many students are retained or have been retained in the same grade for one or more years without the school developing an individualized remedial plan for the student; 4. Many students are retained or have been retained in the same grade for two years or more without their parents receiving interim reports prior to their retention; 5. Discipline in the school is frequently arbitrary or in some cases non-existent. Some students are left unsupervised in classes without teachers thereby increasing the probability of difficult student relationships. In one of the unsupervised classrooms, at least one student has been injured - due, in large part, to the absence of supervisor personnel; 6. Students are not being taught due to the delay in making schedules for them. For these students, the school has no plan for providing remediation type work. These students will necessarily be disadvantaged in mee~ing the educational expectations of the school, with many being unable to make up the time or work lost, due to the administrator misfeasance or malfeasance; 7. The teaching staff is fractionated and substantially leaderless. Education on an organized, systematic and educationally acceptable basis is simply not occurring at Southwest Junior High school; 8. The school district is aware of these problems. It has been aware of these problems since the assignment of the present principal to the school. The school district has not devised a plan to correct the problems identified above and others of a similar nature. The problems impact black 2 students almost exclusively, with black males being disproportionately affected by the adverse conditions at the school. Moreover, the school administration has difficulty in treating this group of students fairly, as a general matter, 9. The equal educational opportunities promised by the desegregation plan are not occurring at Southwestern Junior High School; the facts cited in this motion establish violations of the LRSD Plan, 4/92, at [pp. 2-3 (Leadership), pp. 28-29 (School Operations), and 33-35], and the Interdistrict Plan, 4/92, at [p. 21 (School Operations)]. 10. Joshua has previously served notice of the administrative malfeasance which has occurred at the school upon Little Rock's acting administrative superintendent Don Roberts and upon Ms. Ann Brown. See Attachment A These efforts did not yield improvements at Southwest. Black students are thus in a position where their educational opportunity is being severely curtailed, and in - some cases denied in violation of the desegregation plan. This action for relief is therefore appropriate and necessary. An early hearing is essential if relief is to be meaningful. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court a) give this matter urgent and immediate attention; b) require the District to prepare within two days a report showing the actual school climate and the extent to which students have been assigned or misassigned to class; c) require the District to report to extend to which black males have been adversely affected by late assignment or scheduling practices and to describe the remediation plans that the District has provided or plans to provide for make-up work, and other corrective actions; d) require the District to establish the extent to which students have been retained in specific grades for more than one year; and to explain by clear and convincing proof all other conditions that demonstrate racial disparity. The Court is further called upon to enjoin the District from allowing the present principal to continue 3 his assignment at Southwest Junior High School and to have placed in his stead someone responsible to the Court who will establish the school as an efficient, nondiscriminatory educational institution. The Intervenors further pray that the Court require the ODM to develop a comprehensive monitoring report on the present educational and interpersonal conditions which exist at Southwest Junior High School, the extent to which there is racial division in the school, and the extent to which the principal has led and now leads the institution. Joshua finally prays, as a last resort, for the school to be placed into receivership. Respectfully submitted, JOHNW. WALKER,P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 By: -j_ Jo CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon all counsel of record, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid, on this -2:3_ day of August, 1997. 4 .JOHN W. WALKER ~.ALPH WASHINGTON \\L.\\RK BURNETTE . .\\USTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. AITOR!-IEY AT I.Aw 1723 BROADWAY LIITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 324-2146 August 12, 1997 Dr. Don Roberts Interim Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Roberts: During the last school year, we had myriad complaints of a racial nature from students, parents and staff regarding the-  .  . administration of Dr. Walter Marshaleck at Southwest Junior High. School. I advised him that there appeared to be a number of  problems and suggested that he may wish to address them before  the beginning of this school year. The school year is at hand Aand my office has already received at least three complaints from wblack staff members which we construe to have racial overtones. I believe that it would be appropriate for you to address this matter at once to determine whether the indications we have received are symptoms of a more endemic problem. We will cooperate with you in addressing the issue at your request. Back to the Southwest Junior High School matter, Ms. Springer and I spoke with Dr. Marshaleck today and we will no doubt have different opinions about our conversation. From our perspective, he seeks to run the school and to interact with people as if he is still a military officer. This approach is contrary to the spirit and promises of the desegregation plan. The plan seeks and promises cooperation rather than dictatorial approaches to interpersonal and interprofessional situations. Your counsel and wisdom are earnestly sought regarding this matter. r:eri.2~ 5;t!1:. Walker ~ JWW: js ecc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Walter Marshaleck I  ; ~,::II(, : . ,:_ _.. ... 1=-.-: . ~~: ~;, it' :. \",t:.: . FILED U.S. DISTRICT C8t.JRT IN Tiffi UNITED STATES couftrESN DISTRICT .l~ i{ ~'IJSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 7 1997 WESTERN DMSION JAMES W McCORMACK. CLERK By: ---------,=-=--=-:-:=-=-e UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Di:?. K~IFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG 2 8 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO HA VE SOUTHWEST JR. IDGH SCHOOL PLACED IN RECEIVERSHIP AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR Joshua Intervenors' motion concerning Southwest Junior High School shows a total breakdown in the educational program at the school, violative of the rights of class members as set forth in the LRSD and Interdistrict Plans. See Motion, para. 9. The relief requested in the motion, as strong as it is, is tailored to address the situation at the school. It is in accordance with relevant precedent. This motion cannot be dismissed as \"an individual personal matter.\" It shows a failure by the LRSD leadership to fulfill the promises voluntarily undertaken in the plan. Intervenors rely on the following points and authorities. a) Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371. 1394 (8th Cir. 1990), (\"The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.\") b) Morgan v. McDonoutp1, 540 F.2d 527 (1st Cir. 1976). C:rl. denied, 429 U.S. 1042 (1977) (one Boston high school placed in receivership during the course of Boston school desegregation case as a result of breakdown in implementation of desegregation plan there, lack of leadership by the principal, hostility by school's staff: and overall pattern of resistance by school board; initial receiver was area superintendent of Boston system in which the school was located; thereafter, the district's superintendent was designated the receiver; the receiver's duties included the replacement of the school's administrative staff and a review of\"all faculty and ~ucational personnel\" to select a staff \"fit for the purpose of desegregation\"; the receiver reported directly to the district court). c) The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has twice cited with approval the opinion in Morgan v. Mc[)onou\u003cp1. supra. in which the creation of a receivership to operate a high school was approved. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 839 F2d 1296, 1319 (8th Cir. 1988) cited in support of authority of district court to create a citizen monitoring committee); Omaha Indemnity Co. v. Winin~. 949 F.2d 235,239 (8th Cir. 1991) (cited in upholding district court's creation of a receivership in a business case). d) Turner v. Goolsby. 225 FSupp. 724 (S.D. Ga 1966) (3-judge court) (after a small majority black school system agreed to implement a desegregation plan, its officials assisted its white pupils to attend schools in neighboring district, including providing of bus transportation and then closed the one fonnerly white school as unneeded; this left the 87 black pupils who had chosen to attend the school without a desegregated option; the court placed the system in receivership, 2 designated the Georgia State Superintendent of Schools as receiver \"operate the schools ... , \" and charged him with the obligation \"to submit a plan ... , whereunder the illegal expenditure of funds will be discontinued and the right of the 87 applicants for transfer will be accorded\" (at 730); thereafter, the receiver arranged for the interested black pupils to attend the schools of the adjoining counties; and investigated why some black pupils were not accorded their first choices of schools, whether black pupils were subject to in-school segregation, and the need for remedial instruction; the receiver was discharged when the initial systems agreed to operate in a desegregated manner in 1966- 67). e) Perez v. Boston Housing:Authority. 400 N.E 2d. 1331 (Mass. 1980) (case involving unsanitary and otherwise unsatisfactory conditions in public housing; court placed the Boston Housing Authority in receivership; the orders appointing the receiver stated that he/she \"shall have - the authority to administer, manage, and operate the BHA; he/she shall have the powers of the Board of the BHA (including control of funds and revenues) and any additional powers that may be necessary or appropriate; upon his/her appointment, the Board's powers shall be superseded\" [at 1245].). f) United States v. City of Parma. Ohio. 504 F.Supp. 913. 921-22 (N.D. Ohio 1980), affirmed. 661 F.2d. 562. 577 (6th Cir. 1981) (after concluding that Parma officials had followed racially exclusionary policies and practices and had a reputation and image of being the Cleveland suburb most hostile to blacks, the district court entered a comprehensive order including in part the establishment of a \"Fair Housing Committee\" 'within [the] city government\"; this FHC was \"to operate as a primary governmental agency in Parma responsible for developing a remedial plan ... [and] to ensure that the provisions of [the] order [were] fully complied with .. .' \"[membership on 3 the FHC] shall consist of Panna citizens who are collectively knowledgeable in the fields of fair housing programs and other citizens who are sincerely interested in working to promote the purpose of [the] Order\"; the membership was to be court-approved, after comment by the United States; specific functions to be fulfilled by the FHC included: developing advertising and educational programs, drafting a fuir housing resolution, developing an outreach program, establishing within the city government a Housing Infonnation and Referral Service, developing a program designed to foster and interest among housing developers in bringing low-income housing to Parma, and conducting a survey of vacant land suitable for low-income housing development). Conclusion As the foregoing case summaries show, the court has more than ample authority to enter the relief sought by the Joshua Intervenors. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) -3758 John 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading ha:s been served upon all counsel of record, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid, on this~ day of August, 1997. Jo 5  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_1660","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee 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 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1997-07-03"],"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","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","Education--Standards","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee 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/1660"],"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":["56 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 97-1689EALR NO. 97-1700EALR MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. vs. APPELLANTS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF OF APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones III (76060) Claire Shows Hancock (95013) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 APPELLEES APPELLEES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The Joshua Intervenors complain on appeal of the district court's approval of the ODM budget in the face of their objections, and its refusal to appoint additional ODM monitors. But the bases for the Joshua Intervenors' objections to the budget were unsound. There is no evidence in this case that any perceived racial \"achievement gap\" or statistical racial disparity in disciplinary treatment is caused by current discrimination. Rather, the testimony in this case, and in others across the nation (and accepted by other federal courts), is that such disparities are the result of various socioeconomic factors. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the ODM budget. This appeal also arises, in part, from an unsuccessful attempt by the Joshua Intervenors to force the district court's intervention -- in the name of monitoring the Pulaski County school districts' Desegregation Plans -- into matters which are purely internal to the PCSSD and which are not, indeed should not be, affected or governed by the Desegregation Plans. The district court properly declined to grant the Joshua Intervenors' motion for ODM monitoring at the PCSSD's Robinson High School when the motion raised only individual personnel matters. Further, notwithstanding the Joshua lntervenors' motion, and in accordance with the district court's urging that the parties continue to work with the ODM, an ODM assessment of Robinson was carried out without necessity of court order and the personnel matter was resolved by proper utilization of the PCSSD's policies and procedures. The district court did not err in denying the Joshua Intervenors' motion which, in any event, is now moot. The PCSSD respectfully requests oral argument in this appeal. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT .. .. .......... . ... . TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .... . ........... . ...... . ........... . .. iii COUNTERSTATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 1 9 ARGUMENT .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 I. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPROVED THE ODM II. BUDGET NOTWITHSTANDING THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A. The Joshua Intervenors Complaints Regarding Racial Disparities in Discipline Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 B. The Joshua Intervenors' Complaints Concerning the Achievement Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE \"ROBINSON\" MOTION .. . . . ... .. .... .... ... . . ..... ....... . ... 21 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education, 901 F. Supp. 784 (D. Del. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 18, 20 Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 609 F. Supp. 1491, 1515 and 1498 (D. Colo. 1985) .......................... 12-14, 19 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 LRSD vs. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7143 ............... 13, 15, 19, 20 Tasby v. Woolery, 869 F. Supp. 454 (N.D. Tex. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 iii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COUNTERSTATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL I. Appellants' Issue No. 1 relates solely to the LRSD's incentive schools, and is not addressed by the PCS SD. II. WHETlIER THE DISTRICT COURT'S HANDLING OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REQUEST THAT THE ODM STAFF BE EXPANDED TO ALLOW INCREASED MONITORING WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE EARLIER MANDATES OF THIS COURT? LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) III. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REQUEST THAT THE ODM STAFF BE EXPANDED SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION? Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 902 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Colo. 1995) Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education, (D. Del. 1995) Tasby v. Woolery. 869 F. Supp. 454 (N.D. Tex. 1994) 901 F. Supp. 784, IV. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION SEEKING ODM MONITORING AT ROBINSON HIGH SCHOOL SHOULD BE AFFIRMED? LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) lV I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The ODM Budget On December 13, 1996, the Josh,1a Intervenors filed their objections to the ODM budget and requested additional ODM monitors based, primarily, upon a perceived need due to a racial \"achievement gap\" and purported racial disparity in discipline throughout the districts. J. App. 252. The district court, however, approved the ODM budget as submitted. J. Add. 17. This appeal followed notwithstanding testimony by court appointed experts, Dr. David Armor and Dr. Herbert Walberg, that the achievement gap is the result of socioeconomic factors rather than current discrimination, and that these same socioeconomic factors play a deciding role in disciplinary actions across the nation. LRSD App. 264, 451-52, 543-45. 1 2. The Robinson High School Motion Prior to the filing of the budget objections, the Joshua Intervenors, on November 1, 1996, filed their motion to request ODM monitoring of Robinson High School or, in the alternative, for PCSSD to show cause. J.App. 225. Paragraph 2 of the motion states: \"Most of the complaints relate to the administration of the principal, Ralph Hoffman, and the apparent support he has been given by the Superintendent of Schools, Bobby Lester, and the Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District.\" J.App. 225. Mr. 1 PCSSD's appendix, submitted herewith, is cited as \"PC App. 11 Some of the materials included therein were filed with the district court on July 2, 1997. See PC App. 107-09. The Joshua Intervenors' appendix is cited as \"J.App. 11 , and the Little Rock School District's appendix as 11LRSD App. 11 I I Hoffman had previously been a principal in the Little Rock School District before becoming I principal at Robinson. Id. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The PCSSD responded on November 26, 1996 stating that th~ Joshua lntervenors' motion was improper because: \"It is, at bottom, primarily a complaint about one employee and therefore a personnel matter. By bringing its motion, Joshua has compromised the traditional steps to be taken in investigating and evaluating complaints concerning a single employee and they have effectively compromised the PCSSD's ability to appropriately and fairly respond to the allegations.\" J.App. 241-242. The PCSSD response continued at paragraph 8. Id. at 242. Indeed, it is Joshua who has compromised a personnel matter and which has precipitously and prematurely aired allegations which have not been fully investigated and for which it apparently has no documentary support, all as indicated in paragraph 11 of its motion. Thereafter, the District Court denied the Joshua Intervenors' motion (J. Add. 5-6) and stated in part that: \"The Court considers the allegations against the principal at Robinson High School an individual personnel matter which should be dealt with by the PCSSD according to its own processes. However, the Court encourages the parties to continue using the resources of the ODM to assist in resolving this issue .\" J.Add. 6. This appeal followed. During the pendency of the appeal, the ODM interceded at Robinson and ultimately issued its own report. PC App. 1-8. The PCSSD conducted its own investigation and followed its own written personnel policies. Mr. Hoffman resigned effective June 6, 1997 and is no longer employed by the PCSSD. PC App. 9. On June 10, 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1997, the PCSSD appointed Mr. Herb Brooks, an African-American and long time principal at Fuller Junior High School, as the new Robinson principal. 3. The PCSSD Desegregation Plan Most of the issues alleged in the Joshua Intervenors' motion concern complaints about discipline and discipline related issues. (See generally, Joshua Motion beginning at J.App. 225.) The Joshua Appendix includes portions of the PCSSD Desegregation Plan. The Plan includes provisions, among others, that dictate the resolution of issues such as discipline. For instance, with regard to the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, the Court approved plan states: J.App. 322. J.App. 323. J.App. 325. The Assistant will work with all departments to establish procedural guidelines which provide that desegregation issues will be raised and resolved as appropriate both in system-wide planning and in each school building. With advice from legal counsel, and working through the Office of Desegregation, the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation provides for the District's compliance with civil rights laws and court orders, and will see that the Office of Desegregation recommends corrective action as needed. The Office of Desegregation has worked, and will continue work, directly with principals to insure equity at the building level. It is further a function of the District's Office of Desegregation to include: Receiving, processing and preparing responses to civil rights inquiries, regardless of source, and preparing internal evaluations of operations or activities where discriminatory practices are alleged, which includes 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J.App. 325 reporting the results of the investigations to the supervisor of the operation or activity involved and to the Superintendent of Schools. The PCSSD Desegregation Plan further provides that: J.App. 380 Id. at 380. Disciplinary records are kept on each student concerning suspensions and expulsions that note 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 that require attention. 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. 4. The PCSSD Discipline Management System Among the goals set forth in the PCSSD Plan are the development of a \"district-wide school-based discipline management system\" . Id. at 312. This school based management system was to be developed with input from teachers, parents, and administrators. Id. On January 24, 1995, counsel for the District submitted to counsel for all of the other parties copies of the \"Pulaski County Special School District Discipline Management System Manual\" . PCSSD App. 10. Thereafter, the court having received no objections or comments, the Discipline Management Manual was filed with the District Court on February 15, 1995 pursuant to the Desegregation Plan. PC App. 11. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page one of the Discipline Management System sets forth information concerning the procedure that students and parents should utilize for the filing of grievances, which information could be obtained either from the principal or from the pupil personnel office. PC App. 13. Included in the introduction to the Discipline Management System are the following comments: PC App. 16. Few would argue that maintaining good discipline is a necessary precondition to establishing a school or classroom climate that is conducive to learning. That is a given. The real question is how to establish that discipline in such a way as to support learning and encourage growth in all the students. This presents no challenge to the teacher for 90 % of the students. The remaining ten percent of the students require more, not because they are bad or unteachable, but because they are growing up in a society that is more challenging than the socialization they receive. Also, they appear not to have the usual supports available to them (i.e., parental concern or support). As the society for which the children are being prepared becomes more complex, the percentage of children coming to school less than prepared for learning is bound to increase. It is a challenge that must be addressed. The major role of the school principal has changed from that of providing a place for teachers to teach to that of providing a climate for learning and an enthusiasm for the learning process. This includes creative attention to issues of discipline and a safe and orderly environment in the school and classroom. The manual goes on to state that: Despite all efforts at prevention, discipline problems inevitably occur. When a discipline problem does occur, the teacher needs to address the problem as quickly as possible. The first step is to implement the consequence associated with the rule violation as agreed to in the social contract. Being careful of nonverbal 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PC App. 21 . gestures and indicators, the consequence should be implemented quickly and without a great deal of fuss. When violations occur with great regularity, the class ought to be asked to assess the rule and see if something could be adjusted to reduce the number of occurrences. The manual is direct regarding the issue of suspension and expulsions: PC App. 22. Teachers are asked to explore and develop consequences that minimize the loss of school time for the student. Suspensions and expulsions should be considered only when every other avenue of correction has been exhausted, in keeping with the regulations established in the student handbook. This concept is reinforced elsewhere in the manual. PC App. 23. The campus administrators are asked to utilize the various levels of referrals to keep the student in school or to minimize the out-of-school time of the student short of expulsion. 5. PCSSD School-Based Discipline Management Program While the manual is a broad conceptual consensus outline developed by a biracial committee, the development of a discipline management program is individual for each campus: Each individual campus is encouraged to express its individual character in the development of the DMP. This manual expresses how the DMP should be organized. This version is offered as a model that seems to meet most of the goals set out for a discipline management plan. Under the leadership of the principal, each school community is expected to devise a plan that is uniquely theirs and that they can implement. It is expected to have a consensus of those involved in the planning process. It is also expected to address the mission of that school in regard to the discipline 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PC App. 27. management and how that school intends to carry out that mission with fairness and justice for all the students in its care. * * * The expectation of the campus DMP is that each year will bring about a decrease in the disparity between the white and black student populations in terms of disciplinary actions in that school. The data from school year 1994-1995 will be used as the benchmark in the evaluation of the impact of each campus DMP. Discipline-related data from the 1992-1993 school year is included in appendix 2. This data was used by the Discipline Management Committee to develop this document. The manual contains a procedure for assisting individual campuses whose progress lags behind those of other District campuses: PC App. 28. At the discretion of the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services and the Division of Instruction, a special team will be recruited from the staff of another school with similar problems which is making good progress. This team, under the supervision of the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services, will assist that staff in identifying the causes for the lack of progress and the ways these causes can be addressed. Toward the end of the manual, it is observed that: PC App. 32. The diversity of the school populations that the schools now serve requires the schools to rethink the issue of appropriate school behavior and to create a climate in which academic achievement can become a reality for all students. School appropriate behavior must be examined in light of the various cultural and racial groups comprising the school. Equity is an issue that must be considered in the conceptualization of alternative strategies. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6. The PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline The Joshua Intervenors, by their Robinson motion as well as their motion objecting to the ODM budget (and requesting additional OCM monitors), bypassed the procedures for challenging disciplinary action set forth in the PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline (the \"Handbook\"). PC App. 67-74. The Handbook, the reading of which must be acknowledged in writing by each student and his or her parent or guardian, (PC App. 68), provides two distinct grievance procedures: (1) those related to a student or parent filing a grievance under the desegregation policy set forth in the Handbook (PC App. 71); and (2) a complaint procedure for students or parents when a student is involved in a disciplinary ruling. PC App. 72. The Joshua Intervenors, however, did not utilize these procedures and filed their motion directly with the district court requesting relief. Joshua never employed the PCSSD's policy and procedures as set forth in the Handbook. 7. The \"Suspension Index\" for Assessing Discipline Outcomes A general \"suspension index\" has been developed by Dr. Charles Achilles, who served as an expert witness in the Wilmington, Delaware case and whose methodology was endorsed by Dr. Walberg in this case. (LRSD App. 373-375, 381-384). The index allows comparison of one district's suspension rate for minorities to other districts and to the national average. The PCSSD's index and Robinson's are both lower than the nationwide index of 2.0. The suspension indices for the past five years for the PCSSD system-wide have decreased from 1. 77 to 1.45 and for Robinson alone, have ranged from 1.88 to 1.35 for 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the same years.2 These indices are lower than those of school districts which have achieved unitary status. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Joshua Intervenors have appealed a number of rulings of the district court, to wit, the court's approval of the ODM budget and denial of their motion relating to Robinson High School. The Joshua Intervenors complain that their objections to the ODM budget were not properly considered, and that their request for additional ODM monitors should have been granted. The purported bases for their objections and requests are the \"achievement gap\" between white and minority students, and the alleged racial disparity in disciplinary treatment of minority students. Neither bases, however, withstands scrutiny. The testimony of experts appointed by the court in this case, and similar testimony in other cases where school districts have achieved unitary status, show that socioeconomic factors rather than current discrimination are the real reason why school children achieve at different rates and why some children are disciplined. In accepting this testimony, federal courts have found that, notwithstanding racial disparities, a school district may be in good faith compliance with its desegregation plan. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the ODM budget over the objections of the Joshua Intervenors. The Joshua Intervenors also challenge the district court's denial of their motion for ODM monitoring of Robinson High School. The court's denial, however, was soundly based 2 See nn. 6 \u0026 9, infra. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I upon a finding that Joshua was complaining about an individual personnel matter which should be left to the district to deal with according to its policies and procedures. The principal al:lout whom the Joshua Intervenors complained, in fact, resigned after the PCSSD was allowed to carry out its own business. Additionally, ODM did monitor Robinson High School and made recommendations to the administration and the school community. In essence, the Joshua lntervenors' motion and appeal are moot but, in any event, the district court did not err in denying their motion. ARGUMENT The focus of a District Court charged with monitoring implementation of a comprehensive remedial desegregation decree must be, as explained more fully infra, on the proper system-wide implementation of the components of the decree. Particularly when the decree, or in this instance the agreed Plans, contain discrete due process provisions for resolution of individual complaints or concerns, the District Court should have no reason to involve itself in individual student or patron complaints, or individual personnel matters, when the institutional process already exists to deal with those. Indeed, in any large institutional setting, there will always be some concern or outcome disagreement even if a remedial device, such as the Desegregation Plans agreed upon here, are implemented not only in good faith but even with near precision. For these and other reasons set forth below, the District Court's orders were correct and should be sustained. By their appeal, the Joshua lntervenors take issue with a number of the district court's orders, including (i) treatment of their requests for additional ODM monitors and objections 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I to the ODM Budget and (ii) denial of the Robinson motion. In support of their argument that the orders should be reversed, tbey point this Court to a number of \"facts\" which the district court either allegedly ignorrc or misinterpreted.3 Included are allegations of discriminatory treatment of black students in certain areas, primarily discipline, both systemwide and at PCSSD's Robinson High School, allegations which Joshua lays predominantly at the feet of the now resigned principal, Mr. Hoffman. J. App. 225. I. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPROVED THE ODM BUDGET NOTWITHSTANDING THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS This Court, in approving the Desegregation Plan in 1990, noted that it was the \"duty of the court, when fashioning a comprehensive remedy, to prescribe a level of relief . . . that will achieve integration to the maximum practicable extent. \" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1384 (8th Cir. 1990). That is what has been done here, and the PCSSD has implemented the remedy, the Desegregation Plan, as well as the Discipline Management System required by the Desegregation Plan. The problem, however, is that the Joshua Intervenors do not look to whether the plan has been implemented, achieving integration to the maximum practicable extent; rather, they focus not on implementation but outcomes which are not legally required. The Joshua lntervenors must recognize, as have courts in other jurisdictions when faced with 3 Some of these \"facts\" bear little or no relationship to the Joshua Intervenors' requests or objections. For present purposes, and given the nature of the record submitted by Joshua with this appeal, it is impossible for the PCSSD to refute the discrete individual allegations made concerning individual students. However, as we explain infra, under the law it is unnecessary for the PCSSD to do this. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I unreasonable expectations, that a desegregation plan cannot cure all of societies' ills, nor is it designed to do so: [T]here is nothing in the law which does or couk require equality in the results of educational services. . . . No school policy and no court order can assure any particular level of success in public schools any more than in any other aspect of life. Individual students will flunk, become disciplinary problems, drop out or otherwise fail to meet expectations for reasons wholly unrelated to race, ethnicity, and environment. Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 609 F. Supp. 1491, 1515 and 1498 (D. Colo. 1985)(\"Keyes XIV\")4. Thus, the Joshua Intervenors' objections to the ODM budget and the concomitant request for additional ODM monitors -- based upon their complaints concerning achievement gaps and allegedly racially disparate disciplinary actions -- were properly considered; the district court, however, did not err in approving the budget over the objections. As discussed below, a number of school districts nationwide have been granted unitary status in the face of less achievement under a desegregation plan than that exhibited by the PCSSD. Indeed, they were granted unitary status where there was an adjudication of liability, but where any disparities were found to be, not the vestiges of dual systems but, rather, of outside factors. Here, the PCSSD was released in 1989, pursuant to the PCSSD Settlement Agreement, from all liability for issues which had been raised, or which could have been raised. The Joshua Intervenors specifically agreed that there would be no further litigation other than proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or of the Desegregation Plans. PC App. 75-79. Thus, the PCSSD's obligations were only forward 4 For a complete procedural history of the Keyes litigation, see Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 902 F. Supp. 1274, n.1 (D. Colo. 1995). 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I looking, and it has fully complied with its obligations to the Joshua Intervenors and to the children it educates -- both minority and white -- to desegregate its school district according to Plan. A. The Joshua Intervenors Complaints Regarding Racial Disparities in Discipline Rates While there may, indeed, be statistical racial disparities in discipline rates, such disparities do not mean that the PCSSD has not properly implemented the Desegregation Plan. Indeed, other school districts across the country have achieved unitary status in the face of greater statistical disparities. 5 For example, in Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 902 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Colo. 1995), the court granted the Denver school district's motion to terminate jurisdiction in a longstanding desegregation case. It did so notwithstanding statistical racial disparities in discipline rates, noting that these differences -- among others -- are longstanding and seemingly intractable, but the mere existence of such differences does not identify them as 5 As noted by Judge Posner in People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, _, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7143 at *18 (7th Cir. 1996), \"[a]ffirmative decrees are a formula for protraction.\" Recent Supreme Court decisions, however, have provided new guidance for the district courts in bringing school desegregation cases to a close. See, ~. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992)(the district court's duties in the final phases of a desegregation case are to determine whether there has been compliance with the desegregation decree since it was entered and whether the vestiges of past discrimination were eliminated to the extent practicable). The constitutional authority of the federal courts does not include the power to posit any particular affirmative achievements. While the PCSSD relies upon the consistent outcomes of other significant desegregation cases across the nation, this Court should not interpret such reliance as any lack of resolve or commitment of the PCSSD to continue implementation of its Plan and to realize the best desegregation outcomes attainable, whether or not legally required. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I vestiges of the prior dual system. \"There are too many variables, including societal and socio-economic facts, to infer causation from prior unconstitutional conduct.\" Id. at 1300. Similarly, in Coaliti.on to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education, 901 F. Supp. 784, 817 and n.38 (D. Del. 1995), the Delaware district court, granting unitary status to the Wilmington, Delaware school districts, found that the disciplinary codes were not applied in a discriminatory manner and expressly rejected as \"skewed\" any statistics \"which do not account for the fact that a small core of students account for a large percentage of the disciplinary instances, i.e., the fact that black students may account for a greater proportion of suspensions than their proportion in the general student population is essentially meaningless if only a handful of black students is responsible for multiple suspensions.\" In Coalition, Dr. Charles Achilles, an expert, employed \"suspension indices\" accepted by the district court to test whether discipline was disproportionately applied to black students. He compared those numbers with the suspension data from the 1993 Office for Civil Rights data, and determined that the national suspension index for black students is 2.0, whereas the Wilmington black suspension index was 1.81.6 901 F. Supp. at 817. Applying Dr. Achilles' methodology, and using the 1995-96 suspension data for the PCSSD, the PCSSD has a suspension index of 1.45, well below either the Wilmington schools or the 6 The \"suspension index\" for black students is derived by dividing the percentage of black students suspended by the percentage of black enrollment. Dr. Achilles also looked at external data sets (i.e., the behavior of black students outside the districts, independent of the school districts). He also checked \"consistency\" to determine if the behaviors and the suspensions seemed to be consistent and, finally, he tested the \"discretion of the person in charge of the discipline\" to see whether discretion influenced the suspension indices. 901 F. Supp. at 817. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I national norm. Indeed, its index has been well below the national norm for the past five years. 7 Most recently, the Seventh Circuit, in ruling !U response to nine consolidated appeals, found racial disciplinary quotas to violate equity \"in its root sense.\" Commenting in the quota context, but fully applicable to the statistical complaints of the Joshua Intervenors here, the court stated: They entail either systematically overpunishing the innocent or systematically underpunishing the guilty. They place race at war with justice. People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, _, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7143 at *33. The incidents touted by the Joshua Intervenors are selective with respect to certain schools and certain individual students, and do not reflect the PCSSD's systemwide good faith compliance with the disciplinary provision of the Desegregation Plan. Indeed, the Pupil Personnel Annual Report Summaries indicate that for the past few years, disciplinary actions 7 Using Dr. Achille's formula of dividing the percentage of minority suspensions by the percentage of minority enrollment, the PCSSD has calculated the following system-wide suspension indices: 1995-96: 1994-95: 1993-94: 1992-93: 1991-92: 48 % minority suspensions + 33 % minority enrollment = 1.45 48% minority suspensions + 31 % minority enrollment = 1.55 51 % minority suspensions + 30 % minority enrollment = 1. 70 49 % minority suspensions + 29 % minority enrollment = 1. 69 48 % minority suspensions + 27 % minority enrollment = 1. 77 Utilizing PC App. 80-99. 15 I I I I "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1659","title":"Court filings: District Court, supporting documents","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":["1997-07-02"],"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","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joe T. Robinson High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","School management and organization","School discipline","Students","Student suspension","Student expulsion"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, supporting documents"],"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/1659"],"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":["140 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 R Ec1:111,:D JUL 2 - 1997 DESEGRJFF!CE OF TION MONiTORJNG NOTICE OF FILING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Please take notice that the PCSSD is filing the following documents as part of the record in this case: 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Climate Analysis Process and Climate of Robinson High School, both performed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring this Spring. 2. A portion of the minutes of the Board of Directors meeting of the PCSSD dated May 13, 1997. 3. Letter dated January 24 , 1995 from counsel for the PCSSD to all other counsel in the case. 4. Pertinent portions of the PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline, 1996-97, Secondary Edition . 5. Portions of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised September 28, 1989, including pages 19 and portions of the attached PCSSD release. 6. Pertinent portions of the 1995-96 Pupil Personnel Services Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 7. Pertinent portions of the 1994-95 Pupil Personnel Services Annual Report ' describing discipline outcomes. 8. Pertinent portions of the 1993-94 Pupil Personnel Services Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 9. Pertinent portions of the 1992-93 Pupil Personnel Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 10. Pertinent portions of the 1991-92 Pupil Personnel Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 11. Letter dated May 16, 1997 from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to Mr. John W. Walker regarding climate analysis at Robinson High School. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 ' ,,-?\"' / By  ,, , ~-----1, -( -- --- M. Samuel Jones III (16060) Attorney~ for PU-Hiski County 8.peci--arschool District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 2, 1997, 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 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ODM CLIMATE ANALYSIS PROCESS The ODM climate analysis process occurred in six steps: 1. Collecting and Analyzing Archival Data To develop a statistical picture of Robinson High School, ODM examined archival data that included attendance zone maps, census tract demographics. enrollment reports, school profiles. quarterly discipline records, and extracurricular participation rates. We also studied the school CO E. (Creating Opportunities for Excellence) staff, student, and parent survey results. 2. Site Observations A team of ODM monitors formally visited Robinson twice, and individual monitors returned to the school on other occasions for interviews and observations. We observed a total of 44 classes, representing eleven disciplines (such as math, social studies, etc.) and four activities (such as basketball. cheerleading, etc.). We stayed in individual classrooms from 30 to 60 minutes or lo nger. noting the physical environment (such as visuals. facilities, seating patterns, etc.). instructio nal approaches, and the nature of student-to-student and student-to-teacher interactions. \\Ve also watched the interplay among students, staffs, and administrators during the morning bus arrival, class changes, and lunch. Additionally. we observed student interaction during one home basketball game when the boys and girls varsity teams played Lonoke High School. 3. Interviewing School Staff. Students, and Parents ODM interviewed randomly selected staff, students. and parents. We asked interviewees about their perceptions of interactions among various groups at Robinson and about their opinions of the strengths and weaknesses of the school. :\\1onitors conducted one-on-one interviews with 39 randomly selected students (approximately l ')0/o of the student body). Over half of the student interviewees ( 54%) were white and 460 \\\\ ere black Based on a random drawing, monitors identified and interviewed 16 staff members (31 % of th e total staff). Blacks comprised 31 % of staff interviewees and whites 69%. We talked to teachers. cafete ria workers, office staff, and paraprofessionals, as well as the principal and assistant principal. 0 OM conducted parent interviews by phone. We randomly generated a list of 43 parents. representing both black and white parents from various geographic areas within the Robinson attendance zone. The list also included the parents of majority-to-minority transfer students who lived in adjacent school districts. Overall, 26% of the parents we interviewed were black and 7 4% were white. - 4. Organizing the Finding, After gathering information from the various sources, we grouped our findings into broad categories (such as geography, leadership, etc.) Each individual monitor assumed responsibility for various categories and converted the data into a series of comprehensive summaries. 5. Reaching Conclusions Working in concert, the ODM monitors drew conclusions by identifying patterns across the data summaries and drawing connections bet.veen various pieces of information. We focused most of our conclusions on broad themes rather than individual behaviors and incidents. 6. Making Recommendations Finally, ODM developed a series of recommendations based directly on our findings. We attempted to make the recommendations as broad as possible in order to address more than one specific finding. The recommendations are applicable to the Robinson High School community as well as the PCSSD central administration. and are offered as suggestions for improving the school environment not only at Robinson, but at other schools in the district. CLIMATE OF ROBlNSON HIGH SCHOOL Strengths (Identified by Staff, Students, and Parents)  The students themselves. especially their comradery and good interpersonal relations Diversity of the student body (race. socioeconomic status. geographic are:i) Small size of school and local community Racial integration of the school An environment that is safe  Many involved parents Parents feel welcome at the school Teachers who care about their students and work hard Positive relationships between the students and staff Some strong relationships among staff members The academic program Block scheduling Sports  A strong program for students with special needs A strong administration An administration that has improved the academic program and established a safe environmem Strong discipline Additional Strengths (Identified by ODM) Well-maintained facility that is attractive and welcoming Orderly environment Students who are friendly and respectful Cooperative administration, staff, students, and parents Most classes are racially integrated Some good teaching practices Additional factors that have contributed to the climate at Robinson High School Geography The Robinson attendance zone is far ranging and very diverse, with a student enrollment that also includes M-to-M transfer students from various neighborhoods. \\\\-rule such diversity is a strength of the school, it is also a potential barrier to maintaining a cohesive school community. Expectations The principal expected to have the latitude to make changes as he saw fit. The pn11cipal believed he had been hired to increast! order at Robinson High. Prior to his arrival. the school had experienced disc1pli11e problems. racial conflict, and loss of e11rollmelll. The staff did not expect sweeping changes. Staff seemed pleased wiih the increased order and discipline established in the las! !WO and half years, bm they were not so pleased w1th other changes i11st1wted by the principal. The adve11t of block scheduling caused greaI co11stematio11. While there was general support for the co11cept, staff felt they did not have mough say i11 the decision. Issues related to the scheduli11g of athletics and spint teams caused a rremendous rift between some staff. parents, and rhe adm1msrraao11. The principal' s values and Robinson s traditions represented a culture clash. The prmcipal sought ro increase the emphasis on academics a11d achrevemenc, b111 many teachers believe he did so at the expense of Robinson rradiuons. Sports have been very important lO Robinson studellls. parents. and teachers. Attendance at sporting evellls was often the on(v school-related acuvrty reported by parents m our imervrft'r11s. i\\,fany members of the school community perceived the pnnc1pal as anti-athletic. One student said she thought the admi11istration was trying to /Um Robi11so11 imo \"something rt is not . ..  The PCSSD did not plan for change at Robinson High If the district had made effons to help facilitate the leadership rransrtion at the school. many of the current problems could have been avoided or at least m111imi:ed The dismct should have worked closely with the prrnc1pal to help acquaint him with the traditional culture and values at the school. If the district expected the pri11c1pal to make changes at Robinson, they should have articulated this charge to the staff and parents as well. Leadership The principal' s leadership style was perceived as autocratic by many of the staff, students, and parents. Many staff members felt they were not involved in the decision-making process within the school. , Trust has become frai.tile or non-existent between some individuals and groups. Wt! rept!at11dly ht!ard comments that reveall:!d various levels of distn1st between the administration and many staff members. as well as among some staff A minimum of infonnal inter:iction between the principal and many of the school's students, staff, and parents has contributed to perceptions that the principal was generally distant and aloof Some pi:!ople told us that the principal was seldom in the halls or cafeteria to mingl11 with st11dents and staff Others hi:!li11ved that the prmcrpal was oftm away from the school during the day or that he declined to participate in some school activities. especially athletic events. The few opportumtiesfor informal imeraction wrdened the distance between the principal and members of the school community. A lack of general collegiality has characterized the relationship between the principal and most staff members, contributing to a general lack of cohesiveness that has inhibited communication. understanding, trust, respect, shared work goals, and mutual support. Th11 school's admimstrators and faculty have not bonded well either as professional colleagues or as informal associates. Building positive relationships is work that requires time, attention. shanng, and muwal support on the part of all involved. Some staff. students, and parents have sensed a racial undercurrent at Robinson and perceived that racial prejudice has been a negative factor in some interactions. They be!il:!ved that racial prep1dice has impeded objective decision-making and caused inequitable trearmem of soml:! individuals and groups. Problem Solving ).\"o mechanism has been in place at Robinson to anticipate problems and head them off Small problems and disagreements between the administration and staff members were not addressed early on, so some small problems escalated into much larger ones. Few. if any outlets, were available for the adrninimation and staff to vent frus-trations and concerns without going through the formal grievance process. 01her rhan 1he Jonna! gnevance process, 111dividuals who were dissansfied had few opnons for ventmg 1hetr frustrations or solving 1he1r problems. Eventually neganw feelings compounded mlSt de1enorated. anger 1tscalated, and a tense atmosphere prevaJ/ed; some individuals l:!ven acted on a desire /0 retaliate. Many staff members perceived that central office administrators did not give adequate attention to the problems developing at Robinson nor did they provide direction and support for solving problems until they had grown to enonnous proportions. No staff development or any other kind of meaningful intervention was initiated early on to assist the school's administrators or staff in resolving the problems they were facing. Even !hough leaders at both Rohinson and the central office were aware !hat the school was experiencing serious difficulties, they did not quickly move lo objectlvely analy:e the problems or set about fixing them. Professionalism Many members of the staff manifested inappropriate professional behavior by individually soliciting parent and student involvement in their controversy with the principal. 'v(aJ1y srajj members, parents, and swdents were distressed by the pressure they received to take sides on issues. Some starf members have shown favoritism to certain students and parents. Some swdents and parents 1:xpressed 1ea/011sy, resenrment. and a sense that everyone co11/J11 't expect fair, 11qwtable rrearment. They perceived that some people were shown javonusm based 011 race or soc10economrc status. Instructional Quality Teachers exhibited uneven instructional performance. We found some classes that were well orgam:ed with motivarional teachers and involved studems, hlll in too many other classes we smv disengaged st11d11111s and teachers who were not presennng mformat1011111 an engagmg way. In a few cases. we found teachers who had a poor grasp of rhe basic comem of the course they were teach111g.  A number of te:ichers made poor use of instructional time. We saw maJTy teachers that seemed to be havlllg some rro11b!e adj11sring to the longer class periods afforded by block scheduling. The extended time period should have allowed for more ac11ve swdenr leam111g. but some teachers were su!l spending an ho11r or more lecwnng. In some classes. teachers S.:f!med 10 \"coast\" durmg the last 30 mmwes of class rime, usmg nomma!!y re/el'CI!ll matena/s 10 .fill nme. While teachers sel!med 10 be srn,gg!ing to .fill class lime wuh meaJ1mgf11I !eannng act1v111es, some pare ms comp/al/led that swdents did not have enough learning nme during the school day, and that the teachers did not have llme to adequately exp/am new concepts. Some classes were lacking in order and control. Whzle most classes were orderly, af(?W were dramatic excep110ns. We noted classes where no one seemed to be in charge: consequem!y, no learning could rake place. Student Behavior Some srudent behaviors may indicate a backlash against school rules that students have perceived as too restrictive. For example. fo//(J'Wing their lunch period, students left the cafeteria in a deplorable state. Much of the mess appeared to be the result of conscious neglect. We saw uneaten food, large m,mbers of unused napkins strewn on 1he floor, half-filled plastic cups, and ketcfn,p smeared across tables and chairs. Cafeteria workers said some swdents Jon 't appear 10 feel it's /heir responsibility to pick up after themselves when lunch is over. Although we saw adults supervising in the cafeteria. few of them encouraged student to bus their own 1ab{es before leaving. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Work to establish an atmosphere of collegiality and the re.1liry of teamsmanship among the entire staff Collegialiry ,s fosr2red by a number of factors, including agreement 011 common values aJ1d goals: respect for the ideas and comnhutions of fellow workers: /2adersh1p that elicits and s11pporrs a s2ns2 of teamsmanship: and opporwmtiesfor i11forma/ interaction that allows co-workers to feel comforrahle wirh 011e anorher and develop a ge1111i11e se11se of connectedness a11d caring 2. Bring together existing school organizations (such as staff committees, student council, equity committee, etc ) to squarely confront both the perception and reality of racism and other prejudices and work to eliminate them. Recog11i:mg that prejudice and bigotry are teamed, use inservice rraining. swdent workshops, open andjrank disc11ssio11, multicultural opporru11ities in the curriculum, staff retreats, behavior modeling, and all other available means to eliminate biased behavior and atti wdes. 3. The PCSSD should de\\e!op both a fonnal system for regularly assessing school climate and a process for delling with conflict within a school community.  The key to a posime school envrronment is wg,lmu monitoring of the factors that comprise the climate and addressing problems before they escalare. !11 addition. an organi:ed approach to d2aling wirh co11J7icts wirhm individual schools will help solve probl2ms before they are playd out in the evening news. 4. The district administrar;on should support a summer retreat for the Rci:inson staff led by a skilled, outside professional. A summer rerreat or series of retreats will allow the Robinson stafj an opporru111ry to reflect m1d leamfrom recent experrences. 1dennfy changes they need to make, and commll to overcoming the problems that have divided them. 5 All stakeholders at Robinson (parents, students. administration, support staif. facuity. and PCS SD administrators) should work together to deve!cp a vision for the sc:1001' s short and long tenn future. 6 Develop and implemem a staff development program on communication skills Bnng in tramers 1~1th a proven track record in the area of orgam:auonal a11d crosscultural communrcanon. Thrs r;,pe of tramrng should be an ongoing actmry ratha than the one shot,. i11oculat1on approach. 7. Provide more staff training on effective time management and varied instructional approaches for the 90 minute periods offered through block scheduling. 8. Consider collaborating with the staffs of other secondary schools in central Arkansas who have had a history of successfully implementing block scheduling. 9. Plan additional staff development for teachers who need skill development (such as classroom management techniques). Io. rn selecting the next principal. take care to match the vision. strengths. needs. culture. and expectations of the school community with the skills. style. vision. and expectations of the prospective principal. 11 . The school PTO and Equity Committee should jointly establish a plan of act ion to deve!op a more inclusive school community 12. The staff should involve student representatives in the fonnulation of school-based rules and policies. 13 . Staff members and srudent leaders should present a united front to encourage the student body to exhibit more responsible beha,ior toward maintaining a clean school en,ironment. P.2 A.DDENDVM  BOARD OF EDUCAUON MEETING MAY13, 1997 !;!,_EMENT4,RY ELFCTIQNS Wendy Case Resource To Be Assigned Nicole Robinson ElemcntarY To Be ASSigned SECONDARY ELfCTJONS Richard Allen Bishop Jacksonville Jr. High Art Rel'.)lacing: Richard Alan Llsemby Transferred to Social Stu.dies BESIGNATJQNS Brenda Groce (Priroa.ry) Temporary Oakbcook.e Elemenwy Andrea Knapp (Kindergarten) Temporary Sherwood Elemenwy Julie Rasmuson (Biology/Chemistry/Coach) Robinson High Ralph Hoffman (Principal) Robinson High School Searcy. AR; Certification: Special Ed. BA  Harding University at Searcy ,AR Experience: None Beginning: August 14, 1997 Warren, AR; Cettification: Elementary BS  U of A at Pine Bluff, AR Experience: None Beginning: August 14, 1997 Mtn. View, AR; Certification: Art K-12 BS Hardini University at Searcy, AR Experience: Two and ooc half (2-1/2) years outside the District \u0026ginning: August 14, 1997 June 17, 1997 June 17, 1997 June 17, 1997 June 6, 1997 EOWARO L . WRIGMT i I 903-t 977) ROBERT S LINOSEY WRIGHT. LINDSEY 8: JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 tl 91J.!991J RONALD A MAY IS AA.C A. SCOTT JR .;AMES M MOODY JOM N G LILE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 7 2 20 I 3699 GORD(\" t;RATHER. JR TERR)' THEWS DAVID .JWELL ROGER ..., GLASGOW C OOUGLAS BUFORD. JR PATRICK J GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS JR JOI-IN R flSDALE KATMLYN GRAVES '-t SAMUEL JON ES ill JOHN -N IL.LIAM SPIVEV IU LEE J MULDROW WENDELL L GRIFFEN N M NORTON. JR EDGAR J TVLER CHARLES C PRICE CHARLES T COLEMAN JAMES J GLOVER EDWIN L . LOWTHER. JR BEVERLY BAS SETT SCHAFFER CHARLES L SCHLUMBERGER SAMMY( L TA.VLOR WALTER E. MAV Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms. Christopher Heller Stephen Jones John W. Walker Richard Roachell Ann Brown Elizabeth Boyter ( 501 ) 371-0808 FA.X 1!5011 376,9442 OF COUNSEL ALS TON JENNING S GEORGE E LUSK J R January 24, 1995 A.N,.,.( I-IIR A I GIB S ON CRECORV T .JON ES M ~EIT,_. '4QRR ISON BETTINA E BRO'o'fNSTE JN H.-.LiER \"'4 CS P.-.OOEN ROGER O ROWE NA \"CY BELLHOUSE MAY JQl-+N O DAVIS .. UOY S IMMONS HE'-IRY K IMBERLV WOOO T'JCKER '4ARK L PRYOR RAY F COX JR H-'RRY 5 ,..URST J R TROY A PRICE P'-i'qlC IA SI E V ERS LEHALLEN J A\"'4E5 M \"\"1000Y JR t\u003cATMRYN A PRYOR J '4AR,\u003c DAVIS C!..A IRE SNOWS HANCOCK l\u003c(V IN -H ,\u003c(NNEOY \"'4ARI( A ROGERS J ERRY J SALLINGS M TOCO WOOD R GREGORY ACLIN FRED M PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON M ICH AEL O SARNES STE.='HEN R i..ANCASTE\"' FRED ANDREW WOOD JUOV \"4 ROBINSON BETS Y MEACHAM AIN SLEY H LANG Re: Pulaski County Special School District Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed for each of you are copies of the Pulaski County Special School District Discipline Management System Manual together with a copy of Memorandum of Unqerstanding between the District and PACT dated January 12,. 1995. Bill Bowles tells me that our desegregation plan requires, and that we previously indicated to the Court, that we would first develop this system, then share it with the parties and, assuming no significant opposition, then file it with the Court. MSJ/jhs Enclosures JlullJOS.030 Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY f- omuel Jones, \u0026 JENNINGS III HANDBOOK FOR STUDENT CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE ~~~~~~- /: : ' ----', .. \"------,.,i .. ',: . ' .. ~ 1996-97 SECONDARY EDITION  w z :J 0 w ~ a: 0 u.. a: w a.. c., z g \u003c( I u ~ w 0 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PARENT-STUDENT STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY Student Name Date The statement below must be signed and returned to the homeroom teacherw1thIn one (1) week after the student receives ,t. If. after one ( 1) week. the student has not returned the form. he will not be permitted to attend class until he does comply. We have read the PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline and although we may not agree with all the regulations, we understand that the student must adhere to them while he ,s at school or In attendance at school sponsored activ1t1es. In the event that we are not entirely certain of some aspect of school policy, we w,11 contact the principal for clarification w1th1n one (1) week after receipt of that policy. Student Signature ParenVGuardian Signature Date State law (6-18-502. 6-18-505) requires documentation of student and parent receipt of student d1sc1pline polIcIes. This document will be included in the records packet for students transferring w1th1n Pulaski County Special School District .  TO THE STUDENTS: This document has been prepared for the purpose of outlining to you the expectations of the Pulaski County Special School District ,n regard to student conduct. The District recognizes that students are guaranteed full rights of c1t1zensh1p by the United States Const1tut1on; and these rights may not be denied except in accordance with due process of law. The District further recognizes that with these rights there are respons1bli1t1es which are designed to help all part1c1pants acquire the full benefits of the educational program, regardless of race. sex. creed or national origin. It 1s 1mposs1ble to list in this Handbook all of the rules and guidelines for student and staff use. Therefore. the contents of this Handbook should not be construed to limit or deny your rights and respons1b1ht1es on your own campus as a member of the student body or as a c1t1zen. Neither should the Handbook be construed as limiting or denying your principal the right and respons1b11ity to develop such necessary rules and regulations that are not 1ncons1stent with federal and state laws and Board of Education policies and regulations. Each student will receive a copy of the policy Handbook, and will be required to sign a statement of receipt. ii  Eddie Collins Assistant Superintendent Pup,! Personnel Services WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR STUDENT CONDUCT? Freedom 1s a constttut1onal nght. but it does not mean the absence of reasonable rules and regulations which serve to guide the actions of 1nd1v1duals. Along with freedom comes the respons1b1ltty to act In such a manner as to insure that all part1c1pants may en1oy the same freedom. To obtain the greatest possible benefit to the students, teachers. adm1n1strators, parents. Board of Education and ti'le entire community. 1t ,s essential that all work together to insure that all persons are treated equally and with d1gn1ty 1n respect to their rights and respons1b1htIes. Students Students have the respons:01hty to pursue their education tn the Pulaski County Special School O1stnct In a manner thats ows respect for other students. acuity members. parents and other c,tIzens. Students shot;ld be aware that they have a respons1b1'.1ty o cooperate with and ass,st tne school s a~ ,n the orderly and erf1c:ent conduct of he schoo1s by abiding by rules and regulations established by the Board of Education and r.e school of attendance. and implemented by teachers and school aom,nistrators. Each student 'S respors1ble for his own conduct at all times. Parents or Guardians Parents should carefully ,ead the pages of this handbook and assume a ,ead1ng role ,n ad IsIng their children of appropriate and inappropriate behavior at school. Parents should stress he r:,portance of a good educatton and conduct necessary to achieve ,t. Without the support of tne parents/guardians. this attempt o promote good c1t1zensh1p and success ,n ,,fe may not succeed and the student will be the one to suffer the consequences of struggling though 1fe ., 1 r:out benefit of an educauon. Arkansas Law 6-15-.116. 6- 5 . .1 7 establishes a penalty not to exceed 550 plus court costs and reasonable fees for any parent who fails to attend a student conference to discuss his child's failure to achieve mastery level periormance on a basic competency test at grade levels 6 and 8. Fa,lure on the part of the student's parents to attend the conference or o arrange another t,rr,e for he conference sub1ects them to the c1v1l penalty. Arkar,sas Law 6- 7-106 states that any person who shall abuse or ,nsult a public school teacher while hat teacher ,s performing normal and regular or assigned school respons,b1hlieS shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction be liable for a fine of not ,ess than 5100 nor rrore than S1 .500. o urauthor,zed person 1non-stt;dent) shall purposely en er or remain unlawfully tn a scnoot venIc:e or on the schaol premises. ICrim1nal respass - A.C.A 5-39-203) Teachers All eacrers are responsible for the superv,s,on of he bel-iav1or of all the students .n re sc,..col. This includes not only the s udents who are regularly ass:gred to the teacner. but all ot;,er students ~J1th ,1,hom the teacher comes 1n contact. Each teacher s expected to rna,nta1n the kind of atmospr,ere and decorum which will promote the learning crocess. and to ut11,ze sound :ecr-r1ques :ih1ch seem appropriate. These techniques ,nclude conferences mth students ar,o parents. referral o counse,ors at the school or referral to other supportive service personre of tre Oistnct rnurse. attendance caseworker. educational examiner. psycho1og1st). Wren re teacher 'S unable o assist the student to maintain proper controls of ,s benav1or. the stwdent s o be referred to the appropriate adrrnnistrator 1n the school.  , I School Administrators An administrator of each school will disseminate and explain to all students at the beginning of the school year, and will d1ssem1nate to each new student upon reg1strat1on. the rules and regulations currently in effect for that school. In developing rules and regulations the administrator Is expected to involve representatives. of the teaching staff. the student body and the patrons of the school. The administrator of each school is responsible for conducting continued inservice education for all personnel on a regular basis to interpret and implement established policies. Each principal. or the princ1pal's des,gnee. ,s authorized to assign students to detention. to work detail. to probation status and to suspend or to recommend the expulsion of students. The principal ,s expected to inform the parents or guardians of any student whose behavior ,s in serious conflict with established laws, rules and procedures. Superintendent The Superintendent ,s responsible for exercIsIng leadership ,n establishing all necessary procedures. rules and regulations to make effective t e Board of Education policies relating to standards of student behavior. * * * * * Board of Education The Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District. acting through the Superintendent. holds all school employees responsible for the supervision of the behavior of students while legally under the supervision of the school. The Board expects all employees to be concerned with student behavior and when and where unacceptable behavior occurs. to take appropriate action. * * * * * Nondiscrimination It ,s the policy of the Pulaski County Special School D1stnct to provide equal opportunities without regard to race, color. national origin, sex. age. qualified handicap or veteran ,n ,ts educational programs and act1vItIes. educational services. financial a,d and employment. Inquiries concerning application of this policy may be referred o: Director of Desegregat1on/EquIty Coordinator 925 East Dixon Road/PO. Box 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216 Telephone Number: 490-2000. Extension 205 In keeping with the requirements of federal la.v. state law and aoolicable court order, the District w,11 stnve to remove any vestige of d1scnm1natIon ,n the employment. assignment and promotion of personnel: ,n educational opportunities and services offered students: ,n student assignment o schools and classes: ,n student discipline. and, ,n location and use of fac1lit1es. Furttier. the D1stnct will make special efforts to employ and advance women. blacks and handicapped persons. (Board Policy Code AC) Any student. or parent, who feels aggrieved urder the aoove policy may secure 1nformat1on concerning filing grievance procedures from the principal of a D1str:ct scrool or from ttie office of the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services. * * * * * Student Procedure for Filing Sexual Harassment Complaints It ,s me policy of the district that none of ,ts s:L.dents 11111 be sub1ec:ed to sexual :iarassment 'Jy any school employee, including teachers and administrators. any ,olunteer or any v1s1tor 2  * * * * * Alternative School The Pulaski County Special School District has an Alternative Learning Center for students in grades 7 through 12. It Is designed to serve the needs of those students whose educational needs are not met by trad1t1onal programs. The primary goal of the program ,s to help students develop and maIntaIn the academic. social and behavior skills they need to function successfully ,n school and in society. Grievance - Due Process Students have the right to be Immed1ately informed of alleged vIolat1ons of standards of behavior as estaol,shed by Board poilcy and/or school regulations. and to be informed of appeal procedures. Students have the respons1b1l1ty to know and obey school rules. to express gnevances ma ool1te and hoso1table manner. and to give parents correct information concerning misconduct. Pnnc1oals and teachers have the respons1b11ity to follow Board established procedures ,n d1sc1plmary actions against students. Principals are responsible for nottfymg and confernng with parents and students m cases mvolvmg suspension and expulsion recommendations. Parents have the respons1b1l1ty to calf pnnc1pals for conference when needed. and to arrange with proper school authont1es for desired student hearings. * * * * * Student Complaints It a student and the parent of a student involved In a dIsc1plinary ruling wish to contest a d1sc1plinary ruling or a cond1t1on or ci "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1634","title":"Court filings concerning motion for an award of attorneys' fees, PCSSD strike issue, ADE semiannual monitoring report and executive summary","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":["1997-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","School management and organization","School integration","School employees","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning motion for an award of attorneys' fees, PCSSD strike issue, ADE semiannual monitoring report and executive summary"],"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/1634"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["57 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, three Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motions for enlargement of time; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to the Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in response to the Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in response to the LRSD's petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to the response of Little Rock School District (LRSD) to its petition for attorneys' fees and interest; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) semiannual monitoring report and executive summary; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) amended reply to the response of Little Rock School District (LRSD) to its petition for attorneys' fees and interest; Court of Appeals, petition for additional time; Court of Appeals, entry of appearance; District Court, order  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECE~ /~r; - DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL . J~1 ~ ;  - 1997 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT I ET AL. OFFICE OF PCS SD MOTION FOR ENLARGO!~{ijM'{'WJ !~friOO/NG INTER VENO RS The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. Presently pending before the Court is the response of th/ LRSD to the PCSSD motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees concerning the \"pooling\" issue. Due to the impending holiday weekend, the PCSSD requests additional time to and including July 14 to reply. 2. Counsel for the LRSD has no objection to this extension of time. WHEREFORE, PCSSD prays for an extension of time to and including July 14, 1997 in which to reply to LRSD's response to the PCSSD motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By .. r. __ , M. Samuel Jones III (76060) Attorneys for Pulaski County Special __ ,.,.School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July ___ , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 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 M. Samuel Jones, III a J: Es lfED JUL 7 - 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. Presently pending before the Court is the motion of thEf Joshua Intervenors seeking an award of attorneys' fees concerning - the PCSSD strike issue. Due to the impending holiday weekend and the issues raised in the Joshua's motion, the PCSSD requests additional time to and including July 14 to respond. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (S01) 371-0808 By '-----;27-r. -~~ __ ,,-- M. Samue+ Jones ;rII (76060) - 1?-ttorn~ fok..../ Pulaski County \u003c_______~ School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 3 , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 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 07 10 97 15:.?3 LJP I GHT, LI I l[1SE',' . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LI7TLE ROCK SCSOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SP~CIAL SC~OOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION FOR i;-NLARGEMEN:' OF TIME PLAINTI:::'F DEFC:NDAK'I'S J::-JTERVEl\\ORS IJ:1;'7ERVEKORS ':'he P.1laski County Special School Jistrici: ( \"PCSSJ\") fol:' its motion states: , Prese:1i:l21 pending: be:'o::-e ~he Cour: :.s LRS'J' s :no~.:.or: for attorneys' feee and costs perta:ni~g to the 0 pool:~g'' issue. 2. So:;i.e of :.he issues raised ir1 :he LRSD' s CT',o~:on are s:milar to the :ssues ra1sed a~d pend:~g in ~RSD's ~sspcr.se to c~e PCSSD motion seeking an awa=d of atcor~eys' fees o~ the same issue. 7te reply to the response :s due on Mor.day, cu_y 14, 1997. 3. Due to the related nature of these pending ~otio~s, the PCSSD requests additional time to and !nc:ud::1g July 14, 1997 in which to respond to LRSD's motion. 4. Counsel for the LRSD has no cbjecticn to ~his exte~s:on of tiIT\",e. WHEREFORE, PCS SD prays for an exce:1sicr: of t:1r.1e to and includ:~g July 14, :997 in which to ree9ond to the ~~SD ~otion :or 15:2J .~E: ,lill/Ci3 - attorneys' fees and coats. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, :,I~DSEY \u0026 JE!\\-:-JIKGS 200 West Capitol Ave~~e suite 2200 Litt:e Rock, Arkansas 72201 -3699 (501) 371-0808 '-- , .. - I \\ By ) ----:\u003e--..  \u003c- '- '- ';--_, ~- Samuel Jones rr:' (76060) Attorneys,,/ for ,..,.-Pulaski Coc.nty Sp_e_c_i_a ...] ,_/:Schcol Cistr.:.c'::. CcRT!FICATE CF SE~v:cs 1~ , 199~, a copy o! t~e fores=i~g was served by U.S. mail on t~e fol:owing. Mr. Joh~ W. Wal~er ~ctn W. wa:ker, F.A. 1 723 Brcaci,.;ay ~itt:e Roe~, AR 72201 Mr. Chr:s:oor.er Heller Friday, ~~d~edge \u0026 C~ark 2000 First Cc~~ercia~ Buildi~g Little Rock, Arka~sas 72201 ODM Heritage West Blcig., Ste. 510 201 Eas: Xarkham Stree~ Lit~le Rock, Arka~sas 722Cl ~r. Richard~- Roachell Koac~e:: anc Street F:rst Federa: Pla~a 401 ~- Caci:~:. s~~ce 524 Litc~e KoCk, ~r~a~sas 722~1 ~r . ::~ot~y Ga~ger Ass:sta~t At:or~ey Ge~eral 323 Cen'::.s= S;ree'::., Suite 20 ~it~le Rock, A=kaneas 72201 Mr. Stephe~ ~. ~ones 3400 :'CBY Tcwe1: 425 West Capitol A~enue Litt!e Rock, Ar~ansas 7220: I) M. Sa:r.ue:. :II -- ----- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~!lErJJ ~S DISTRICT COURT EAST::i,,'i Cc STRICT fa.RKANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK Plaintiff, * By.~.!~ vs. * No. LR-C-82-866  oep CLERK * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEIVED Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * JUL 1 5 1997 Intervenors, * * OFFICE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG Intervenors. * QB.DER Before the Court is a motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") requesting an extension of time in which to respond to the Joshua Intervenors' motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees in regard to the PCSSD strike issue. Also before the Court is a motion filed by the PCSSD requesting an extension of time in which to file a reply to the Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") response to the PCSSD's motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees in regard to the \"pooling\" issue. In both motions, the PCSSD requests an extension of time to and including July 14, 1997. The PCSSD has indicated in its motion that the LRSD has no objection and has orally indicated to this Court that the Joshua Intervenors have no objection to this request. For good cause shown, this Court grants the PCSSD's motions for extension of time. The PCSSD has to and including July 14, 1997, in which to file its response to the Joshua Intervenors' motion for attorneys' fees in regard to the strike issue and its reply to the LRSD's response to the - PCSSD's motion for attorneys' fees in regard to the pooling issue. Jit 0 2 5. ,r/'- IT IS SO ORDERED THIS // day of July 1997. 'll/ ) , r . ,1 :;:/7 ~/4 11,,-/.._,J... UNITED STATES DISTRI~ JUDGE Tttl IXDME.0- OOEREO ON DOCKET IHET ~ C~E ~TH RULE 58 ANc;}J8~RCf \u003cMl 1 ~1  1 av ~ 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED JUL 1 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\"), for its response to the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Attorneys' Fees in connection with the PCSSD strike issue, states: 1. The basis asserted by the Joshua Intervenors for a fee award is without merit and their petition should be denied. 2. The Joshua Intervenors seek an award of fees relating to an issue which was litigated by and between the PCSSD and the Knight Intervenors (which included PACT, the striking teacher body). 3. The Joshua Intervenors' reliance on Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997) and Association of Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 1996) is misplaced. 4. The Joshua Intervenors do not meet the requirements of \"defending\" their \"remedy\" as set forth in Jenkins and Schafer. Their limited participation in the post-judgment - litigation between the PCSSD and PACT was not in furtherance of enforcing the underlying desegregation obligations of the PCSSD. 5. The Joshua Intervenors' own petition for fees states that they filed a memorandum opposing the equitable relief sought by the PCSSD, arguing that \"[m]oreover, resolution of the contract dispute between the teachers and the District is not a desegregation obligation covered by the settlement agreement.\" Joshua Motion for Fees, 12 (emphasis added). 6. This is the position taken by counsel for the Joshua Intervenors at the strike hearing on August 28, 1996. 7. As argued by the Joshua Intervenors, the Settlement Agreement was not implicated in the teachers' strike. The Eighth Circuit, on appeal, held that the teachers' strike was not covered by the Settlement Agreement or Desegregation Plan. LRSD v. PCSSD, F.3d (8th Cir. 1997). 8. The Joshua Intervenors' request for fees does not fall within the parameters for an award under either Jenkins or Schafer. 9. The Joshua Intervenors cannot simply label themselves the prevailing party whenever other parties litigate a matter, and request and expect an award of fees. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD respectfully requests that this Court deny the Joshua Intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys fees in its entirety. 2 Respectfully submitted: WRJGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 - ' ----- ' (; ~ By ----:--;i ~, . -:- - \\.__ . '---'-- M. Samuel Jone , III (76060) Claire Shows ancock ~013) Attorn~s. for the Pulaski County Special Scnoof District No. 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July_, 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 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 M. Samlle1-Jo,, III . i ) 3 -----/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECE]VED \\JUL 1 4 1997 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\") submits this brief in response to the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Attorneys' Fees in connection with the PCSSD strike issue. The basis asserted by the Joshua Intervenors for a fee award is, simply put, without merit and their petition should be denied. ARGUMENT The Joshua Intervenors seek an award of fees relating to an issue which was litigated by and between the PCSSD and the Knight Intervenors (which included PACT, the striking teacher body). Their brief addresses only two paragraphs to the \"Predicate for Award,\" and they cite only two cases. Joshua Br. at 1-2. Their reliance on those cases, however, is misplaced. Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997), stands for the proposition that -- with regard to fee awards -- a prevailing plaintiff does not necessarily lose its \"prevailing\" status even if it does not prevail on an issue so long as it was defending its remedy. The plaintiff's claims in the post-judgment litigation must be inextricably intertwined with the underlying claims. Id. at 11. The Joshua Intervenors pay mere lip service to the requirements of \"defending\" their \"remedy\", and do not explain how their participation (limited as it was) in the post-judgment litigation between the PCSSD and PACT was in furtherance of enforcing the underlying desegregation obligations of the PCSSD. Indeed, their position is belied by their own petition for fees, in which they state that they filed a memorandum opposing the equitable relief sought by the PCSSD, arguing that \"[m]oreover, resolution of the contract dispute between the teachers and the District is not a desegregation obligation covered by the settlement agreement.\" Joshua Motion for Fees, 1 2 (emphasis added). Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors made this plain at the strike hearing, as well. The - Court, referring to a pleading filed by the Joshua Intervenors the morning of the hearing stated, and Mr. Walker responded: THE COURT: And Mr. Walker -- I won't enunciate all that he [Mr. Walker] has responded to, in fact, I have not read it all carefully, but in essence, you are asking the Court not to intervene in this dispute because the teachers union and negotiations between employer and employee has never been really a part of the Settlement Agreement. And that the black children do not stand to be harmed any more than any other children. And yet, you do concede that this Court has jurisdiction -- MR. WALKER: No, we don't, Your Honor. * * * THE COURT: All right. MR. WALKER: There was no issue in the original case that sought to raise liability of the teacher's union with respect to the constitutional rights of black children, there is none. 2 - Transcript of Hearing, August 28, 1996, at pp. 16-17 (emphasis added). Mr. Walker later stated to the Court: MR. WALKER: Your Honor, understand our position. This has been presented to the Court as a conflict between two parties, the Teacher's Union and the School District. It does not involve at this particular point the Joshua Intervenors other than to the extent that Joshua would talce a position with respect to the Settlement Agreement. . . . Id. at 27. As argued by Joshua, the Settlement Agreement was not implicated in the teachers' strike. Indeed, as this Court is aware, the Eighth Circuit, on appeal, held that the teachers' strike was not covered by the Settlement Agreement or Desegregation Plan. LRSD v. PCSSD, _ F.3d _ (8th Cir. 1997). Thus, the Joshua Intervenors' request for fees does not fall within the parameters for an award under either Jenkins or Association of Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 1996).1 The Joshua Intervenors did not have a dog in this fight. They cannot simply label themselves the prevailing party whenever other parties litigate a matter, and request and expect an award of fees. Given their present posture, it is surprising that they did not request attorneys' fees in the pooling dispute between the LRSD and the PCSSD, or the teacher retirement dispute between the LRSD/PCSSD and the ADE. The Joshua Intervenors could, and should have requested this Court's permission to absent themselves from proceedings on the strike issue, just as the PCSSD has done in the 1 In Schafer, the Eighth Circuit reversed that portion of the district court's judgment awarding attorneys' fees because the plaintiffs' were not defending their remedy, and failed to persuade the panel that the State continued to violate federal law. As the court stated: \"We must avoid creating a framework in which 'the decree institutionalizes the attorney, as well as the system.\"' 83 F.3d at 1012 (quoting Brewster v. Dukakis, 786 F.2d 16, 18 (1st Cir. 1986). 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July~. 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following . Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 5 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 I ' / ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO THE LRSD'S PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES .JUL 1 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\"), for its response to the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for attorneys' fees and costs, states: 1. The LRSD's motion should be denied because it is untimely and fees are not warranted on the merits. 2. In August 1996, the PCSSD made a motion to this Court for an enlargement of time in which to present its petition for attorneys' fees and costs, specifically requesting that the Court defer the requirement of a petition and defer ruling until thirty days after entry of a final order on the pooling issue. 3. The LRSD did not object to the PCSSD's motion, nor did it made a motion to extend its own time. On August 16, 1996, the Court entered and order granting the PCSSD's motion: \"The PCSSD is hereby given 30 days from the issuance of the Eighth - Circuit's mandate on the pooling issue in which to file its petition for attorney's fees and costs.\" 4. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling on the pooling issues in favor of the PCSSD, and its mandate issued on May 30, 1997. The PCSSD timely filed its petition for attorneys' fees, in accordance with the extension granted by this Court, on June 5, 1997. 5. Following the filing by PCSSD, the LRSD made a motion to extend its time to respond to the PCSSD's petition for fees until June 30, 1997, indicating that it would be filing its own fee petition on that date, to wit, thirty days after the Eighth Circuit mandate had issued. The PCSSD objected to the requested extension and to the LRSD's claim that it had until June 30th to file its own petition for fees and costs. 6. In its order granting the LRSD's request for an extension of time until June 30, 1997 to respond, this Court specifically noted that LRSD did not request and was not - granted an extension, and that any motion filed on or before June 30, 1997, by LRSD for attorneys' fees and costs in regard to the pooling issues would be untimely. Order, dated  June 18, 1997. 7. The LRSD filed its petition on June 30, 1997. That fee petition is untimely. 8. The LRSD stated grounds for not seeking an extension, to wit, that it has \"previously worked cooperatively [with the PCSSD] to share legal work and save fees for both school districts whenever possible\" and that the \"LRSD did not expect that either district would file a fee petition with respect to the pooling issue.\" (LRSD Br. at 3) do not excuse the LRSD's failure to obtain an extension of time . 2 9. The LRSD's and PCSSD's cooperation follows when the PCSSD and the LRSD are aligned on a legal issue and not when, as here, the PCSSD was moving against the LRSD to enforce its rights under the pooling agreement. 10. The LRSD was on notice that PCSSD intended to file a fee petition on the pooling issues, if it prevailed on appeal, at least as early as August 1996 when the PCSSD filed its motion for an enlargement of time. 11. The LRSD did not request a similar extension, and thereby failed to preserve its rights. 12. The case of Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997), does not support the LRSD's claim for attorneys' fees. The Eighth Circuit, in Jenkins, held that the class plaintiffs had not lost their status as \"prevailing party\" where they - were required to defend their original remedy, and did so reasonably. 13 . The Eighth Circuit, in Jenkins, also specifically endorsed the distinction that the issues in the post-judgment litigation must be inextricably intertwined with those on which the plaintiff prevails in the underlying suit. 14. This distinction has been applied to deny fees in civil rights cases where the parties entered a consent decree and further litigation concerned contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. 15. The LRSD's status as prevailing party as to certain remedies has been extinguished, and the pooling fee litigation was initiated by the PCSSD to enforce contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. 3 16. Further, the proceedings relating to the pooling issues concerned contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claims. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD respectfully requests that this Court deny the LRSD's petition for attorneys' fees and costs, in its entirety. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 ___ ., ('(~ By( ___.TJ:.---\"- y~~-~~ M: Samuel JfnesUI)76060) Claire Shows Hancock (95013) , _}..~or the Pulaski County Special School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July~. 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roach ell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 4 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 / Ms SamuelJ nes, III. _~ I / , _____ / 5 IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE LRSD'S PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES J\\JI_ l ,1 1997 omcE OF OESEGREGA110N MON\\10RING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\") submits this brief in - response to the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for attorneys' fees and costs. The LRSD's motion should be denied because it is untimely and fees are not warranted on the merits. ARGUMENT I. THE LRSD's FEE PETITION IS UNTIMELY In August 1996, the PCSSD made a motion to this Court for an enlargement of time in which to present its petition for attorneys' fees and costs, specifically requesting that the Court defer the requirement of a petition and defer ruling until thirty days after entry of a final order on the pooling issue. The LRSD did not object to the PCSSD's motion, nor did it make a motion to extend its own time. On August 16, 1996, the Court entered an order - granting the PCSSD's motion: \"The PCSSD is hereby given 30 days from the issuance of - the Eighth Circuit's mandate on the pooling issue in which to file its petition for attorney's fees and costs.\" The Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling on the pooling issues in favor of the PCSSD, and its mandate issued on May 30, 1997. The PCSSD timely filed its petition for attorneys' fees, in accordance with the extension granted by this Court, on June 5, 1997. Following the filing by PCSSD, the LRSD made a motion to extend its time to respond to the PCS SD' s petition for fees until June 30, 1997, indicating that it would be filing its own fee petition on that date, to wit, thirty days after the Eighth Circuit mandate had issued. The PCSSD objected to the requested extension and to the LRSD's claim that it had until June 30th to file its own petition for fees and costs. In its order granting the LRSD's request for an extension of time until June 30, 1997 to respond, this Court specifically ruled: As PCSSD points out, this Court granted only PCSSD an extension of time to and including thirty (30) days after the Eighth Circuit issued the mandate regarding the pooling issues in which to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. LRSD did not request and was not granted a similar extension. Therefore, any motion filed on or before June 30, 1997, by LRSD for attorneys' fees and costs in regard to the pooling issues would be untimely. Order, dated June 18, 1997. Notwithstanding the express language in the Court's order that any such filing by the LRSD for fees in connection with the pooling issues would be untimely, the LRSD filed its petition on June 30, 1997. 2 The LRSD states that it is simply seeking the same time within which to file its fee petition as was previously granted the PCSSD, stating that it did not seek an extension for two reasons. Neither reason is persuasive. First, the LRSD states that it has \"previously worked cooperatively [with the PCSSD] to share legal work and save fees for both school districts whenever possible. The LRSD did not expect that either district would file a fee petition with respect to the pooling issue.\" LRSD Br. at 3. While it is true that the LRSD and PCSSD attempt -- as they should -- to work cooperatively, that cooperation flows when the PCSSD and the LRSD are aligned on a legal issue. That was certainly not the circumstance in this instance, where the PCSSD was moving against the LRSD to enforce its rights under the pooling agreement. Further, it is somewhat disingenuous of the LRSD to claim that it did not expect the PCSSD to file a fee - petition with respect to the pooling issue. The LRSD was on notice that PCSSD intended to do so, if it prevailed on appeal, at least as early as August 1996 when the PCSSD filed its motion for an enlargement of time. The LRSD did not request a similar extension, and thereby failed to preserve its rights. 1 Second, the LRSD states that its \"right to recover fees in this case was firmly established only last month by an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Kansas City desegregation case. Jenkins v. State of Missouri,_ F.3d _ (8th Cir. 1997)(slip op., May 22, 1997)\" As discussed fully in Point II, infra, the LRSD's reliance on the Jenkins 1 Even if the LRSD had requested and been granted an extension of time to file a fee petition up to and including thirty days after the Eighth Circuit issued its mandate, the fee petition would have been due June 29, 1997, i.e., thirty days from May 30, 1997. The LRSD filed its petition on June 30, 1997. 3 - case is wholly misplaced. It provides no support to the LRSD, either as to the timeliness (or lack thereof) of its fee petition, or on the merits. II. THE LRSD IS NOT ENTITLED TO FEES ON THE MERITS The LRSD misconstrues the holding of Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997) and misapplies it to the facts of this case. In Jenkins, the prevailing class plaintiffs were denied fees by the district court for their participation in the proceedings in the United States Supreme Court that culminated in Jenkins III (515 U.S. 70 (1995). The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding that the class plaintiffs had not lost their status as \"prevailing party\" where they were required to defend their original remedy, and did so reasonably. The Jenkins class plaintiffs had obtained orders at the district court level, and affirmed by the - Eighth Circuit, which related directly to the issues they won initially -- issues from which their prevailing party status flowed. The Court of Appeals held that even though they did not successfully defend their remedy at the Supreme Court level, they did not lose their prevailing party status. The Eighth Circuit, in Jenkins, also specifically endorsed the distinction set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) and applied by the Fourth Circuit in multiple cases: Under Hensley, the first inquiry is whether the issues in the post-judgment litigation are inextricably intertwined with those on which the plaintiff prevails in the underlying suit or whether they are distinct. The Fourth Circuit has applied this distinction to deny fees in civil rights cases where the parties entered a consent decree and further litigation concerned contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. 4 - 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895, *10 (citing Willie M. v. Hunt, 732 F.2d 383, 386 (4th Cir. 1994). The Eighth Circuit applied this distinction in Association for Retarded Citizens v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008, 1011 (8th Cir.), cert. denied 117 S.Ct. 482 (1996)(plaintiffs' post judgment activities so much greater than necessary for monitoring the decree, they amounted to the assertion of distinct, new claims for relief which could not be compensated on the strength of the plaintiffs' prevailing party status in the underlying suit). The facts and circumstances of this case do not fit within the Eighth Circuit's \"prevailing party\" ruling in Jenkins for two reasons. The LRSD's status as prevailing party as to certain remedies has been extinguished, and the pooling fee litigation was initiated by the PCSSD to enforce contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. While the LRSD was the prevailing plaintiff in its suit against the PCSSD initiated in 1982, any past \"liability\" of the PCSSD was extinguished by the remedy afforded the LRSD in 1985, the Settlement Agreements (and releases), and the Desegregation Plan approved by this Court and by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. As the Eighth Circuit noted: The remedy prescribed was intended to be a full and sufficient correction of wrongs done in the past. If PCSSD or some other governmental entity commits another constitutional violation in the future which has an interdistrict segregative effect, the courts will of course be open and able to order an appropriate remedy on pr "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1667","title":"Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issue","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-06-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issue"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1667"],"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":["80 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JUN 3 n 1991 V I ' OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, AND POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST AS RESPECTS THE POOLING ISSUE I. Attorneys' Fees. Federal law governs PCSSD's request for attorneys' fees. A prevailing defendant can recover attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C.  1988 only where the plaintiff's claim was frivolous. However, PCSSD is not a prevailing defendant, and even if it was, LRSD's pooling claim was not frivolous. Accordingly, PCSSD's motion for attorneys' fees should be denied. A. 42 u.s.c.  1988. Prevailing defendants in civil rights litigation may recover attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C.  1988. However, the Supreme Court has declared that a prevailing defendant is entitled to attorneys' fees only in very narrow circumstances. Eichman v. Linden \u0026 Sons, Inc., 752 F.2d 1246, 1248 (7th Cir. 1985), citing Christianburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 434 U.S. 412 (: l~Vcndky\\lnd\\pcu-foc.bri (1978). \"A court may award prevailing defendants attorney's fees - under section 1988 only if the plaintiff's claim was 'frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or . . the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.'\" Flowers v. Jefferson Hospital Ass'n, 49 F.3d 391, 392 (8th Cir. 1995), quoting Christianburg, 434 U.S. at 422. Moreover, the prevailing defendant must affirmatively prove that the plaintiff's claim was \"frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.\" Marquart v. Lodge 837, 26 F.3d 842, 851 (8th Cir. 1994) (\"A survey of the Eighth Circuit's most recent decisions awarding attorneys' fees to 'prevailing defendants' in civil rights cases reveals that this Circuit has been unwilling to award attorneys' fees where the defendant is unable to prove that the plaintiff's case is meritless. 11 ) (emphasis in original). PCSSD's claim for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C.  1988 fails for two reasons. First, while PCSSD may have prevailed on the pooling issue, LRSD remains the \"prevailing party\" in the case as a whole. In Jenkins v. Missouri, F.3d , 1997 WL 268815, *l (8th Cir. 1997), the Eighth Circuit stated that \"status as a prevailing party is determined on the outcome of the case as a whole, rather than by piecemeal assessment of how a party fares on each motion along the way.\" The court noted that \"(t)his is true of matters decided after judgment on the merits, as well as those decided before.\" Id. Thus, PCSSD is not a \"prevailing defendant\" under 42 u.s.c.  1988. PCSSD's request for attorneys' fees also fails because LRSD's pooling claim was not \"frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless\". (:\\hofrc\\/crdlcy\\1n,d\\pcw-foc .bri 2 LRSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement, although rejected by the this Court, was the only interpretation consistent with the language of the agreement and with the only contemporaneous explanation of the agreement. See Docket No. 2610. The Eighth Circuit described LRSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement as \"completely logical.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 60 F.3d 436, 437 {1995). LRSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement was not \"frivolous\", and as a result, PCSSD cannot recover attorneys' fees even if it was a prevailing defendant. PCSSD also argues that it may be awarded attorneys' fees under Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308. State law governs the award of attorneys' fees only in diversity cases where the underlying claim was governed by state law. In federal question cases, attorneys' fees cannot be awarded unless authorized by federal law. Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 259 n.31 {1975). The present case is a federal question case. This Court's original jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C.  1331{a), 1343(3) and (4) 2201 and 2202 and 42 U.S.C.  1981, 1983, 1988 and 2000d. Jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement is based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (6). See Docket Nos. 1947 and 2337. Because this Court's jurisdiction was and is based on federal law, attorneys' fees cannot be awarded under Ark. Code Ann.  16- 22-308. In Home Savings Bank v. Gillam, 952 F.2d 1152 {9th Cir. 1991), the Ninth circuit reversed an award of attorneys' fees based f:\\hancVcrdky\\Jr,d\\p:::u--fcc.bti 3 on state law where the district court's jurisdiction was based on a federal question. The court stated: Because established federal common law disfavors the award of attorney's fees in federal question cases absent an express congressional directive, we hold that the district court erred in applying Alaska's law on attorney's fees. Incorporation of state law occurs in federal question cases only in the absence of federal coJillDon law or statutory law. * * * Since the Supreme Court's decision in Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240, 95 s.ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), the rule in federal courts had been that, absent an express statutory coJillDand, attorney's fees will not be awarded in civil cases. Id., at 1162 (emphasis supplied). PCSSD's reliance on TCBY Systems, Inc. v. RSP Co., 33 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 1994), is misplaced. Jurisdiction in that case was based on diversity. As the Supreme Court noted in Alyeska, \"A very - different situation is presented when a federal court sits in a diversity case.\" Alyeska, 421 U.S. at 259 n.31. Therefore, federal law governs PCSSD's request for attorneys' fees. Under 42 U.S.C.  1988, a prevailing defendant can recover attorneys' fees only where the plaintiff's claim was frivolous. However, PCSSD is not a prevailing defendant, and even if it were, LRSD's claim was not frivolous. attorneys' fees should be denied. B. Timeliness. Accordingly, PCSSD's motion for Included in PCSSD's fee request is work performed before this Court's Order dated March 16, 1994. PCSSD failed to request attorneys' fees within 14 days of that Order. Consequently, they r:\\horne\\fcrdlcy\\l r.d\\p::114-(oc .bti 4 have waived any right to fees for work performed before the March - 16, 1994. See Local Rule B-3. D. Work on Appeal. Also included in PCSSD's fee request is work performed on the two Eighth Circuit appeals of the pooling issue. In each case, PCSSD failed to timely file a request with the Eighth Circuit to recover attorneys' fees for its work on appeal. A substantial question exists as to whether this Court has authority to award attorneys' fees for work on appeal absent the issue being remanded by the Eighth Circuit. See Eighth Circuit Rule 4 7C. This is currently one of the issues pending before the Eighth Circuit in the State's appeal of this Court's award of attorney's fees to LRSD and PCSSD. See Appellant's Opening Brief, p. 19, Appeal No. 97- 1350, attached hereto as Exhibit A. LRSD prays that this Court stay any award of fees for work on appeal pending the Eighth Circuit's resolution of this issue. Moreover, PCSSD did not prevail on the first appeal of this issue. LRSD appealed this Court's March 16, 1994 order, and the Eighth Circuit vacated the order and directed this Court to \"take evidence regarding the purposes of the clauses at issue.\" See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 60 F.3d 435, 436 (8th Cir. 1995). Even if this Court finds that PCSSD is entitled to a reasonable fee, PCSSD should not be compensated for work on this first appeal in which PCSSD lost. f:\\homeVcndlcy\\Jnd'9c-fec .bri 5 E. Reasonable Hourly Rate. In an Order filed December 12, 1996, this Court awarded attorneys' fees to PCSSD for the work of M. Samuel Jones and Claire Hancock at an hourly rate of $160.00 and $145.00, respectively. See Docket No. 2883. The State has appealed contending that these hourly rates are excessive. See Appellant's Opening Brief, p. 23, Appeal No. 97-1350, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Even so, PCSSD now asks for an even higher hourly rate for the work of attorneys Jones and Hancock. LRSD believes that the hourly rates awarded by this Court in its December 12, 1996 Order are reasonable and, unless reduced by the Eighth Circuit, should be applied in the present case should a fee be awarded. F. Lack of Detail. In Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), the Supreme Court stated that the \"fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.\" The Eighth Circuit has held that \" [ i] nadequate documentation may warrant a reduced fee.\" H.J. Inc. v. Flygt Corp., 925 F.2d 257,260 (8th Cir. 1991). \"Incomplete or imprecise billing records preclude any meaningful review by the district court of the fee application for 'excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary' hours . II The Supreme Court in Hensley noted that \"at should identify the general subject matter expenditures.\" Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437 n.12. least counsel of his time In H.J. Inc., supra, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's 20% fee (;\\hon-c\\fcndlcy\\lnd\\p::sfc,c.bti 6 reduction based on inadequate documentation where the fee applicant's time records included numerous vague entries such as \"legal research\", \"trial prep\" and \"met w/ client.\" Similarly, the vast majority of PCSSD's time entries contain no description of the subject matter on which time was spent. This failure justifies a significant reduction in any fee awarded to PCSSD. II. Prejudgment Interest. As with its argument for attorneys' fees, PCSSD incorrectly relies on Arkansas law and federal diversity cases to support its request for prejudgment interest. Federal law governs whether prejudgment interest may be awarded in federal question cases. See Mansker v. TMG Life Ins. Co., 54 F.3d 1322, 1330 (8th Cir. 1995) (\"The question of whether interest is to be allowed, and also the rate of computation, is a question of federal law where the cause of action arises from a federal statute.\"). Under federal law as interpreted by the Eighth Circuit, PCS SD' s motion for prejudgment interest is untimely and should be denied. See Reyher v. Champion International Corp., 975 F.2d 483, 489 (8th Cir. 1992). In Reyher, supra, the Eighth circuit held that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 apply to postjudgment motions for prejudgment interest. Id. Rule 59 requires that postjudgment motion be filed within 10 days of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). When a motion is untimely under Rule 59 ( e) , \"the district court loses jurisdiction over that motion and any ruling on it becomes a nullity.\" Id. f:\\horne \\fcn:tlcy\\lr'ld\\p:;:N-(ce.bri 7 Judgment was entered in favor of PCSSD on July 30, 1996. Docket No. 2724. PCSSD did not file its request for prejudgment interest until on or about June 5, 1997. Thus, PCSSD's motion for prejudgment interest is untimely under Rule 59 and should be denied. 1 III. Postjudgment Interest. As with the above issues, PCSSD incorrectly relies on Arkansas law to support it claim for postjudgment interest. Post judgment interest on judgments of federal district courts is governed by 28 u.s.c.  1961. LRSD admits that it owes PCS SD post judgment interest on the July 30, 1996 judgment as provided in that statute. LRSD also admits that it has not yet satisfied the July 30, 1996 judgment. LRSD understood that it had an agreement with PCSSD to withhold payment of the judgment until after conclusion of LRSD's appeal. It was understood that postjudgment interest would accrue during this time. PCSSD and LRSD are currently attempting to determine the precise amount owed and are negotiating payment terms. IV. Prayer. LRSD prays that PCSSD's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Prejudgment Interest be denied; that LRSD be awarded its costs and 1PCSSD may argue that Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 governs its request for prejudgment interest rather than Rule 59. However, the Eighth Circuit noted in Reyher that Rule 60 \"cannot be used to impose additional affirmative relief.\" Reyher, 975 F.2d at 489 n.l. Therefore, Rule 60 cannot be used after the fact to award PCSSD prejudgment interest.  (;\\ha-nc\\fcrdlcy\\l r-.d\\pcM-(oc .bri 8 attorneys' fees expended herein; and that LRSD be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. f: \\home \\fcrd le y\\J nid\\pc:u- fee. bri 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: 9 O9ristopher Heller (#BlP?3) ~ohn C. Fendley, Jr. (M182) 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 X,\"!' day of r , 1997. 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 !hJistopher Heller' '\\.o/1n C. Fendley, Jr. f:\\horn::Vcrdlc.y\\Jnd\\pc:u-fcc.bri 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION V. LITTLE ROCK $CHOOL DISTRICT and PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 No. 97-1350EALR APPELLANT APPELL:SES Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Hon. Susan Webber Wright APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF : EXHIBIT SUMMARY A. WAIVER OF ORAL ARGUMENT This appeal arises from the Pulaski County, Arkansas desegregation litigation. In response to motions brought by ihe three school districts in Pulaski County, by order entered January 13, 1995, the District Court found that the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement between the State of Arkansas and the three districts. The District Court's order was affirmed in part and reversed in part by this Court. ~ Little Rock School District v. Pulaski countv Special School District No. 1. et al., 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996), reh'a denied {June 27, 1996). After this Court's mandate issued, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Little Rock School District (LRSD) filed motions in the District Court seeking an award of attorneys' fees and costs. By orders entered December 10, 1996 and December 12, 1996, the District Court awarded PCSSD and LRSD $36,464.00 and $43,083.32 respectively in attorneys' fees and costs. ADE appeals from these two orders. ADE believes that this appeal can be resolved on the briefs alone and therefore does not request oral argument. i TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMM.l\u003e.RY .AJ.\\ffi WAIVER OF O~ZU, ARGUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PRELIMINARY STATEMENT STATEMENT OF ISSUES STATEMENT OF THE CASE SUMM.l\u003e.RY OF ARGUMENT ......................... ......................... ARGUMENT A. B. ................................... Standard of Review The District Court Erred in Awarding Fees to LRSD and PCSSD Under 42 U.S.C. 1988 .............. . C. The District Court Erred in Awarding PCSSD and LRSD Costs and Attorneys' Fees in Connection With Their Defense of ADE's Appeal and Their Prosecution of Their CrossAppeal of the District Court's i ii iii l 2 3 14 15 15 15 January 15, 1995 Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 D. The District Court Abused its Discretion in Awarding Fees to LRSD and PCSSD Based Upon 1996 Regular Hourly Rates Instead of the Discounted Rates Actually Charged the Districts During 1994 Through 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 CONCLUSION ................................... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ADDENDUM ................................... ii 24 25 26 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Aleveska Pipeline co. v. Wilderness Societv, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982) Corder v. Brown, 25 F. 3d 833 (9ti:c Cir. 1994) DeGidio v. Puna, 920 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1990) Delta Special School District No. s v. State Board of Education, 745 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1984) Fogertv v. Fantasv. Inc., 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994) Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116 (5th Cir. 1986) International Travel Arranaers. 1 nc. v. Western Airlines. Inc., 623 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1980) Jenkins v. state of Missouri, 967 F.2d 1248 (8th Cir. 1992) Klein v. Zavaras, 80 F.3d 432 (10th Cir. 1996) Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. , , 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. 1, 83 F. 3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996) Missouri v. Jenkins, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) iii PAGE(Sl 15 20 I 23 15, 22 16 17 15 17 22 17 17 3 5, 19 22, 23 TABLE o~ AUTHORITIES (Cont.) CASES Patrick v. Staples, 780 F.Supp. 1528 (N.D. Indiana 1991) Winter v. Cerro Gordo Countv Conservation Board, 925 F. 2d 1069 ( 8th Cir. 1991) Wvcoff v. Hedcrepeth, 34 F. 3d 614 ( 8th Cir:. 1994) STATUTES Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308 42 u.s.c. 1983 42 u.s.c. 1988 OTHER AUTHORITIES Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(a) Eighth Circuit Local Rule 47C Local Rule B-3 of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts Of Arkansas iv PAGE{Sl 17 15, 23 16 PAGE(Sl 7 16 passim PAGE(Sl 19 19 5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) appeals from orders entered on December 10 and December 12, 1996, by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, the Hon. Susan Webber Wright, District Judge, in the action styled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1. et .al., No. LR-C-82-866. In those orders the District Court ordered ADE to pay a total of $79,547.32 to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) in attorneys' fees and costs. Apx. 56-61. The District Court's jurisdiction was originally invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  133l(a), 1343(3) and (4), 2201 and 2202, 42 U.S.C.  1981, 1~83, 1988 and 2000d, and the Fou~teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1291 in that the District Court's December 10 and December 12, 1996 orders are collateral orders that are final with respect to all issues raised therein. ADE's notice of appeal was filed on January 8, 1997, and hence was timely filed under Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(a) (1). 1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES I. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs to LRSD and PCSSD Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. --42 u.s.c.  1988; --DeGideo V. Puna, 920 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1990);  --Delta School Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 745 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1984); --Wycoff v. Hedgepeth, 34 F.2d 614 (8th Cir. 1994) II. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs to LRSD and PCSSD for Work Performed Defending ADE's Appeal and Prosecuting LRSD's and PCSSD's Cross-Appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 Order. --Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982); --Fed. R. App. Proc. 39(a); --Eighth Circuit Local Rule 47C. III. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Attorneys' Fees To LRSD and PCSSD Based Upon Their Attorneys' 1996 Regular Hourly Rates Instead of the Actual Discounted Rates Paid by the Districts for Work Performed by Their Attorneys During 1994, 1995 and 1996. --Missouri v. Jenkins, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989); --Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982); --Winter v. Cerro Gordo Countv Conservation Bd., 925 F.2d 1069 (8th Cir. 1991) --International Travel Arranaers, Inc. v. Western Airlines. Tnc., 623 F. 2d 1255 ( 8th Cir. 1980) . 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal arising from the Pulaski County, Arkansas school desegregation litigation. The parties to this appeal are appellant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and appellees Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (PCSSD) and the L1ttle Rock School District (LRSD). In 1989 the State of Arkansas, the three school districts in Pulaski County, and two groups of intervenors agreed to settle the remedial aspects of the school desegregation litigation. The parties submitted to the District Court \"comprehensive settlement agreements covering both interdistrict and intradistrict desegregation measures -- agreements referred to by the parties as the 'setclement plans.' They also submitted a separate but related document, called the 'settlement agreement,' settling the financial liability of the State of Arkansas.n Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir. 1990). This Court reviewed and approved the settlement documents and directed the District Court to approve the settlement plans and the Settlement Agreement as written by the parties . .IQ.. at 1394. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the District Court entered an order on January 18, 1991, dismissing the State of Arkansas as a party to the case. 3 A. LRSD's and PCSSD's Motions to Enforce the Settlement Agreement In July of 1994 LRSD filed a motion asking the District Court to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement against the State and ADE. LRSD contended that the State breached the Settlement Agreement by enacting a law that shifted the responsibility for the payment of workers' compensation claims brought by school district employees from the State to each school district in the state. PCSSD joined in this motion. Later, in August of 1994, LRSD and PCSSD filed a second motion asking the District Court to enforce the Settlement Agreement against the State and ADE. In this motion, LRSD and PCSSD contended (a) that ADE improperly treated M-M Transfer students in calculating the amount of \"loss funding\" due the Pulaski County school districts; (bl that ADE improperly excluded certain funds, known as Education Excellence Trust Funds, in a multiplier that determined the amount of \"loss funding\" due the three Pulaski County school districts; and (c) that the manner in which the State planned to implement a statewide public school computer network violated the Settlement Agreement . After a four-day hearing, the District Court, by order entered January 13, 1995, granted in part and denied in part 4 LRSD's and PCSSD's motions to enforce the Settlement Agreement. B. The Appeal and Cross Appeals of the District Court's Januarv 13, 1995 Order The State and ADE appealed the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. PCSSD and LRSD cross-appealed, contending . that the District Court did not grant them full and appropriate relief on their motions. On May 15, 1996, this Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court's January 13, 1995 order . .s.ae. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski countv Special School District No. 1, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). LRSD and PCSSD filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by this Court on June 27, 1996. No party sought from the Eighth Circuit an award of attorneys' fees or costs in connection with the appeal or cross-appeal, and no order awarding costs or fees to any party was entered by the Eighth Circuit. C. PCSSD and LRSD Seek Extensions of Time Within Which to File Motions for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Under Local Rule Local B-3 of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, any motion by PCSSD or LRSD for attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the District Court's January 13, 1995 order was due within fourteen days of the entry of the order, ~, on or before January 27, 1995. On January 26, 5 1995 PCSSD and LRSD filed a motion asking for an extension of time to file such a motion. The District Court extended the time to February 17, 1995. Apx. 66. On February 17, 1995, PCSSD and LRSD filed another motion'for an extension of time; asking that their motions for attorneys' fees not be due until after this court resolved ADE's appeal and the districts' cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. The District Court granted this motion, giving PCSSD and LRSD until \"fourteen days after the appeal is decided or withdrawn\" to file a motion for attorneys' fees. Apx. 71. On May 29, 1995 (fourteen days after this Court announced its decision affirming in part and reversing in part the District Court's January 13, 1995 order), PCSSD and LRSD filed a motion in the District Court asking for a further extension of time within which to file a motion for attorneys' fees. Apx. 72. The District Court granted that motion, giving PCSSD and LRSD until June 28, 1996 to file their motions. Apx. 74. On June 28, 1996 PCSSD and LRSD again filed a motion asking for additional time to submit an attorney fee motion. Apx. 75. On July 1, 1996 the district Court granted the motion, giving PCSSD and LRSD until 30 days after this Court's mandate issued to file a motion for attorneys' fees . Apx. 78. 6 On August 19, 1996 LRSD filed another motion seeking more time within which to file a motion for attorneys' fees. Apx. 79. ADE filed an opposition to this motion on August 22, 1996. The District Court granted LRSD's motion on August 27, 1996. Apx. 82. D. PCSSD's Motion for Fees and costs On August 16, 1996, PCSSD finally filed its initial motion for attorneys' fees and costs. 1 In its motion the only basis PCSSD cited for its fee request was Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308, which permits a court, in its discretion, to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in a breach of contract action. Apx. 83-84. The affidavit filed in support of the motion provided no information concerning the billing rates of or the activities performed by the various persons who allegedly worked on b~half of PCSSD in connection with PCSSD's motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Apx. 85-88. On August 30, 1996, ADE filed its opposition to PCSSD's motion. ADE opposed the motion on the grounds, inter alia, that state law could not form the basis for a fee award to PCSSD, that PCSSD had failed to provide sufficient information to enable the Court to calculate a reasonable 1 While PCSSD's motion purported to seek \"costs\" in addition to attorneys' fees, the motion itself contained no information concerning such claimed \"costs.\" 7 fee award, and that the District Court lacked authority to compensate PCSSD for time its attorneys spent defending ADE's appeal and prosecuting PCSSD's cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. Three weeks later, on September 20, 1996, PCSSD filed a \"Supplemental Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees as to the State Defendants.\" In its \"Supplemental Motion\" PCSSD claimed that it was entitled to an award of fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988. The \"Supplemental Motion\" did not provide any further information concerning the hourly rates or activities performed by the attorneys, paralegals and document clerks that purportedly worked on behalf of PCSSD in connection with PCSSD's motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. On October 4, 1996, ADE filed a response to PCSSD's \"Supplemental Motion.\" In its response ADE argued, among other things, that PCSSD was not entitled to fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988 or any other exception to the \"American rule,\" and that PCSSD's motion must still be denied for its failure to present evidence sufficient to enable the District Court to compute a \"reasonable\" fee award. On November 21, 1996, the District Court entered an order directing PCSSD to submit, within ten days, \"an affidavit documenting the time spent litigating these matters and the position or job title and hourly rates for 8 those who worked on the matters.\" The District Court further specified that \"the affidavit should set forth the activity performed and time spent by each individual.\" Apx. 133-34. On December 2, 1996, PCSSD filed a second affidavit signed by its attorney,  Sam Jones. Apx. 135. \"Attached to the affidavit were billing records that purported to show the time spent by attorneys, paralegals and document clerks on behalf of PCSSD. Apx. 139-170. In the affidavit, attorney Jones stated that his current normal billing rate was $175.00 per hour, but that during 1996 PCSSD was charged only $135.00 per hour for his time. Apx. 136. The affidavit further stated that attorney Claire Hancock's current normal billing rate was $145.00 per hour, but that PCSSD was charged only $110.00 per hour for her time. Apx. 136. The affidavit further stated that the time of Angell Jones, the Manager of the firm's Litigation Support Department, was currently billed at $75.00.per hour during 1996 (Apx. 136); the billing records attached to the affidavit showed, however, that Ms. Jones' time was billed to PCSSD at a rate of $55.00 during 1994. Apx. 139, 147. The billing records attached to the affidavit also showed, among other things, that PCSSD was billed $110.00 per hour for attorney S. Jones' time during 1994 (Apx. 139, 147), and included time spent by attorneys, paralegals and 9 document clerks for work performed in connection with PCSSD's defense of ADE's appeal and PCSSD's prosecution of its cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. Apx. 148-165. E. LRSD's Motion for Fees and costs LRSD filed its motion for fees and costs on August 30, 1996. LRSD's motion sought an award of $42,520 in attorneys' fees (262 hours spent by attorney Chris Heller at a rate of $160.00 per hour and 6 hours spent by attorney Clay Fendley at a rate of $100.00 per hour) and $563.32 in other unidentified \"costs.\" Apx. 89. Like PCSSD, LRSD sought attorneys' fees for its attorneys' work defending ADE's appeal and prosecuting LRSD's cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. Apx. 95-132. The affidavit submitted in support of LRSD's motion stated that attorney Heller's current normal billing rate was $160.00 per hour and attorney Fendley's current normal billing rate was $100.00 per hour. Apx. 89. The billing records attached to LRSD's motion, however, showed that LRSD was only billed $105.00 per hour for attorney Heller's time from June, 1994 through at least November of 1995, and that LRSD was only billed $85.00 per hour for attorney Fendley's time through at least November of 1995. Apx. 103, 122, 125, 127-131. LRSD's motion also sought attorneys' fees for time spent by LRSD's lawyers on appeal. Apx. 125-132. 10 With respect to costs, the billing records attached to LRSD's motion showed that a total of approximately $4380 was billed to LRSD as \"expenses\" during the period from June of 1994 through November of 19952 (Apx. 103, 122, 127-129, 131- 32), but LRSD's motion did not identify which particular items of the total \"expenses\" LRSD wanted the District Court to direct ADE to pay. See generally Apx. 89-132. ADE filed its opposition to LRSD's motion on September 16, 1996. ADE objected to any award of fees for time spent on appeal, ADE pointed out that LRSD's request for $160.00 per hour and $100.00 per hour for time spent by attorneys Heller and Fendley was excessive and would result in a windfall to LRSD in light of the actual hourly rates paid by LRSD, and ADE pointed out that some of the allegedly \"compensable\" time spent by LRSD's attorneys was spent on matters unrelated to LRSD's litigation against the State and ADE. F. The District Court's December 10 and December 12. 1996 Orders On December 10, 1996, only eight days after PCSSD finally submitted an affidavit with billing records to 2 These total \"expenses\" included charges listed as \"binding expense,\" \"deposition expense,\" \"copy charges, 11 \"Lexis computerized research,\" \"messenger expense,\" \"postage,\" \"fax,\" \"express mail,\" \"filing fees,\" \"preparation expense, 11 \"meals,\" \"Westlaw computerized research,\" \"airline ticket,\" \"parking\" and \"taxi.\" 11 support its fee motion and before ADE had filed any response to it, the District Court entered an order granting LRSD's and PCSSD's motions for attorneys' fees and costs. The District Court found that LRSD and PCSSD were prevailing parties entitled to an award of-fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988. The District Court awarded PCSSD $28,854.50 in attorneys' fees. The award was based, among other things, 3 upon billing rates of $110.00 per "}],"pages":{"current_page":16,"next_page":17,"prev_page":15,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":180,"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}}]}}