{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1657","title":"Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) fee petition exhibits","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","Little Rock School 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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) fee petition exhibits"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1657"],"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":["121 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Heller, Christopher"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF FILING RECEIVED !! ii 1 - 1997 I.- '  ~ DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its notice the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. On June 30, 1997, LRSD filed its fee petition with respect to the pooling issues. For the convenience of the court and - the parties, LRSD has prepared the attached summary of its fee petition. 2. During the course of preparing a summary of its fee petition, LRSD discovered additional time entries which should have been deleted from Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Christopher Heller. LRSD has deleted those entries and submits with this notice a substitute Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Christopher Heller. 3. LRSD's brief in support of its fee petition refers to two exhibits: A request by PCSSD for an extension of time in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals; and the Eighth Circuit's order providing additional time for all appellees. Those exhibits were not attached to the brief filed yesterday. They are attached to this notice of filing. 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: ~~--:;;;4,/,;;/~/~~~ Christopher Hell- , v -__ Bar No. 81083 /1/' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 1st day of July, 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 2 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Chri.stophJ~ -- 3 SUMMARY OF EXHIBIT A - INVOICE NO. FEES EXPENSES 1 $ 880.00 $ -o- 2 1,195.00 226.09 3 4,785.00 923.00 4 995.00 5.00 5 575.00 28.50 6 40.00 18.00 7 800.00 8.00 8 8,325.00 4.80 9 7,955.00 555.88 10 12,345.00 19.31 11 10,850.00 3,808.70 12 1,410.00 5.00 13 2,095.00 621.80 14 6,760.00 136.20 15 1,080.00 -o- 16 1,900.00 1,750.00 17 9,960.00 95.00 18 6,830.00 52.10 $ 78,780.00 $ 8,257.88 EXHIBIT A TO AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER HELLER ' FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of IN0IVI0UAI.S ANO PROfESSIONAL ASSCX:IA TIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 31'6-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 CD RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 2/25/94 CJH 4/19/94 CJH 5/05/94 CJH 5/11/94 CJH - 16/94 CJH 5/17/94 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD REPLY RE: POOLING ISSUE LETTER FROM OISTR1CT CLERK - POOLING APPEAL LETTER FROH .6TH CIRCUIT CLERK RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED BRIEFING SCHEDULE PREPARATION OF APPEARANCE FORH PREPARATION OF DESIGNATION OF RECORD; REVIEWED FILE RESEARCHED STAY ISSUE TELEP.HONE CONFERENCE WITH HR. HILHOLLEN I3J - POOLING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: POOLING DRAFTED STIPULATION ANO SUPERSEDEAS BOND TELEPHONE CORFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN (2+ \"i-ELEPHmt~ CtUIFERENGE! RITII TOtJR RE ARQEESS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE VITH BARRY WARD PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .so .25 .25 .25 .25 1.25 .so .so .25 .75 .so TAX I0ENTl~ICATON  71-()25363; l -110294 6/23/94 .000150-cJH CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER TOTAL SERVICES '5\"- st) 5.75 5.75 X 105.00 = $603.75 603.75 'i\u003eW TOTAL THIS INVOICE 5.7s -------------- TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT, THIS INVOCCE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARCiES F'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET IIEEN POSTED. THESE WILL IIE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. AU. INVOICU AIIIC DUI: AND PAYA  I.IC UPON 111:CICIPT, $603.75 4/28/97 CJH 4/29/97 CJH 4/30/97 CJH 4/30/97 JCF 5/27/97 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0IVI0UAI.S ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING .WO WEST CAPITOL LITTtE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 DRAFTED HOTI ON LETTER TO MR GANS LETTER FROM HR GANS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORgER RESEARCH AND DRAFTING - POOLING BRIEF RESEARCH AND PREPARATION OF BRIEF REVIEWED PETITION FOR REHEARING; CONFERENCE WITH CJ~ LETTER FROM MR GANS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED POOLING ORDER TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .25 .25 .25 .25 6.50 7.50 1.00 .25 .25 43.25 TAX I0ENTl~ICATO', 71-Q2S363. 2 -137146 6/18/97 .0001so-cJH $5368.00 -------- ---------- C~RISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN Cl.AYBURN FENDLEY COPY CftARGES 41.75 X 124.98 = 1.50 x 100.00 = LEXIS COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET !!EN !!ILLEO OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET !!EN POSTED. THESE WILL !IE !!ILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICU ARI: DUI: AND PAYA LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. 5211.92 \"-W 1so.oo lSO 8.60 43.50 $52.10 $5420.10 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INOIVIOUAI.S ANO PROfESSIONAl ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTl.E ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST HARKHAH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSO VS. PCSSO 6/27/94 CJH 6/28/94 CJH 6/29/94 JCF 6/30/94 JCF RESEARCHED ISSUES RE: POOLING APPEAL RESEARCHED AND CONFERENCE WITH FENDLEY REVIEWED PLEADINGS; REVIEWED NISWANGER MEMO 't-EI FPWONE CONFERENCE IHTII ATTOP~15 +AYL  R*S DI I ICE. I Eltrn  NL CEINFERENCE lllll PfR:a ~EBERS OFFICE RESEARCHED ENFORCE~ENT OF CONSENT DECREE CONFERENCE WITH CJH; REVIEWED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESEARCHED RULE OF CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION RESEARCHED CONTRACT INTERPRETATION TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .75 1.25 .75 -zs 2.so 1.00 2.00 2.so , 11,.QO TAX I0ENTIFICATO'-, 1 7Hl2SJ6J; l -11108S 7/26/94 .0001so-cJH CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER -------- --------- JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY 2.00 X 105.00 = 9.oo x es.oo = EXPRESS HAIL \"7\u003e. \"K\" 'f.... \\ OJ WESTLAW COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIii INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES f'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET llEEN lllLl.ED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET l!IEEN POSTED. THESE WILL ee l!IILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOIClt\u0026 ARI: DUI: AND P'AYA8\u0026.IC UP'ON RICCICIP'T. 210.00 '5lQ 765.00 \"l\u003e'?S-a. oo 218.09  . ~ ' Sl201.09 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INOIVIOUAI.S ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING '00 WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501 I 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 7/05/94 JCF REVIEWED HEARING TRANSCRIPT RE: ADOPTION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 7/06/94 JCF RESEARCHED RULES OF CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION 7/07/94 CJH 7/10/94 CJH 7/l.0/94 JCF -7/11/94 CJH 7/11/94 JCF 7/12/94 CJH 7/12/94 JCF 7/13/94 CJH 7/13/94 JCF 7/14/94 CJH 7/24/94 CJH PREPARATION OF 8TH CIRCUIT ARGUMENT; REVIEWED RULES RE: PREPARATION BIREF RESEARCHED APPEAL BRIEF PREPARATION OF BRIEF IN POOLING APPEAL RESEARCHED ANTICIPATORY BREACfl RE: DISCHARGING CONTRACT DUTY; PRESUMPTION OF DEPENDENT DUTIES P.REPARATION OF STATEMENT OF THE CASE PREPARATION OF POOLING APPEAL PREPARATION OF sPP~cMENTAL AUTHORITY ~TER IH '1/0THIG R1C.MT'~ ,\\PPl;ilibi CO~IFERENCE WITII FENBLC PREPARATION OF 8TH CiR. BRIEF RE: POOLING; PREPARATIOff OF APPENDIX; CONFERENCE WYTH C3H PREPARATION OF POOLING BRIEF AND APPENDIX PREPERATION OF 8TH C~R. BRIEF RE: POOLING PREPARATION OF POOLYIIG BRIEF; ARPENOIX; PIRED REVIEWED AND REVISED BTR CIR. BRIEF RE: POOLING; PREPARATIOM FOR FILING TELEPHONE CORFERENCE WITH 8Tff CIR. CLERK REVIEWED FILE RE: AP.PEAL TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 2.so 2.25 1.75 1.25 1.25 5.75 4.25 5.50 7.25 3.25 1.25 1.2s .25 .so TAX I0ENTIFICATO1' I 71-0253637 1 -111812 8/25/94 .0001so-CJH $3702.50 .. .. , .. .  ~ '. (CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 TO INSURE PROPER CRECIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT, THIS INVOICE MAY NOT tNCLUCE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILI.EC OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POST0, THESE WILL DE BILI.EC ON A LATER INVOICE, Al.I. INVOICU AIIIIIC DUii: AND PAYAL.11: UPON 111111:CICIPT. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INDIVIDUALS ~D PROFESSIONAi. ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING \u003c100 WEST CAPITOL LlffiE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37\u0026-2011 \\(.o .oo PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY ~-25 X 105.00 = 22.25 X 85.00 = BINDING EXPENSE EXPRESS MAIL COPY CHARGES POSTAGE WESTLAW COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE -:$(4,ic;- TO INSURE P'ROPER CREDIT, P'U:ASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARC:.ES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET !IEEN !IILLEO OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET !IEEN POSTEO. THESE WILL !IE !IIU..EO ON A LATER INVOICE. AL.L INVOICES AIUC DUK AND PAYA  LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. TAX I0ENTIFICATOI. I 71 -(1253637 2 -111812 8/25/94  000150-CJH 63.00 68.90 479.40 17.40 294.30 $923.00 $4625.50 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING ,4()() WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 TAX IDENTIFICAT01' I 71-02S3637 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST HARKf1AH (501) 376-2011 PAGE INV# DATE LI230 l -112794 9/28/94 .0001so-cJH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSO VS. PCSSD 8/17/94 CJH 8/18/94 CJH 8/2.2/94 CJH 8/24/94 CJH 8/29/94 JCF - 0/94 JCF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: BRIEF REVIEWED FILE; SEND DOCUMENTS TO WL\u0026J TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF REPLY LETTER FROM MICHAEL GANS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER LETTER FROM MR. JONES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED APPELLEES BRIEF PREPARATION OF DRAFT REPLY BRIEF TO 8TH CIR. 8TH REVIEWED ANO REVISED CIR. REPLY BRIEF TO TOTAL SERVICES HOURS .zs .25 .25 1.00 .25 .25 .25 .75 1.00 -------- CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY 3.25 8.oo X 105.00 = .r,..75 X 85.00 = HES SENGER EXPENSE TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL \"THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES f'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICES AIIE DUE AND PAYALE UPON RECEIPT. ---------- s.oo ---------- ---------- S750.00 ----------------- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS N-ID PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 9/05/94 CJH RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF REPLY BRIEF; BRIEF 9/06/94 JCF REVIEWED AND REVISED REPLY PREPARATION FOR FILING 9/07/94 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED FINAL REPLY BRIEF - POOLING 9/23/94 CJH REVIEWED APPEAL FILE TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE Ll230 HOURS 2.00 .75 3.50 TAX IDE'-'TIFICATON  71 -025363 7 1 -113619 10/26/94  000150-CJH S352.50 -------- ---------- CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY EXPRESS MAIL 2.75 X 105.00 = .75 X 85.00 = TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE P'ROPER CREDIT, P'U:ASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET IIEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET IIEEN POSTED. THESE WILL IIE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICU Alli: DUI: AND PAYA LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. ~8.7'.5 '-\\40 .f,3 _y:, 1'5\"\" 28.50 $2_!3.50 $381.00 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST HARKHAH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37'6-2011 10/10/94 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAH JONES TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .25 .25 TAX IOENTIFICA TOI.  71-()25363~ l -116162 2/13/95 .000150-cJH $26.25 -------- ---------- CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER FAX .25 X 105.00 = TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL TRIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET IIEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL IHVOICU AIIIII: DUI: AND PAYA  LII: UPON 11111:Cll:IPT, 26.25 C.,C) 18.00 $18.00 $44.25 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INDIVIDUALS ANO PROfESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST NARKHAH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSO VS. PCSSO ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAi. BUILDING .COO WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37'6-2011 cJ PAGE INV# DATE LI230 TAX IDENTIFICATON  71 -025363 7 1 -121629 9/18/95 .0001so-cJH HOURS 8/02/95 8/10/95 8/22/95 8/29/95 CJH CJH CJH CJH RESEARCHED ANO PREPARATION OF POOLING APPEAL REVIEWED MCCUTCHEON EXHIBITS; PREPARATION FOR HEARING RECEIVED t REVIEWED ORDER LETTER TO OR. WILLIAMS TELEPHONE COIJFERENCE lHTH MARG. GREHILLIAN TOTAL SERVICES 1.75 2.50 .25 .25 s.oo CHRISTOPHER JOHN MELLER COPY CHARGES s.oo x 1os.oo = MESSENGER EXPENSE TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAl THIS INVOICE TO INSURE \"'RO,.ER CREDIT, \"'LEASE ENCl.OSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL !IE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE, AU. INVOICU AIIIC DUI: AND P'AYA  LIC UP'ON 1111:CICIP'T, S525.00 52s.oo ~co 3.00 s.oo s0.oo -------$--5--3--3--.--0--0 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0IVI0UAI.S ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COl,O,lERCIAL BUILDING .WO WEST CAPITOL LrTTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS i'Z101 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 9/01/95 CJH 9/05/95 CJH 9/05/95 JCF .06/95 CJH 9/06/95 JCF 9/07/95 CJH 9/07/95 JCF 9/08/95 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. STEELE PREPARATION OF HEARING PREPARATION OF INFORMATION REQUIRED BY COURT; REVIEWED SETTLEMENT DRAFTS ANO HEARING TRANSCRIPTS; CONFERENCE WITH JCF; CALLS TO SAH JONES, ANN BROWN AND J. WRIGHTS DOCKET CLER~; CALLS TO RUTH STEELE CONFERENCE WITH CJH~ REVIEWED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FILES RE: EQUALIZATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL BUDGETS RECEIVED t REVIEWED PCSSD POOLING DOCUMENTS; SUBMISSION ON POOLING; PREPARATION FOR HEARING; CALLS WITH HILHOLLEN: SAM JO~ES: RUTH STEELE; CHIP JONES AND JUDGE WRIGHTS OFFICE REVIEWED PCSSO SUBMISSION; CONFERNCE WITH CJH PREPARATION OF HEARimG; CALL TO J. WRIGHTS OFF~CE; CHYP JONES; RUTH STEELE; HARK HIL~ObLEN: SAH JONES: PREPARATION FOR CROSS EXAHINATI:ON OF DON STEWART; CONFERENCE WITH H~RK HILHOLLEN; CALLS TO LRSD; REVIEWED BUDGET AND BOARD MINUTES CONFERENCE WITH CilH RE: RESEARCH -FOR HEARING RESEARCHED NOVATI N REFORMATION AND MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT PREPARATION AND APPEARED AT POOLING HEARING; CORFERENCE WITH HARK MIUiOLLEN; PREPARATION FOR HEARING CONTINUATION PAGE INV# OAT!: LI230 HOURS .zs 1.00 7.50 2.so 7.75 1.00 8.75 .25 7.50 TAX I0ENTIFICATO,._ f 71-Cl2S3637 l -122801 10/18/95 .000150-CJH (CONTINUED ON PAGE ZJ TO INSURE PROPER CRECIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUCE CHAR\u003coES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET IIEEN IIILLEC OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET IIEEN POSTEC. THESE WILL IIE IIILLEC ON A LATER INVOICE. AL.L IHVOICU ARIC DUIC AND PAYA  LIC UPON IIICCICIPT. 9/08/95 JCF 9/11/95 CJH 9/12/95 CJH 9/13/95 CJH 9/14/95 CJH --9/95 CJH 9/28/95 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUAL.S AHO PROFESSIONAl ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 'I)() WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37\u0026-2011 ATTENDED HEARING CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: CROSS EXAM OF MR. STEWART CONFERENCE WITH KR. HIUHOLIN RE: HEARING PREPARATION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STEVE JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK HILHOLLEN PREPARATION OF HEARING; STEELE AND JONES TESTIMONY; STEWART CROSS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES PREPARATION EOR HEARING TELEPHONE C  lfFERENCE WITH RUTH STEELE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES PREPARATION FOR HEARING LETTER FROH SAH JONES  TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: DEPOSITION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CITT:P JONES RE: DEPOSITION RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: aEARING TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 4.00 .so .75 .25 .25 5.25 .so .75 .so .2s .25 2.00 .25 .so .so .25 . so .25 TAX I0ENTIFICATOt.. I 71 -(125363 ; 2 -122801 10/18/95 .000150-cJH CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOfN CLAYBURN FENDLEY -------- --------- 45.00 X 105.00 = 11.25 X 85.00 = 4725.001'100 956.25 \\ \\\"2..$\"' COPY CHARGES TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIii INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES P'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICES AIII: DUI: AND PAYA LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. 4.50 s~.80 $5686.05 ======= FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PAATNERSHIP Of INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING ' WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST HARKHAH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 10/06/95 CJH 10/09/95 CJH 10/10/95 CJH 112/95 C:JH 10/16/95 CJH 10/17/95 CJH 10/18/95 CJH 10/19./95 A TT RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH SAH JONES RE: DEPOSITIONS TELEPHONE CO!llFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES RE: DEPOSITION PREPARATION FOR TRIAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE COMFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES; PREPARATION FOR JONES DEPOSITION REVIEWED STEWART TESTIHONY PREPARATION OF OUTLYNE OF STEWART TESTIMONY PREPARATION OF POOLING DEPOSITIONS; REVIEWED FILE AND SENT DOCUMENTS TO CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CH'IP JONES; DEPOSITION PREPARATION LETTER FROH sAH JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN OICTATEO OUTLINE OF STATEMENT TESTIMONY; PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITION ANO TRIAL HEHO TO J.C. FENDLEY TELEPHONE COIIFEREWCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN LETTER TO SA~ JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCES WITH CHRIS HELLER; RESEARCflEO YRS7RUCTIONAL BUDGET CASES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 2.25 .25 .25 .25 2.50 .so .so 2.75 1.50 1.75 2.so 2.50 .25 .50 .25 4.50 .2s .25 .so .so TAX I0ENTll'ICATOt, I 71 -0253637 1 -123591 11/15/95 .0001so-cJH (CONTINUED ON PAGE 2J TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT, THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES f'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET IIEEN IIILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET IIEEN POSTED, THESE WILL IIE IIIU.ED ON A LATER INVOICE. AU. INVOICU AIII: DUI: AND PAYA  LI: UPON 1111:Cl:IPT, 10/19/95 CJH 10/20/95 CJH 10/23/95 CJH 10/23/95 JCF 10/2~/95 JCF 10/26/95 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL AS SOCIA TKlNS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37'6-2011 TRAVELED TO DALLAS FOR CHIP JONES DEPOSITION; PREPARATION; CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES; RESEARCHED INSTRUCTIONAL BUDGET TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN LETTER TO DR. WILLIAHS RE: JONES DEPOSITION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE VITH CHIP JONES PREPARATION FOR TRIAL PREPARATION F.OR TRIAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPflONE CONFERENCE WITH J. WRIGHTS DOCKET CLERK REVIEWED SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY OF STEWART; CONFERENCE MITH CJH RE: DEPO. OF CHIP JONES AND RESEARCH NEEDED; RESEARCHED CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ISSUES RESEARCHED INTERPRETATION OF CONSENT DECREE; PREPARATION OF HEMO TO CJH RE: CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ISSUES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED CHIP JONES, DEPOSITION TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 11.75 .zs .2s .25 2.50 2.2s .25 .so .25 s.so 5.25 TAX I0ENTIFICATOI, f 71 -02536:l\u003e 2 -123591 11/15/95 .0001so-cJH ANDREW T. TURNER 42-50 CHRISTOPHER JOHN NELLER JCJ-fN CLAYBURN FENDLEY .so x as.oo = 43.00 X 105.00 = 10.7s x as.oo = 4515. oo \u003cr:,'6W 913.75 \\01~ COPY CftARGES LEXIS COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH PARKING TAXI WESTLAV COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH TOTAL EXPENSES 5.ao 202.50 12.00 13.00 322.58 $-55. .5 .88 ; (CONTINUED ON PAGE 31 TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARC.ES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED, THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. AL.L INVOICU ARI: DUI: AND PAYA  LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUAI.S ANO PROFESSIONAi. ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING .WO WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 TOTAL THIS INVOICE PAGE INV# DATE LI230 TO INSURE l'ROPER CREDIT, l'U:ASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIii INVOICE MAY NOT INCL.UDE CHARGES l\"OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BIL.I.ED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WIL.L. BE BIL.I.ED ON A I.ATER INVOICE, ALL INVOICU AIUI: DUI: AND PAYA l-1: UPON Rl:Cl:IPT, TAX I0EWl~ICATOI. I 71-(12~3637 3 -123591 11/15/95 .0001so-cJH $6027.13 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSO VS. PCSSO 11/08/95 CJH 11/10/95 CJH 11/12/95 CJH 11113/95 CJH 1 20/95 CJH 11/22/95 CJH 11/26/95 CJH 11/27/95 CJH 12/02/95 CJH 12703 /95 CJH 12/04/95 CJH 12/05/95 CJH 12/06/95 C.JH liELEPHQ1\u003e1~ CONFERENCE WITH EIGAI A '1RCUIT ELERlr I.El EPHtmE CONFERENCE WITII SAf4 JON~ ~REP!.RATUJN OF BRAL ARGUHENl:TELEPIISHE EONFEROCE WITII Sidi JOH~ '2-REP:AltATION Hfi BRAL ARGUNer~T' Rf'.IEWEB CASES FOR BRAL ARGUMENT 'KLEPflOPE CONFEltENC:E WI I A Bi A CIR. E-at:IRT OF .t,PP~Ats REVIEWED OLD FILES RE: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND HISTORY LETTER FROM J. WOODS RE: CHIP JONES DEPOSITION RECEIVED t REVIEWED CORRIGENDUM OF DEPOSITION CHANGES PREPARATION F.OR TRIAL PREPARATION F.OR TRIAL PREPARATION FOR TRIAL; REVIEWED DEPOSITION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: POOLING DEPOSITIONS RESEARCHED ANO PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS AND TRIAL REVIEWED TRAISCRIPTS AND PREPARATION FOR TRIAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HII.J-IOLLEN PREPARATION OF TRIAL; CALLS TO SAM JONES ANO COURT REPURTER RE: LESTER AND SECRETARY; REVIEWED EXHIBITS TELEPHONE CORFERENCE WITH DR. STEELE TELEPHONE COIIFERENCE l1 ITH SAM .JONES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS ~ 2.50 .25 2.00 2.00 1.00 .25 1.75 1.75 2.00 .zs 3.25 .zs .25 TAX I0ENTl~ICATO\" I 71-0253637 l -126291 3/22/96 .0001so-cJH (CONTINUED ON PAGE 21 TO INSURE P'ROPER CREOIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUOE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET l!IEEN l!IIU..EO OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET l!IEEN POSTEO. THESE WILL l!IE l!IILLEO ON A LATER INVOICE. AU. IKVOICU AIII: DUI: AKD PAYA  LI: UPON 1111:Cl:IPT, 12/07/95 CJH 12/07 /95 JCF 12/08/95 CJH 12/08/95 JCF 12/11/95 CJH 12/12/95 CJH 12/13/95 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 PREPARATION OF DEPOSITIONS AND TRIAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES AND DON STEWART TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH OR. STEELE PREPARATION OF DEPOSITIONS OF STEWART AND LESTER CONFERENCE ~ITH HARK HILHOLLEN RE: DEPOS. CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: PREPARATION FOR DEPO. OF STEWART PREPARATION OF DEPOSITION OF RUTH STEELE; PREPARATION AND DEPOSITIONS OF DON STEWART AND BOBBY. LESTER ATTENDED DEPOSITION OF DR. STEELE PREOEPOSITIOU CONFERENCE WITH DR. STEELE ATTENDED DEPOSITIONS OF DR. STEWART AND BOBBY LESTER PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS OF OR. STEWART AND BOBBY LESTER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: POOLING; FEE ISSUE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES l2J TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH RUTH STEELE PREPARATION FOR HEAR~NG TELEPHONE COSFERENCE WITH SAH JONES 12) TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WYTH RUTH STEELE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH TRAVIS CREED TELEPHONE CONFERENCc WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER RE: TRANSCRIPTS PREPARATION FOR HEAR\"ING; REVIEWED EXHIBITS; PREPARED EXHIBITS; EXAMINATIONS TELEPHONE COIIIFERERCE MITH HARK HILHOLLEN; CALL TO SAM JONES l2J; CHIP JONES; JUDGE WEIDOWER; REVIEWED ANO OUTUNEO DEPOSITIONS; CONFERENCE WITH WITNESSES; TRIAL PREPARATION PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .2s .zs .2s 1.2s .2s .75 a.so 1.2s 2.00 3.25 1.75 .so .50 .25 1.75 .50 .25 .2s .so .25 3.50 11.75 TAX IDENTll'ICAT01\"  71-0253637 2 -126291 3/22/96  000150-CJH (CONTINUED ON PAGE 3J TO INSURE PROPER CRECIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUCE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET ISEEN ISIU.0 OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET !SEEN POSTEC. THESE WILL IS ISIU.0 ON A LATER INVOICE, ALL INVOICU ARC DUI: AND PAYA  LC UPON 1111:CCIPT, 12/13/95 J CF 12/14/95 CJH 12/14/95 JCF 12/15/95 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROA:SSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTlE R()CI(. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JOHN WALKER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HANK WILLIAMS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES PREPARATION FOR POOLING HEARING PREPARATION OF TR1AL; CONFERENCE WITH WITNESSES; APPEARED FOR POOLING TRIAL; CONFERENCE WITH co=cauNSEL ATTENDED POOLING HEARING PREPARATION FOR POOLING HEARING CONFERENCE WITH CJY RE: PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TELEPHONE COIIFERENCE WITH SAH ~ONES RE: SETTLE HE NT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN RE: SETTLEMENT PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .25 .25 .25 7.50 10.75 6.50 1.00 .25 .so TAX I0ENTl~ICATO1'  71-025363\" 3 -126291 3/22/96 .000150-cJH 91.00 $9070.00 CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY TOTAL SERVICES bZ,CO 66.75 X 24.25 X -------- ---------- 105.01 = 7009.42 q'C\\'20 85.00 = 2061.25 'l-'-1\"2$\"\" LONG D'ISTANCE MESSENGER EXPENSE FAX TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE \"ROPER CREDIT, \"LEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHAR\u003cilES l'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. AU. INVOICU Altl: DUI: AND \"AYA LI: UPON 1111:Cl:IPT. 9.81 s.oo 4.50 $19.31 $9089.31 ----------------- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAi- BUILDING 0l WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKfiAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS PCSSD 12/04/95 CJH 1/04/96 CJH 1/05/96 CJH 1/08/96 CJH -1/09/96 CJH 1/10/96 CJH 1/11/96 CJH l/Ei/9.6 JCF 1/16/96 JCF 1/18/96 JCF 1/19/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH SAM JONES RE: DEPOSITIONS; PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS ANO TRIAL; CALL TO RUTH STEELE; CA~~ TO GAR~ JONES; CALL TO C~IP JONES; CALL TO aAMES ~ENNINGS; OUTLINED JONES DEPOSITION - RE POOLING RESE~RCHED AND REYIEWED FILE RE: POST-TRIAL BRIEF RESEARCHED ISSUES RE: BRIEF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: SETTLEMENT; TRANSCRIPT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER RE: TRANSCRIPT RESEARCHED FOR POOLING POST HEARING BRIEF; CALL TO HILHG~LEN RE: SETTLEMENT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER RE: TRANSCRIPT; BRIEF PREPARATION RECEIVED . REVIEWED POOLING TR~NSCRIPT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HR. HILHOLLEN CONFERENCE WITH CLER~ RE: RESEARCH PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FIND'INGS OF FACT REVIEWED TRAHSCRIPT OF CROSS OF DON STEWART ANO ESTIHOlff OF CHIP JONES REVIEWED RESEARCH MEMO RE: POOLING IS5ES; REVIEWED 8TR CIR. OPINION REMANDING CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: PROPOSED PINOINGS OF FACT PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONFERENCE WITH JCF RE: POOLING PAG= INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 4.25 1.75 2.75 .25 .25 1.50 1.25 1.75 .25 .25 3.00 4.25 .75 .25 1.15 TAX I0ENTl~ICATOI, I 71-0253637 l -128661 6/30/96  000150-CJH ICONTINUED ON PAGE ZJ TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY Wl'ni PAYMENT. 'nilS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARC.ES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILI.ED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. 'niESE WILi. BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICU AIII: DUI: AND PAYA  LI: UPON 1111:CCIPT, 1/19/96 JCF 1/21/96 JCF 1/22/96 CJH 1/22/96 JCF 1/23/96 CJH 1/23/96 JCF 1/24/96 CJH 1/24/96 DKHP 1/24/96 JCF 1/25/96 CJH 1/26/96 CJH 1/26/96 JCF FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0IVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAi. ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING .WO WEST CAPITOL LITTtE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 DOCUMENTS AND ISSUES; REVIEWED FILE; BRIEF PREPARATION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK KILHOLLEN RE: SETTLEMENT REVIEWED TRANSCRIPT OF DIRECT EXAM. OF STEWART; REVIEWED DEP.O. OF LESTER AND STEELE RE: PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JOANN SORN RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF BR~EF PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT REVIEWED RESEARCH DONE BY CLERK RE: CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE lUTH HARK HlLHOLLEN RE: SETTLE!ENT RECEIVED t REVIEWED NEW CALCULATIONS RESEARCHED AND REVISED DRAFT BRIEF; CONFERENCE WITH JCF; REVIEWED TRANSCRIPT PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT REVIEWED AND REVISED BRIEF; REVIEWED RECORD; EIGHTH CIR ORDER PREPARATIO~ OF EXHIBIT NOTEBOOK RESEARCHED CONTRACT EORHATION ANO MUTUAL ASSENT PREPARATIOM OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIEF PREPARATION AND CALLS WITH COUNSEL PREPARATION OF FINAL DRAFT OF PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; REVIEWED CALCULATIONS; CA~L FROM SAM JONES RE: WASHINGTON; CALL TEJ SAM LcTTER TO .JUDGE WRIGHT RE: PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT PREPARED NOT~CE OF FILING DEPOSITIONS OF STEELE AND LESTER LETTER TO JUDGE WRIGHT ENCLOSING DEPOS. PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 4.50 .so 5.25 s.so 1.00 .25 .so 1.75 7.25 1.so .so 1.75 2.75 2.50 .25 .25 TAX I0ENTIFICATOt,,  71-0253637 2 -128661 6/30/96 .000150-CJH ICONTINUEO ON PAGE 3J TO INSURE !'ROPER CRECIT, !'LEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUCE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BIL.LEO OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTEC. THESE WILL BE BILLEC ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INY0ICU AIII: DUI: AND PAYA LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. 1/30/96 CJH 1/30/96 JCF 1/31/96 CJH 2/01/96 CJH 5/03/96 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIOUAI.S AND PROFESSIONAL ASSCX:IA TIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING .6()() WEST CAPITOL LrntE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 OF STEELE ANO LESTER PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDS OF FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSO POOLING \"SECOND SUBMISSION; PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; CONFERENCE WITH JCF REVIEWED PCSSD PROPOSED FINDiNGS AND FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RESEARCHED RE: PCSSD REVIEWED ANO FUTURE RESEARCH RE: PCSSO POOLING AND PLAN BRIEFS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK HILHOLLEN TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV#- DATE LI230 HOURS .25 5.50 2.so .75 1.25 1.25 .25 -------- as.po TAX IDENTIFICATOIS  71-(1253637 3 -128661 6/30/96 .000150-CJH S8Q05.00 CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER DEBORAH K. MOORE JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY 40.00 X 105.01 = .50 X 45.00 = 44.50 X 85.00 = 4200.40 6\u003c.tCO 22.so 3782.50 ~~ DEPOSITION EXPENSE COPY CHARGES TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES l\"DR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICU AIIIIC DUI: AND PAYAaLIC UPON 11111:CICIPT. 3791.50 17.20 $3808.70 $11813.70 3/'Jz./96 JCF '3/05/% CJH 9/U/% CJH SIA % CJH 9/~ 9b CJH q/'JCJ/96 CJH q/U/qb CJH 9/l3/9b CJH q/t5/9b CJH (:J/l7/9t:, CJH 9/24/96 CJH 9/25/96 CJH 9/27 /'H, C.JH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARlHERSHI' OF JNOIYl)\\JAI.S NIJ pRQFESSK)NAI. ASS0CIA llONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BULDING .00 WEST CAPITOL um ROCK. ARl(ANSAS 7Z201 (1501) ,7\u0026-2011 REV!EwED J 1.JOGE  S ~HIORAN0U!\", AtW ORDER TELEPHONE CJNFERENC~ WITH OR. ANDERSON RE: APPEAL RECEIVED t REVIEWED PCSS~ MOTION RE: FEES PREPARATION OF NCTICE CF APPEAL REVIEW (CQNTINUE01 OF SUPPLEMtNTAL PLEAaINGS CALL FROM JOE HAGEN; CALL TO UARRY WARD LETTER FROM MR GANS RECEIVED REVIEWED APP FOR~ ( BRIEf!NG SCHE~ULE "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1633","title":"Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, affidavit and activity statement of John W. Walker; District Court, affidavit of Joy C. Springer; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, affidavit of Christopher Heller; District Court, brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs","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":["1997-06-26/1997-06-30"],"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","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, affidavit and activity statement of John W. Walker; District Court, affidavit of Joy C. Springer; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, affidavit of Christopher Heller; District Court, brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs"],"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/1633"],"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":["99 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Walker, John W.","Springer, Joy C.","Heller, Christopher"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  f\\LED uRT S 01s11~1C\\ ci9p.l(.P,.NSAS u. N 01s1R1c IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT Cdm.~ 2, 6 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS J\\.lN ?.- WESTERN DIVISION _ ,., Mccu~\\11\\Ac\\C-, CLI:. JA N~tS OE.P .CLE.RI(. sv: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. JUN 2 7 1997 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORl\u0026lt: THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOT10'N.FOR''A'N A WARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of an order against the PCSSD defendants, awarding attorneys' fees for the work of their representatives concerning the PCS SD strike issue. The award sought is set forth in Attachment One to this motion. This motion is based upon the affidavits of John W. Walker and Joy C. Springer, the declaration of Robert Pressman, attachments to these documents, 1 the accompanying memorandum, and the following allegations: (1.) On August 27, 1996, the PCSSD defendants filed a motion seeking equitable relief, including an order \"directing that PACT end [a] strike .... \" A 9-page memorandum supported the motion. The court scheduled the matter for a hearing on the following day, August 28, 1996. (2.) On August 28, 1996 the Joshua Intervenors filed a memorandum opposing the relief sought by the PCSSD. Joshua argued in part: \"Moreover, resolution of the contract dispute between 1 These documents are attached to this motion. 1 - the teachers and the District is not a desegregation obligation covered by the settlement agreement\" (at 2); see also at 4 (\"The Joshua Intervenors simply observe that the District has not identified a single provision of the settlement agreement which the union has violated.\") (3 .) On August 28, 1996, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the PCSSD motion, which it treated as a motion for a preliminary injunction. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court \"enjoin[ ed] the teachers from further striking following the Labor Day weekend.\" Transcript, at 18. ( 4.) The Knight Intervenors appealed this court's judgment enjoining the strike. Thereafter, on May 1, 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed this court's judgment. In words echoing those set forth in the memorandum promptly filed by Joshl!:i on August 28, 1996, the court reasoned: \"But we cannot agree that the settlement agreem~nt, even by implication, took away the right to strike, assuming such a right exists under state law, nor can we - find any other source of authority for the action the District Court took\" (Slip Opin., at 5). (5 .) The position taken by the Joshua Intervenors was premised upon two ir.terests of the plaintiff class. First, it sought to focus the attention of the parties and the court, and the use of hearing time, on matters within the scope of the agreements and designed for the benefit of the class members. Second, it sought to avoid a situation where teachers could view class members negatively, because their litigation would be a vehicle for suppressing a tool available to the teache1 s to advance their economic interests. (6.) The Joshua Intervenors are entitled to the fee award sought in this motion against the PCSSD because their representatives' efforts constituted a reasonable post-judgment activity to defend their earlier victory embodied in the approved agreements. Alternatively, and without waiving the foregoing contention, Joshua Intervenors note that they ultimately prevailed in their action to 2 - defend their earlier victory -- and are entitled to the award sought on that basis. (8.) The attachments to this motion, and the accompanying memorandum, show that the time and the rates claimed for the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors, as set forth on Attachment One of this motion, are reasonable. WHEREFORE the Joshua Intervenors move that the PCSSD defendants be ordered to pay )j-{;M.00  the amount of$ --to John W. Walker, P.A., for the work of Joshua Intervenors' representatives in opposing the PCSSD motion. JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman MA# 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion and attachments, as well as the accqf11panying Memorandum, were sent via United States mail to all counsel of record on this c2.f1fl_ day ofJ une ~ 1997. Sb v1J .U/oKo A J~ W. Walker \" 4 ATTACHMENT A SUMMARY OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' FEE CLA AGAINST THE PCSSD REGARDING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE John W. Walker Robert Pressman Joy C. Springer 11 . 7 hours at $ 250\\ hour 5. 75 hours at $ 200\\ hour 10.9 hours at$ 50\\ hour Grand total 5 $2,925.00 $1,150.00 $ 545.00 $4,620.00 FILED RT U.S. DDl~s\\R~~\\ cAi~ANSAS EASTERN ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN 2 6 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION By: OEP.ClERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 Fy r= p..;. F P,' r:! D PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICr/ E~AE':~-t -~, ~ DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JUN ?. 7 1997 INTERVENORS OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORING THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF AN A WARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE A. Introduction This memorandum supports the accompanying motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an award - of attorneys' fees against the PCSSD defendants in connection with the PCCSD st:-ike issue. It discusses the predicate for this award, as well as the time claimed and the rates sought. B. The Predicate for an Award As detailed in the motion, the position taken by the Joshua Intervenors concerning the court's involvement in the PCSSD strike issue was ultimately the one adopted by the Court of Appeals in ruling in the appeal filed by the Knight Intervenors. As also explained in the motion (at paragraph 5), the position taken by the Joshua Intervenors is properly viewed as protecting the value of the court-approved settlement, for class members, in two regards; that is, by focusing the attention of the court r and the parties on the substantive relief gained by intervenors in the settlement;1 and by avoiding a 1 Such an effort was appropriate. The Joshua Jntervenors' motions regarding the incentive schools and ODM recommendations, pending at the time of the August 28, 1996 hearing, were never heard on the merits. The Joshua Jntervenors' motions concerning the Robinson High School and PCSSD discpline were denied tersely, without hearings by the court. situation where the plaintiff class could be scapegoated by the teachers. Alternate grounds support the award sought. The Joshua Intervenors having broadly prevailed in this action by virtue of the settlement, their representatives are entitled to fees for reasonable postjudgment monitoring, including \"defensive [steps], seeking to preserve relief obtained earlier . . . . \" Jenkins v. Missouri, Appeal No. 96-3870 (8th cir. May 22, 1997), Slip Opin. generally and at ---; 2 see also Association of Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008, 1012 (8th Cir. 1996) (defending a victory). We note also, that as to PCSSD, there is no claim of a waiver of fees for monitoring. Secondly, the Joshua Intervenors ultimately prevailed on this matter. They are, therefore, entitled to fees on this matter as a prevailing party. E,\u0026, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1n8. C. The Hours Claimed and the Rates Sought \"The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number - of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.\" Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,433 (1983). This \"lodestar\" amount yields a presumptively reasonable fee. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565 (1986). 1. The Time Claimed The time claimed, totalling ---- hours, was \"reasonably expended on the litigation .... \" Hensley, supra. As this submission shows, intervenors claim only a modest amount of time for the work of lead counsel, Robert Pressman (only on this petition), and Ms. Joy Springer. Intervenors' representatives studied the materials filed by the parties, prepared a memorandum, participated in the hearing on August 28, 1996, and prepared this petition. As it is customary in this market to bill the time of a paralegal separately (J. Springer Aff., para. ---), it is proper to make a sepan.te award for Ms. Springer's time. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288-89 (1989). Indeed, involving Ms. 2 See paragraph beginning \"Another factor that has been considered . ... \" Springer was cost-effective. Id., at 288. 2. The Hourly Rates Sought The rates sought are John W. Walker$ 250 per hour, Robert Pressman$ 200 per hour, and Joy C. Springer $ 50 per hour. These are \"reasonable hourly rate[s]\" for these advocates taking account of the nature of this case and their \"skill[s], experience[s], and reputation[s].\" Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984). In order to avoid repetition, intervenors' argument on rates relies upon the details set forth in the accompanying affidavits. These documents show, among other things, that Mr. Walker has long been active in this case, been lead counsel in a very large number of civil rights cases, and been praised by members of the federal bench for his expertise in this sphere. J. Walker Aff., paras. 3, 5, 7, 9. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit compensated Mr. Walker at the rate of$ 250 per hour for his work on the appeal in the case of Shirley Harvell v. Blytheville School District, 93- 1009EAJ (Order, August 19, 1996). See J. Walker A.ff, para. 8 and attachment. He currently charges fee-paying clients this rate. Aff., para. 9.3 With regard to Mr. Pressman, a district judge familiar with his work during the lengthy Boston school desegregation case compensated almost all of his time for the period October 1988 through June 1993 at the rate of$ 200 per hour. See Morgan v. Gittens, 915 F.Supp. 457, 472-74 (D.Mass. 1996). The affidavits appended to Mr. Pressman's declaration here also support a rate of 3 To be sure, this court in dictim, in an order of September 2 3, 1996, at 9, n. 6, set a rate of $ 200 per hour for lead counsel. However, this rate is inconsistent with the rate established by the Court of Appeals. Moreover, at minimum, lead counsel's rate should not be lower than$ 225 per hour, a rate employed by two other judges of this court on a total of four occasions. See J. Walker Aff., para. 8. $ 200 per hour. 4 The affidavit of Ms. Springer attached to the motion shows that she has considerable experience in civil rights litigation generally, and this case in particular. In Jeffers v. Clinton, 776 F.Supp. 465,470,476 (E.D.Ark.) (2 to 1), a three-judge court utilized rates of$ 40 per hour for local paralegals and $ 50 per hour for out-of-town paralegals in a voting rights case, for work in the period 1989 to 1991. The passage of time since this work was performed justifies the higher rate sought for Ms. Springer's work in this case. We note also the following factors. First. The rates sought are supported by rates approved by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (in instances other than the one cited with regard to Mr. Walker). See McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1460, 1461 (1988) (the court noted its approval in 1986 in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case of the rate of \"$ 200 per hour for a Washington, D.C. 'cooperating attorney who had been in practice approximately thirty years\"' and of the same rate in 1988 in the Kansas City case for \"an experienced civil rights attorney for his services in [that] school desegregation case ... \"); Planned Parenthood, Sioux Falls Clinic, v. Miller, 70 F.3d 517, 520 (1995) (rates ofup to$ 260 per hour for attorneys based in Chicago); see also the Declaration of Thomas I. Atkins, former General Counsel of the NAACP, attached to the Declaration of Mr. Pressman. Second. The rates sought here are supported by the reasoning of the Court of A~peals for the Eighth Circuit, which has emphasized the connection between the rates employed in cases like this one and fulfilling the goal of facilitating civil rights enforcement, which underlies the fee statutes on 4 Recently, in this case, the LRSD did not challenge a rate of$ 200 per hour for Mr. Pressman/or work in opposing the termination of jurisdiction as to the LRSD and preparing the related fee petition. This court then granted the full award sought by the Joshua Jntervenors, in an order entered on May 16, 199 7. which the plaintiffs rely. See Casey v. City of Cabool. MO, 12 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir. 1993). Conclusion There is no basis for departing from the lodestar amount here. Therefore, an award should be made to John W. Walker, P.A. in the amount of $4i~O-OO Respectfully submitted, JOHNW. WALKER, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman MA# 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion and attachments, as well as the accAmpanying Memorandum, were sent via United States mail to all counsel of record on this MdayofJune~ 1997. ~/-.~ J~er IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. WALKER STATE OF ARKANSAS) )SS. COUNTY OF PULASKI) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Comes now the affiant, JOHN W. WALKER, who submits the following affidavit under oath: Educational and Professional Qualifications 1. I graduated from Arkansas AM\u0026N College in Pine Bluff, Arkansas in 1958 with a major in Sociology. In 1960, I was awarded a John Hay Whitney Opportunity Fellowship which I used to obtain a Master's Degree from New York University in Education (Human Relations) in 1961. In 1961, I enrolled in the Yale University Law School from which I received my law degree in 1964. At Yale Law School, in 1964, I was a finalist in the Thurman Arnold Appellate Moot Court Competition. I have studied further at Fisk University (the Race Relations Institute) and at many legal training seminars which focused upon the subject of civil rights law in particular. 1 In 1964, I was admitted to practice before the Bar of Arkansas. Subsequently, I was admitted to, and still practice before, the United States Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals for the 2. Eighth, Fifth, Eleventh, and Tenth Circuits, the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, and the United States District Court, Eastern and Western District of Arkansas. 3. I completed a legal training internship in New York City with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) in September, 1965. In 1965, I opened a private general law practice in Little Rock which emphasized civil rights law. In 1968, Norman Chachkin (now of the LDF) and I opened one of the first integrated law firms in the South. That law firm has continued to be operated on an integrated basis since that time although it has undergone several name changes. My own work continues to emphasize civil rights legal activity. 4. I hold membership in the American and National Bar Associations, and the W. Harold  Flowers and Pulaski County Bar Associations. From 1976 to 1982, I was a member of the Arkansas Board ofExaminers. I have served as a member of the Federal Rules Advisory Committee of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am a member of the Board ofDirectors of the LD F b New York. 5. The following is a partial listing of major cases where I have been lead counsel: Employment Paxton v Union National Bank, 688 F. 2d. 522, 574 (8th Cir. 1982); Maney v Brinkley Municipal Water Works, 802 F 2d. 1073, 1076 (8th Cir. 1986); Rogers v International Paper Co., 423 U.S. 809 (1975); Powell v Georgia Pacific Paper Company, Civ. Nos. 73- C-l and E.D. 73-C-3 (Ark. 1993); Williams v Anderson, 562 F 2d. 1081 (8th Cir. 1977); Clark v Mann, 562 F 2d. 1104 (8th Cir. 1977); Parham v Southwestern Bell, 433 F 2d. 421 (8th Cir. 1970); Robinson v Klassen, Civ. No LR-C-73-301 (E.D. Ark. 1981); 2 McFadden v Arkansas State Hospital, Civ. No. LR-C-78-153 (E.D. 1989; 1994); Taylor v Jones, 653 F 2d. 1193 (8th Cir. 1981); Hollowell v Gravett, Civ. No. LR-C-86-600 (E.D. Ark. 1989); and Perryman v Johnson Products, 698 F 2d. 1138 (11th Cir. 1983); Hollowell and Day v. Randy Johnson, E.D. Ark., October 30, 1995 .. Education Clark v Board of Education, 705 F 2d. 265 (8th Cir. 1983); Dowell v Oklahoma City Board of Education, 890 F 2d 1483 (10th Cir. 1989); Arvizu v Board of Education of Waco, Texas, 296 F 2d. 1309 (5th Cir. 1974); Kemp v Beasley. 389 F 2d. 178 (8th Cir. 1972); Raney v Board of Education of Gould, Arkansas, 381 F.2d 252 (8th Cir. 1967); Kelley v Altheimer, 378 F 2d. 483 (8th Cir. 1967); Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F 2d. 1296 (8th Cir. 1987), cert den., 102 L. Ed. 2d. - 146 (1988); Smith v Board of Education of Morrilton, 365 F 2d. 770 (8th Cir. 1966); and Sherpell v. Humnoke School Dist. No. 5.; Rusk v. The Stuttgart School District,_ F.Supp. ___J E.D. Ark. (1994). Housing Williams v Matthews, 499 F. 2d. 819 (1974). Criminal Justice Winters v Beck, 407 F 2d. 125 (8th Cir. 1969). Public Accommodations Daniel v Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969). Voting Rights Sherpell v Humnoke, 814 F.2d 538 (8th Cir. 1989); Harvell v Ladd, 931 F. 2d. 226 (8th 3 - Cir. 1992); Harvell v Ladd, __ F. 3d. __ (8th Cir. 1994); Williams v City of Texarkana, 32 F. 3d. 265 (8th Cir. 1994). 6. I have served as Chairman of the Board of the Arkansas Opportunities industrialization Center (OIC). the Center for Law and Education (Cambridge, Mass.), and the Leadership Roundtable (Little Rock, Arkansas). In 1968, I was a member of the Arkansas Constitutional Revision Study Commission. In the early 1970's, I was a member of the Land Use Study Commission of the Southern Governors Conference. I have served as a member of the Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education. I have spoken or lectured at several annual meetings of the National Bar Association; the American Bar Association; other bar associations; many public colleges and many high schools regarding many subjects but primarily upon the subject of Civil Rights Law. I have also received numerous awards for my representation of civil rights causes and cases. 7. I have participated actively in this case and the predecessor litigation since the 1960's. 8. The foregoing recitations establish my educational and professional qualifications. It is my opinion that the bar of first rank with comparable qualificaitons in other fields of law command the highest hourly rates for their work. Those rates range between $150.00 and $300.00 per hour in this market. The State of Arkansas has contracted for legal services in the range of $150.00 per hour for experienced counsel. In an Order dated August 19, 1996, in the case of Harvell v. Blytheville School District, Appeal No. 93-1009 EAJ, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit compensated my time at the rate of $250.00 per hour for a successful appeal in a voting rights case. See the papers attached to this affidavit. My time has been compensated at the rate of $225.00 per hour on at least four occasions in the Arkansas District Courts. These cases are as follows: (a) Ashford v. City of Hamburg. C.A. No. 93-1032 (W.D. Ark.) (Order 1/19/95) 4 - (Judge Barnes); (b) McFadden v. Arkansas State Hospital, C.a. No. LR-C-78-153 (Order, 4/18/95) (Judge Howard); (c) Davis v. Franks, C.A. No. 88-4082 (Order, 5/16/96) (Judge Barnes); (d) Day and Hollowell v. Johnson. C.A. No. LR-C-94-849 (Order 9/27/96) (Judge Howard) (stayed ... r pending outcome of substantive appeal). 9. In Taylor v. Jones, Circuit Judge Richard Arnold described me as a member of the bar of the \"first rank.\" In April, 1995, in the aforementioned Order in McFadden v. Arkansas State Hospital. cited in paragraph 8., Judge George Howard, Jr. wrote: \"The Court notes that Walker is one of the most preeminent civil rights attorneys in the State\" (at 3). 10. The fee which I request herein of $250.00 per hour is my usual and customary fee which I routinely charge fee paying clients. The total time for which this fee is sought is 11. 7 hours. 11. Counsel and co-counsel herein have taken great care to prevent their submission from - reflecting duplicate and non-productive efforts. I have reviewed the submissions of all representatives of the intervenors and believe they are accurate. correct and reasonable. 12. A statement and activities for which I claim compensation is attached hereto. The foregoing statement is true and correct to the bestof my knowledge, records, information and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ~ay of 199 ~~LQ. ~Lll MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 9/11/ZfJJ') IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS DATE - 8/27/96 8/27/96 8/ /96 9/09/96 9/11/96 9/14/96 6/25/96 ACTIVITY STATEMENT OF JOHN W. WALKER ACTIVITY Conference with JCS re: PCSSD special board meeting; Attended meeting Review and study of PCS SD Motion and Memorandum; drafted and finalized Joshua Intervenors' Response to Motion; preparation for hearing Prepare for hearing and hearing before Judge Wright on Motion Review and study of Knight Motion for TRO and Brief Review and study Knight Response to PCS SD Motion (Response and Memorandum) Review and study PCS SD Reply to Knight Response, including Brief Review draft Fee Petition Total Hours Expended Hourly Rate Total Fee Requested HOURS 1.3 3.5 6.5 .3 NC .1 NC 11.7 $ 250.00 $2,925.00 Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. Civil Action No. LR-C-82-866 Declaration of Robert Pressman Robert Pressman swears under penalty of perjury that the following information is truthful: A. Employment in Civil Rights Division (1). Following my graduation from the Columbia Law School in June 1965, I worked as an attorney in the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, from August 2, 1965 through July 31, 1970. The Division enforced civil rights laws concerning voting rights, access to public facilities and public accommodations, school desegregation, equal employment opportunity, and freedom from mistreatment by police personnel. My work at various times involved each of these areas. It encompassed giving guidance to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on investigations of possible civil rights violations and compiling factual material and analyzing complex fact patterns, as well as legal research. (2.) For roughly the first two years of my tenure in the Division, I was assigned to work on problems arising in the northern part of Mississippi. During this period, I frequently travelled to Mississippi and, among other things, made appearances in the Carroll County school desegregation case. I also investigated the status of school desegregation in other systems, including Lee County, Pontotoc County, Tunica County, and the City of Corinth. In 1967, the Division was reorganized and my work shifted to Illinois. There, I developed facts concerning school segregation in School District 151 of Cook County, Illinois. The Department's suit against that district was its first northern case. I participated in the trial. See United States v. School District 151, 286 F. Supp. 786, 787 (N.D. Ill. 1968); 301 F. Supp. 201, 205 (N.D. Ill. 1969). My Illinois work also included school segregation issue in Cairo, East st. Louis, and Madison County, Illinois. (3.) In 1969, the Division was again reorganized, this time along subject matter lines. I was assigned to the education section. From October 1969 through my departure from the Division at the end of July 1970, I worked principally on Alabama school desegregation issues, particularly on Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, a statewide case involving 100 local - districts, as well as state officials. Efforts were underway in this period to secure implementation of plans satisfying the standards of Green v. County School Board. I prepared written comments on issues arising in more than 30 Alabama districts and appeared frequently before the three-judge court (Judges Richard T. Rives, Frank M. Johnson, and R.H. Grooms). I also appeared before Judge Johnson in the separate Montgomery County school desegregation case and prepared for the Department briefs in two appeals from the decisions of the three-judge court in the Lee case. See, for example, Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 448 F.2d 746, 747 (5th Cir. 1971). (4.) On December 15, 1969, I received a Certificate of Award for outstanding work, in the Attorney General's Twentieth Annual 2 Awards Ceremony. Four of the Division's ninety attorneys were given this award at that time. B. Employment at the Center for Law and Education (5.) In August 1970, I began working at the Center for Law and Education (CLE), a component of the federally-funded program of legal services for low-income persons, administered since 1975 by the Legal Services Corporation. As the \"national back-up center\" on education issues for the entire legal services program, the Center's principal role was to promote throughout the program strong representation of clients experiencing education problems. The work consisted of providing advice to local legal services personnel on particular client problems; conducting training programs; writing publications and articles; - engaging in administrative advocacy; and participating as cocounsel in some cases. My employment at the Center ended as of September 15, 1995, due to lay off, because the Congress chose to eliminate funding for national support programs like CLE. (6.) In 1972, upon its filing, I began working on the Boston school desegregation case as co-counsel for the plaintiff class of Black parents and students. My involvement has continued to the present, although the case is largely inactive with only a few orders remaining in place. See, for example, Morgan v. Hennigan, 379 F. Supp. 410, 414 (D.Mass. 1974) (liability ruling) and Morgan y, McDonough, 540 F. 2d 527, 528 (1st Cir. 1976) (argued appeal in which the court affirmed the placing of the operation of a high school in receivership). 3 (7.) In the 1970's I also did some work in the Detroit school desegregation case, Bradley v. Milliken, and more than 1000 hours of work on behalf of the plaintiffs-intervenors in the Omaha school desegregation case, United States v. School District of Omaha. See for example 521 F.2d 530 (wrote brief for successful appeal with the court's opinion reflecting to a substantial degree the factual portion of the brief). (8.) During the 1970's, I played a role at CLE in the development of a racial discrimination theory ultimately employed successfully in securing a delay in the Florida program of denying standard high school diplomas to students failing a \"competency test.\" See Debra P. v. Turlington, 474 F. Supp. 244 (M.D. Fla. 1979), aff'd, 644 F.2d (5th Cir. 1981). In the Debra - I:..._ litigation, I participated briefly in the trial (due to an illness in the family of a CLE colleague) and wrote a portion of the trial memorandum setting forth a theory accepted by the courts (denial of standard high school diploma based upon competency test result perpetuated earlier intentional discrimination against black students who began their educations in segregated and unequal elementary schools). (9.) In 1986, I wrote two memoranda on racial discrimination claims for use in the legal services program. (a) The first, focusing on racial discrimination in school discipline and curricula, contained the following headings: \"Typical Problems,\" \"Gathering Information About a Discrimination Problem,\" \"The Legal Bases of Racial Discrimination Claims\" (including 4 constitutional and Title VI claims), \"Other Material re Disparate Discipline,\" \"Material Regarding Discrimination in Curriculum,\" and \"Remedial Principles.\" (b) The second memorandum is titled \"Discriminatory Allocation of Resources within a School District\" (14 pages). I first used this document in a training program for legal services attorneys in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1986. (10.) I participated during my tenure at CLE, as a trainer or lecturer, in a minimum of 40 sessions on education issues for legal services workers, parents, and\\or students. One such session in Colorado during the late 1980's for legal services attorneys concerned ways to monitor consent decrees and other judgments in institutional reform cases. I prepared for this event a 34-page memorandum titled \"Materials on Monitoring and - Enforcement of Judgments.\" c. Work on the Ayers Case (11.) In January 1987, the North Mississippi Rural Legal Services Program asked me to join their staff members providing representation to the named plaintiffs and the plaintiff class in the case then styled Ayers v. Allain, Civil Action No. 4:75CV009- B-O, Northern District of Mississippi. Ayers concerns the nature of the obligation of Mississippi officials to eliminate racial disrimination and segregation from the operation of the Mississippi system of public universities. I have played an active role in the case since that time. My work in Ayers through March 1995, totalled in excess of 6,000 hours, and involved, inter alia, framing and responding to discovery requests; taking 5 depositions; identifying and preparing exhibits; preparing exhibit lists and other materials required as part of the standard pre-trial submission; participating in settlement efforts; making an opening statement; presenting and crossexamining witnesses and otherwise participating in two lengthy hearings (with the second exceeding 40 days of trial); preparing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; preparing appellate briefs; arguing before three panels of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as well as that court sitting en banc, 1 and supporting the efforts of my brother and sister cocounsel. o. Court Appearances (12.) During the course of my legal career, I have made - appearances in the following federal courts: M.D. Ala., S.D.Ala., E.D. Ark., M.D. Fla., S.D. Fla., N.D. Ill., D. Mass., N. D. Miss., E.D. Mich., D. Neb., D. N. H., and D. S. Car.; Court of Appeals for the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits (filed briefs and argued); United States Supreme Court (filed briefs). E. Work in this District Court (12.) In September 1995, I began to assist John W. Walker 1 See Ayers v. Allain, 893 F.2d 732 (5th Cir. 1990); Ayers v. Allain, 914 F.2d 676, 677 (5th Cir. 1990) (en bane) (argued in each instance). A fresh appeal followed the district court's March 1995 decision. See Ayers v. Fordice, 879 F. Supp. 1419. I later argued in March 1996 before a panel considering a stay of a part of the district court's order and on November 4, 1996 before the panel hearing the matter on the merits. See Ayers v. Fordice, 111 F.3d 1183, 1188 (5th Cir. 1997). 6 and other persons in his firm with various facets of their work. My many projects have included: several fee petitions; work on a large number of issues in the Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. case; participation in the Honorable v. North Little Rock Sch. Dist. student discipline case in this court; preparation of the appellees' brief on appeal in Day and Hollowell v. Johnson, a case in which Judge Howard invalidated in part on the basis of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 and Title VII, the attempt by the newly elected sheriff to discharge two African American captains; support to an attorney in the Walker firm in the ongoing MOPAC case involving Title VII issues, as well as work on other employment discrimination issues; and preparation of the complaint and discovery efforts in Young v. City of Little - Rock, alleging the wrongful arrest and detention of a black resident of Little Rock. F. The Current Fee Petition (13.) Attachment One to this Declaration, which is incorporated herein by reference, sets forth my time and activities in working on this particular petition. It is based upon records prepared on a daily basis. An award is sought  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1645","title":"Court filings concerning PCSSD motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issues, motion to extend time, and cross-petition for attorneys' fees","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":["1997-06-05/1997-06-19"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning PCSSD motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issues, motion to extend time, and cross-petition for attorneys' fees"],"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/1645"],"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":["54 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Jones, Sam"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issues; District Court, brief in support of motion for attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest; District Court, affidavit of Sam Jones; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to extend time; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to extend time; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply in further support of its cross-petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply brief in further support of its cross-petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to extend time; District Court, response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to extend time; District Court, order  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  JUN (i - 1997 OFFICE Cr DESEGREGAT!O~J MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JA~Ats.w. McC,ORMAC~. CLERK By. ~1 ~ Ll... l U \".. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No, LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District for reconsideration of this Court's Order approving the 1996-97 budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. There has been no timely response to the motion. The Court finds that the motion should be granted. 1 1 See doc. # 2983. DEP CLERK' ., .. :,-._ O O 1: The Court hereby modifies it Order of May 6, 1997 to clarify that the Order applies only to the 1996-97 ODM budget. The Pulaski County school districts are free to present evidence on all issues concerning the adequacy of state funding of future ODM budgets. Also before the Court is the motion of the Knight Intervenors for an extension of time within which to respond to the PCSSD's petition for attorneys' fees. The motion is granted. The Knight Intervenors have until and including June 10, 1997, within which to file their response to the PCSSD's petition for attorneys' fees. IT IS SO ORDERED this -5~ay of June 1997. a, ,g,J ~' \\ 'Hd f0 UNITED A ES DIST JUDGE - i,1s DOCUMENT ENTERED ON OOCKETSHE:ETIN .- MPUANCE Wl\"'[H RULE~ ANL(a) FROP :N __ {:,~/2/!l_~ey V  ~ - ~ r - 2 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 RJECEI''~\"' DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. ~.q ,,cf_ ]; .I W!!;.U DEFENDANTS -e.,,. Vr.,., d MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. JUN S-1997 INTERVENORS Y-'Gl'ti KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. p..., _ INTERVENORS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MON/TO PCSSD MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS'ffi~ES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST AS RESPECTS THE POOLING ISSUES The PCSSD for its motion states: 1. The PCSSD is the prevailing party as regards the pooling - dispute. 2. Pursuant to both Arkansas Code Annotated 16-22-308 and 42 U.S.C.  1988, the PCSSD is entitled to payment of its reasonable attorneys' fees. 3. The PCSSD is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees of at least $45,723.50, all as more fully set out, explained, and supported in the brief and affidavit which accompany this motion. 4. Under the particular circumstances of this case, the PCSSD is entitled to both pre- and postjudgment interest pursuant to Arkansas law. 5. This Court's order of July 30, 1996, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, ordered the LRSD to pay over the pooling sums within 60 days of that date. The opinion of the Court of Appeals - dated March 31, 199~ is attached as Exhibit A. To date, LRSD has paid nothing. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court awarding reasonable attorneys' fees together with pre- and postjudgment interest. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 ones O) for ski County District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June _5 , 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 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 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 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 03/%8/97 17:36 US COURT APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-3333 Little Rock School District, * * Appellant, * * Lorene Joshua; Intervenor Plaintif!s, * Servicemaster Management Services;   *  Intervenor,  Appeal from the United States * District court ror the Anne Mitchell; Bob Moore, Pat * Easte~ District of ~kansas. Gee; Pat Rayburn; Mary J. Gage;* North Little Rock Classroom * Teachers Association; Pulaski * A.,sociation of Classroom  Teachers; Little Rock Classroom* Teachers Association; Alexa  Armstrong; Karlos Armstrong;  Ed Bullington; Khayyam Davis; * Janice Dent; John Harrison,  Alvin Hudson; Tatia Hudson;  Milton Jackson; Leslie Joshua; : Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua;  Katherine Knight; Sara  Matthews; Becky McKinney; * Derrick Miles; Janice Miles; * John M. Miles; NAACP; Joyce * Person; -Brian Taylor; Hilton * Taylor, Parsha Taylor; Robert * Willingham; Tonya Willingham; * Intervenor Plaintiffs, v. North Little Rock School District; Leon Barnes; Sheryl Dunn; Mac Faulkner; Richard A. * *  * * *  * EXHIBIT I A OJ1281i7 li:3i 'OJH 5Ja 31145 Giddings; Marianne Gosser; Don  Hindman; Shirley Lowery; Bob  Lyon; George A. Mccrary; Bob * Moore; Steve Morley; Buddy  Raines; David Sain; Bob * Stender; Dal Ward; John Ward;  Judy Wear; Grainger Williams; * * Defendants, *  Pulaski County special School * District;   Appellee, *  State of Arkansas;   Defendants,   Office of Desegregation Monitor;*  Claimant,  * Horace A. Walker, F. A. * Hollingsworth; Kenneth G. * Torrence; Phillip E. Kaplan;  Janet Pulliam, John Bilheimer; * Dale Charles; Robert L. Brown,  Sr.; Gwen Hevey Jackson; Diane * Davis; Raymond Frazier;   Plaintiffs, * V.   Pulaski Cowity Board of  Education; o. G. Jacovelli, * individually and as President * of the Board of Education of  the Little Rock School District;* Patrici~ Gee, individually and  in her official capacity as a * member or the Board or  Education of the Little Rock  School District, a public body;* Dr. George Cannon, individually and in his official capacity * as a member of the Board or  Education of the Little Rock  -2- '61JUU.i 03/28li7 17:38 'Et3H 53i JU5 US COliRT APP.EALS School District, a public body;  John Moore, individually and in his official capacity as a  member of the Board o!  Education o! the Little Rock  school District, a public body; Dorsey Jackson, individually  and in his official capacity * as a member of the Board ot  Education of the Little Rock  School District, a public body;  Dr. Katherine Mitchell, indivi-  dually and in her official * capacity as a member of the  Board o! Education ot the * Little Rock School District, a  public body; W. D. Hamilton,  individually and in his o!!icial* capacity a~ a mexiwer of the  Board of Education ot the  Little Rock School District, a  public body; Cecil Bailey, * individually and in his  official capacity as a member  of the FUlaski County Board of  Education, a public corporate;  Thomas Broughton, individually  and in his official capacity  as a member or the Pulaski  County Board of Education, a  public corporate, Dr. Martin  Zoldessy, individually and in  his official capacity as a  member of the Pulaski County  Board of Education, a public  corporate; *  Defendants,  Submitted: February 25, 1997 Filed: March 31, 1997 l(illOOi Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chid Judge, and HEANEY and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge~. -3- 03/%8/97 17:40 !!314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS ilJ 007 HF.ANEY, Circuit Judge. Little Rock School District (LRSD) appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District o! Arkansas requiring it to pay the Pulaski County School District (PCSSD) $345,294 pursuant to a settlement agreement in the interdistrict desegregation case. We a!!irm. the order or the district court essentially tor the reasons stated in its opinion. At issue in this appeal is the entitlement to majority-tominori ty [M-to-M] payments and the amount each school district would receive pursuant to the settlement agreement. Paragraph oot the settlement agreement provides in part: [A]ll M-to-M payments generated by Interdistrict School students paid by the State to LRSD and PCSSD (including payment to each district as sending district and receiving district), except transportation payments, will be pooled for the education of all Interdistrict School students. The instructional budgets ot the Interdistrict Schools will be equalized. This provision does not change each district's obligation to construct and maintain the Interdistrict Schools within its boundaries. (Settlement Agreement, II, 1 0(3) .) Pursuant to this court's. instructions, the district court judge conducted an evidentiary hearing and subsequently ordered: [F]or each school year, the amount of LRSD's and PCSSD's financial contribution to the pool is calculated in accordance with Paragraph O of the Settlement Agreement. [There is no dispute as to the methodology for calculating these amounts.] The total amount of fwids in the pool for a given year is then divided by the total -4- 03/ZS/97 17:41 US COllRT APPEALS number or M-to-M students in the interdistrict schools in both districts to arrive at an equalized, per-student dollar amount for educating them in the interdistrict schools. For each school district, the equalized perstudent dollar amount is then multiplied by the number of M-to-M students hosted by that district in its interdistrict schools to deteanine the amount of the pooled funds to which each district is entitled. Little Reck school Dist, Y, Pulaski Cty, Special Schgol Dist, Ne. l, LR-C-82-866, at 3 (E.D. Ark. July 30, 1996) (citations omitted). ijooa On appeal, LRSD argues that the district court erred in dividing the pool based on the number ot M-to-M transter students; rather, it asserts that the court should have divided the pool based on the total number of students in the interdistrict schools. Under LRSD's method o! calc~lation, PCSSD would owe LRSD - Sl,270,839, instead o! LRSD's owing PCSSD $345,294 as ordered by the district court. We review the factual findings ot the district court under a clearly erroneous standard and its interpretation ot the Settlement Agreement de ngyg. The district coUit's interpretation of paragraph O is an acceptable one: it is just, it will promote voluntary interdistrict transfers to interdistrict schools, and it will provide a financial incentive to both districts to receive Mto- M tra.nster students. ~ Little Bock School Dist, Y, Pulaski Cty, Special School Dist No, 1. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). We recognize that LRSD spends more per pupil to educate its students in the interdistrict schools than PCSSD does and that the district court fonnula will not fully equalize these costs, but we do not believe that these differences are sufficient to release LRSD from its pooling obligation. Such a release would certainly -5- OJ12819i li:4J liS COl,;RI Af'f'\u0026u..S inhibit efforts to provide an integrated education to many student~, the principal objective of the school integration propo.!al. Nor are the differences sufficient to justify the alternative method of equalization suggested by LRSD. The practical problems in that approach were found by the district court to be insurmountable and we are not prepared to say that the district court erred in making that assessment. The judgment of the district court is attirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -6- 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. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") submits this brief in support of its motion for attorneys' fees in connection with its motion to enforce the \"pooling\" agreement. Without doubt, PCSSD was the prevailing party in this contract dispute and, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308, this Court may award reasonable fees. Alternatively, this Court may award fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988. PCSSD is further entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest on this Court's award of $345,294 to PCSSD. BACKGROUND By motion dated January 7, 1994, PCSSD sought to enforce the Settlement Agreement, requiring the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") to reimburse the PCSSD for monies owed pursuant to the \"pooling\" agreement of the parties regarding Majority-to-Minority (\"M-to-M\") payments received from the State of Arkansas. LRSD opposed PCSSD's motion, and this Court entered an order on March 16, 1994 granting PCSSD's motion. The Court of Appeals vacated this Court's March 16, 1994 order by opinion dated July 12, 1995, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. 1 Pursuant to the Eighth Circuit's order, this Court held an evidentiary hearing on September 8, 1995, and again on December 14, 1995. Both parties filed post-hearing briefs addressing the issues raised in the Eighth Circuit's opinion and this Court again, on July 30, 1996, granted PCSSD's motion and ordered the LRSD to pay over these sums within sixty (60) days. To date, LRSD has paid nothing. LRSD appealed the pooling order to the Eighth Circuit once more. Reviewing the district court's factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard, and its interpretation of the Settlement Agreement de novo, the Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court's order on March 31, 1997, finding the district court's interpretation of Paragraph O (the \"pooling\" agreement) to be just and in furtherance of implementation of the Settlement Agreement. 2 This petition is timely pursuant to this Court's order of August 16, 1996, giving the PCSSD until thirty (30) days after return of the Eighth Circuit's mandate to present this petition. ARGUMENT I. THE PCSSD SHOULD BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES A. PCSSD Is Entitled to Fees Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  16-22- 1 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Cty Dist. 1, 60 F.3d 435 (8th Cir. 1995). 2 Opinion, p. 5. A copy of the Eighth Circuit's March 31, 1997 opinion is attached to PCSSD's motion as Exhibit A. 2 PCSSD is entitled to request reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308, which provides that a prevailing party in a breach of contract case may be allowed reasonable fees to be assessed by the court and collected as costs. This statute may be utilized by a federal court in awarding fees on breach of contract claims brought in federal court. TCBY Systems, Inc. v. RSP Co., 33 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 1994). There is no fixed formula or policy to be considered in arriving at the amount of the attorneys' fees. There are, however, pertinent considerations w~ich the courts regularly evaluate in exercising their discretion to determine the amount of such award. These factors include (1) the attorneys' judgment, learning, ability, skill, experience, professional standing and advice; (2) the relationship between the parties; (3) the amount or importance of the subject matter of the case; (4) the nature, extent and difficulty of services in research; (5) the -preparation of the pleadings; (6) the proceedings actually taken and the nature and extent of the litigation; and (7) the time and labor devoted to the client's cause, the difficulties presented in the course of the litigation and the results obtained. Crockett \u0026 Brown, P.A. v.Courson, 312 Ark. 363, 849 S.W.2d 938 (1993) (under Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308); see also Chrisco v. Sun Indus., Inc., 304 Ark. 227, 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990). 3 An evaluation of the above considerations in this action makes clear that PCSSD is entitled to a reasonable attorneys' fee in the amount of at least $45,723.50. 1. The Attorneys' Judgment, Learning Ability, Skill, Experience, Professional Standing and Advice This Court is well acquainted with the PCSSD's attorneys' judgment, learning ability, skill, experience, professional standing and advice. Mr. Jones has represented the PCSSD in this matter since its inception in 1982. 2. The Relationship of the Parties In this long standing action, PCSSD has been required to litigate funding claims against both the State and the other Districts. In this particular instance, PCSSD has litigated the - pooling issue twice before this Court and twice before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The hard fought nature of the pooling dispute is a relevant matter for this Court to consider in fixing the appropriate fee. 3. The Amount and/or Importance of the Subject Matter of the Case This Court ruled that, pursuant to the pooling agreement, the PCSSD is entitled to $345,294 for FY 1991-91 through FY 1994- 95. Equally significant to the monetary award, this Court determined that the pooling agreement interpretation urged by PCSSD -- and adopted by the Court in its order -- would give effect to the meaning the parties attached to the agreement and in a manner that will promote voluntary interdistrict transfers, particularly to interdistrict schools. The operation of the 4 - agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable is considered by the Eighth Circuit to be a crucial element of the Settlement Agreement, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. 3 Thus, PCSSD achieved not only a substantial monetary award but also a substantial success in the continued implementation of the Settlement Agreement toward the goal of desegregation. 4. The Nature, Extent and Difficulty of Services in Research PCSSD was required to research and submit briefs and supplemental briefs to this Court and to the Eighth Circuit on the pooling issue on multiple occasions. To do so required considerable legal and factual research in order to present the applicable law and facts to this Court and the Court of Appeals. 5. The Preparation of the Pleadings PCSSD respectfully submits that the quality of its pleadings were equal to the results obtained. 6. The Proceedings Actually Taken and the Nature and Extent of the Litigation PCSSD submitted numerous briefs to this Court both before and after remand by the appellate court, participated in two full days of hearings before the Court, and submitted multiple briefs to the Eighth Circuit on two separate appeals of the same pooling issue. With regard to the overall nature and extent of this 3 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991). Similarly, on the second appeal of the pooling issue, the Eighth Circuit found that the District Court's interpretation was \"just\" and would promote voluntary interdistrict transfers to interdistrict schools. March 31, 1997 Opinion of the Eighth Circuit, at p. 5. 5 - litigation, this Court is well familiar with all matters related hereto. 7. The Time and Labor Devoted to the Client's Cause, the Difficulties Presented in the Court of the Litigation and the Results Obtained The time and labor devoted to the client's cause was plainly substantial, and is particularized in the Affidavit which accompanies the motion requesting fees. The results obtained for the PCSSD -- and the additional benefit to the overall Settlement Plan -- were surely positive. B. Alternatively, PCSSD Is Entitled to An Award of Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1998 The pooling agreement is an integral part of the Settlement Agreement, which embodies the remedy of the various parties in - this desegregation case. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) PCSSD, by its motion to enforce the pooling portion of the Settlement Agreement, sought to defend that remedy and, as prevailing party, may recover attorneys' fees. Jenkins v. Missouri, 73 F.3d 201, 204 (8th Cir. 1996) (fees available to permit school desegregation plaintiffs to defend remedy); see also Jenkins v. Missouri, 967 F.2d 1248 (8th Cir. 1992) (services devoted to reasonable monitoring of the court's decrees, both to ensure full compliance and to ensure that the plan is indeed working to desegregate the school system, are compensable services); LRSD v. PCSSD, (E.D. Ark. Dec. 10, 1996) (districts 6 - entitled to attorneys fees from State of Arkansas for enforcing financial terms of settlement agreement). This Court found, and the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, that not only was PCSSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement the correct one, but that interpretation would give effect to the Settlement Agreement in a manner that will promote voluntary interdistrict transfers, especially to interdistrict schools. Once again, the operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools is a crucial element of the Settlement Agreement. Consequently, PCSSD -- by seeking further to effectuate the desegregation remedy through enforcement of the settlement agreement -- is entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. II. PCSSD IS ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST PCSSD brought its motion asking this Court to interpret the pooling agreement in January 1994, at which time the damages PCSSD sought for LRSD's breach of the pooling agreement were capable of determination. Indeed, PCSSD has consistently, since the inception of the pooling agreement, made the calculations in accordance with the formulae/interpretation adopted by the Court and affirmed by the Eighth Circuit. The law of the state where the cause of action arises governs whether a party in a federal action is entitled to 7 - prejudgment interest. Jennings v. Dumas Public School Dist., 763 F.2d 28, 33 (8th Cir. 1985) (citing Bauer v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 630 F.2d 1287, 1290 (8th Cir. 1980). The standard for assessing whether prejudgment interest may be awarded was articulated by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Lovell v. Marianna Fed. Savings and Loan Assoc., 267 Ark. 164, 166, 589 S.W.2d 577 (1979) -- the test is \"whether there is a method of determination of the value of the property at the time of injury.\" The Lovell decision was clarified in Wooten v. Mcclendon, 272 Ark. 61, 612 S.W.2d 105 (1981), by indicating that what must be ascertainable is the \"initial measure of damages\" as distinguished from the precise amount that plaintiff would claim in his complaint or from the amount that the finder of fact would - ultimately award. Under either case, however, the requirement remains only that damages be determinable immediately after the loss. Pre-judgment interest is justified for obvious reasons: an injured party is entitled to have use of his money from a particular date. When deprived of that use, he suffers damages for which he should be granted relief in the form of interest. As a general rule, interest on an improperly disallowed insurance claim accrues from the date the amount due should have been paid under the policy. Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Fodrea, 185 Ark. 155, 46 S.W.2d 638 (1932). Arkansas courts have uniformly awarded six per-cent (6%) prejudgment interest in contract 8 - disputes. Wilson v. Lester Hurst Nursery, Inc., 269 Ark. 19, 598 S.W.2d 407 (1980). PCSSD's injury -- the amount it should have received from LRSD pursuant to the pooling agreement since 1991 -- has been capable of determination, indeed readily ascertainable, from the outset. As such, it meets the test of Lovell and its progeny. Accordingly, PCSSD should be awarded prejudgment interest on the award of $345,294. 4 III. PCSSD SHOULD BE AWARDED POST JUDGMENT INTEREST By Arkansas statute, a judgment on a contract is to bear interest at the contractual rate or ten percent (10%), whichever is greater. Ark. Code Ann.  16-65-114. Because the pooling agreement does not contain a provision setting the rate of interest, the statutory rate of 10% is applicable. Further, this post-judgment interest is appropriately awarded not only on the judgment, but also on the amount of pre-judgment interest to provide total compensation for the loss of use of the money prior to -- as well as subsequent to -- the date of the judgment. Hopper v. Denham, 281 Ark. 84, 661 S.W.2d 379 (1983). PCSSD is entitled to payment from LRSD pursuant to the pooling agreement but, to date, LRSD has paid not one cent. This Court's order of July 30, 1996 required the LRSD to pay over 4 PCSSD is calculating the interest it claims and will submit its calculations to the Court at the appropriate time, unless, of course, agreement can be reached with the LRSD regarding the accuracy of the calculations. 9 - these sums within sixty (60) days; this has plainly not been done. The award of post-judgment interest, including post judgment interest on any prejudgment interest awarded, is certainly warranted in this instance. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, PCSSD respectfully urges this Court to award it reasonable fees for the prosecution of its Pooling motion, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest on the award of $345,294. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ft-) V \u003c:;:,._kc______ ,,--- ~ Samuel. Jones /II (76060 ) Claire S ws Haficock (95013 ) Attorne for Pulaski County Se  School District 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June~, 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 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 11 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 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jones, I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO . LR -C - 8-2 - 8 6 6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEHlED f/4'7,!- \" , , ., 14.1, ve,--e' JUN 5 - 1997 4- 30 I' ,v} OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING AFFIDAVIT OF SAM JONES PLAINTIFF ' DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS My name is Sam Jones and I represent the Pulaski County Special School District in this litigation and have done so since its inception. Attached as Exhibit A are the billing records representing time reasonably expended in pursuit of these claims against the LRSD beginning September 13, 1993 and continuing through June 2, 1997. This file has been separately maintained as regards this claim and all time and expense entries relate only to the pooling claim. It is my professional belief that the narratives submitted as Exhibit A reasonably reflect time actually spent and devoted toward the pooling orders. Please note that the time entries are kept in tenths of an hour units as opposed to other firms whose time is recorded in units of one quarter hour. Because of the financial circumstances of the PCSSD, we have represented them in this matter at reduced hourly rates. My - standard rate for clients on January l, 1993 was $150.00 per hour; 1 January 1, 1994 was $160.00 per hour; January 1, 1995 was $170.00 per hour; January 1, 1996 was $175.00 per hour and is now $180.00 per hour. However, during 1996, I have represented the PCSSD in this matter for $135. 00 per hour. I have been a partner since January 1, 1981. Claire Shows Hancock has been a licensed attorney practicing primarily in New York City where her last standard hourly rate was $245.00 per hour. Her normal hourly rate in Little Rock is now $155.00 an hour as compared to $145.00 an hour 1996, and she is also a partner. She too has represented the PCSSD in this matter at the reduced hourly rate of $110.00 an hour. Angell Jones was the Manager of our Litigation Support Department. That department evolved because of the instant case - and several other complex cases involving the creation of databases and the management and retrieval of hundreds of thousands of documents and pleadings. Her hourly rate during 1996 has been $75. 00 an hour and that is her normal hourly rate. In 1993 her hourly rate was $55.00 as it was in 1994. It rose to $60.00 an hour in 1995. Valerie Bryant is a paralegal in the Litigation Support Department. She is primarily charged with maintaining this litigation database as well as with the management of the hundreds of thousands of documents that this case involves. Her normal hourly rate is $60.00 an hour and that is what she was paid by the PCSSD during 1997. Her rate in 1994 was $45.00 an hour, and was $55.00 an hour in both 1995 and 1996. 2 Sherry Murphy is a paralegal in the Litigation Support Department. Ms. Murphy's hourly rate is $60.00 an hour, up from $55.00 an hour in 1995. I respectfully submit that a total fee award of hours multiplied by standard 1996 rates would be appropriate in this matter, as reflected on the attached fee statement. These rates are consistent with those commonly found within the community for this type of work. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI \\ - .. ,.. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a notary public, this day of __: _ .-_,'-_~_ _ , 1993/- My Commission Expires: .- .) ) No t--iry Public Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 722 01-3699 (501) 371-0808 By '-----77i . M. Samuel AJc'torneys Special S '----- 3 J nes III jl76060) for Pcrlaski County ool District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE / On June _) , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons of record:. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( 4 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 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Dr. Donald Stewart Pulaski County Special School District Post Office Box 8601 North Little Rock, AR 72216 Re: Little Rock School District: Pooling Issues FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: Date Timekeeper 09/13/93 09/14/93 09/20/93 09/29/93 - /30/93 10/01/93 10/01/93 10/01/93 10/01/93 10/07/93 10/08/93 12/14/93 12/15/93 12/22/93 01/03/94 01/03/94 01/05/94 01/07/94 ._107/94 . /07/94 MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III A Jones MS Jones, III A Jones MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III Telephone conference with Don Stewart regarding pooling agreement Telephone conference with Don Stewart Telephone conference with Chris Heller and Don Stewart Confer with Mr. Milhollen, Mr. Malone, Mr. Heller and Dr. Stewart Organize transcripts regarding settlement agreement for attorney review Telephone conference with Don Stewart for pooling Review old transcripts to agreement issue Computerized search of transcripts for references to settlement agreement approval Organize transcript references regarding settlement agreement approval for attorney r "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1637","title":"Court filings concerning motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats, motion for taxation of costs, cross-petition for attorneys' fees, and enlargement of time","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","School improvement programs","Employee rights"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats, motion for taxation of costs, cross-petition for attorneys' fees, and enlargement of time"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1637"],"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":["86 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, motion for taxation of costs; District Court, brief in support of motion for taxation of costs; District Court, order; District Court, opposition of Joshua intervenors to motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats; District Court, motion for reconsideration; District Court, motion for additional enlargement of time; District Court, motion for reconsideration regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT's) motion for taxation for costs and PCSSD's cross-petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) cross-motion for attorneys' fees; District Court, two orders, District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motion for additional enlargement of time  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAYO o 1997 JAMES '(ii. Mc.fORMACK, CLERK By: '{._~t, /\\ N'\u003ei L':-\u003e _ OEP CL.ERK Intervenor. * MAY 7 \\997 * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * OFFICE OF * DESEGREGATION MONITORING Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * ORDER Before the Court is the motion of 111 school districts throughout the State of Arkansas to intervene for the purpose of appealing this Court's Order of April 22, 1997, regarding health insurance matching. The motion is granted. appeal. The applicants may intervene in this case only for the purpose of prosecuting the DATED this {a~ay of May 1997. ~.~~,y UNITEDSTA DICJUDGE fl-IS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN co~ WITH RULE. 5e AND,100 79(a) FACP ON ~ 6-7 IV 1Jt:: 2974 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTIUCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * ORDER f5l~D u s o:sr:.:cr couRr EASTERN DISTR!CT ARKANSAS MAYO 6 1997 JAMOS '/1. McGU~ACK, CLERK By: \\i ' \\.lJ\\ f\\J~ ~ DEP CLERK In November 1996, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") submitted its proposed 1996-97 budget to the Court for approval. The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), the Joshua Intervenors, and the Arkansas Department of Education (\" ADE\") filed objections to the budget. For the reasons that follow, the Court hereby .. approves the budget. 2975 I. The ODM is funded through contributions from the three Pulaski County school districts and the State. The State's share is $200,000.00, which is based on the amount that the State was paying the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative in 1989, the date of the desegregation Settlement Agreement. Each district's share is determined on a per-pupil prorated basis. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Counry Special School District No. 1, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1165 (E.D. Ark. 1989). The 1996-97 budget submitted by the ODM shows a marked increase in the Benefits category, from a budgeted amount of $49,613.00 in 1995-96 to a budgeted amount of $120,109.00 in 1996-97. The ODM states the increase is due to changes in the State's method of handling health insurance premiums and teacher retirement. In the past, the State directly - funded teacher retirement matching and health insurance payments for the State's school districts. Employees of the ODM were included in the list of employees the LRSD sent to the Teacher Retirement System, and the State paid contributions into the Retirement System on behalf of ODM employees. The State also paid 50% of the health insurance. Under the new State funding formula, no school district receives any money fnm the S;:ate that is specifically earmarked for the payment of teacher retirement and health benefits. Rather, Arkansas school districts are required to fund health insurance and teacher retirement out of state equalization funding or local funds. 1 1As applied to the three Pulaski County school districts, the Court recently found that the new funding scheme for teacher retirement and health insurance benefits violates the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the State and the settling districts. See doc. 2930 \u0026 doc. 2967. The ruling on teacher retirement is now on appeal to the Eighth Circuit, and the Court uooerstuxls the ruling on health insurance benefits also will be appealed.  2 The PCSSD objects to the budget, asserting that the State's decision to terminate the payment of teacher retirement and health insurance benefits for ODM employees results in an increased contribution by the PCSSD to the ODM budget. The PCSSD asks the Court to direct the State to increase its base level of support for the ODM to the same level that it supports educational cooperatives. The ADE objects to the ODM's proposed budget, contending that the State is not responsible for paying retirement or health benefits for ODM employees and that ODM employees were and are ineligible to participate in the teacher retirement system. Finally, the Joshua Intervenors object to the ODM budget because they believe the ODM should employ three additional monitors in order to handle and investigate complaints of discriminatory treatment of black students. II. In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1165 (E.D. Ark. 1989), Judge Woods directed the ADE to apply \"the amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative\" toward the budget of the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor (\"OMS\"). The court further authorized the Supervisor to employ a professional staff of up to four people and stated: \"In addition to each district's portion of Mr. Reville' s salary, it should add an amount equal to its portion of fringe benefits (e.g. hospitalization insurance), using the percentage used in calculating fringe benefits for the highest ranking person in that district. This 'fringe benefit' amount will apply toward offsetting the penalty Mr. Reville will suffer by leaving the New York pension program prior to the expiration of his six-year contract in Buffalo.\" .. 3 In December 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals replaced the OMS with the . ODM, see Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990), and in February 1991, this Court found that the State was obligated to continue funding ODM according to its previous obligation. See doc. 1442 (Order filed on February 28, 1991). In July 1991, the Court directed the LRSD, \"in the interest of administrative efficiency,\" to \"provide payroll services to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) for all ODM staff designated by the Desegregation Monitor.\" See doc. 1480. The employees of ODM have been listed as LRSD employees in reports submitted to the Teacher Retirement System for purposes of teacher retirement payments, and the State has been paying contributions into the Retirement System for at least the past five years on behalf of ODM employees. The State now argues that it is not and has never been obligated by order or agreement to pay retirement or health benefits for ODM employees or to permit ODM employees to participate in the teacher retirement system. The State claims that employees of ODM have been participating in the Teacher Retirement System and the State has been paying retirement 3Jld health insurance benefits for them without authorization under State law or an order of this Court. The ADE asks the Court to permit it to end and reverse any unauthorized participation by ODM employees in the Teacher Retirement System and provide guidance as to the disposition of any funds that may have been erroneously paid into the Teacher Retirement System by the State on behalf of \"ineligible\" ODM employees. 4 III. \\ The Court finds that the employees of the ODM are entitled to receive teacher retirement and health benefits as other employees of the three Pulaski County school districts. When Judge Henry Woods recused in this case on July 6, 1990, he stated that if members of the OMS wished to return to their jobs with the school districts from which they came, the school districts must reinstate them. Judge Woods further barred the districts -from retaliating against these employees. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 740 F. Supp. 632, 633 (E.D.Ark. 1990). This Court reiterated that in an Order dated January 17, 1991. See doc. 1418. Thus, the Court did not intend that the employees of the OMS/ ODM suffer as a result of moving from positions within the school districts to the OMS and its successor, the ODM. In addition, in spite of the State's claim that it did not know that ODM employees were receiving retirement and health benefits funded by the State, there is no indication that the arrangement with the LRSD was hidden from the State. The Court sent counsel for the State a copy of the proposed 1990-91 budget of the OMS and asked for any objections. See doc. 1391. The ADE did not object to tne budgeted amount for berefits. See doc. 1397. When in December 1990 the Eighth Circuit directed the Court to vacate the order creating the OMS and replace it with the ODM, the appeals court stated the office should be staffed by a monitor and such additional personnel as the Court deemed appropriate. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). In addition, the Court noted in September 1991 that the Arkansas Legislative Joint Auditing Committee would conduct annual audits of the ODM, and copies of the audit would be available to the parties. 5 See doc. 1510. Previously, the attorneys for the State were present, at this Court's request, for an August 7, 1991 hearing, at which the' Court discussed the ODM's budget and made reference to the audit by the Arkansas Legislative Audit Committee. See doc. 1507 at 10, 19. The Court finds that while the State may not have been aware that the employees of the ODM were being counted as employees of the LRSD for purposes of retirement and health benefits, this arrangement was not improper as a method of securing those benefits for ODM employees. See doc. 1480 (LRSD to provide payroll services to the ODM for all ODM staff designated by the Desegregation Monitor). Nor was the information unavailable to the State as the Legislative Audit was conducting annual audits of the ODM. The Court therefore finds that the objections of the ADE are without merit and will not require any repayment of funds previously applied. The Court, however, rejects the PCSSD's request that the State be required to provide teacher retirement and health benefits to the ODM employees as it does the educational cooperatives. Additionally, the Court finds no authority or suggestion in the record justifying an increase in the State's share of the ODM budget. Therefore, the Court will not order the State to increase its contribution to the ODM: budget. The Cot!.,1 expects the three districts to share the expense of the benefits package for the ODM employees in the same manner that they contribute to the ODM budget. 6 IV. With regard to the objections of the'Joshua Intervenors, the Court does not now intend to direct the ODM to employ additional monitors for the purpose of investigating complaints of discriminatory treatment in the disciplining of black students. Should the ODM determine that additional staff are necessary to carry out its obligations, the ODM may make such request to the Court. V. The Court having carefully reviewed the budget and the objections received thereto, see doc. 2870, 2885, 2886, the Court finds that the proposed 1996-97 budget for ODM should be and hereby is approved in its entirety . . -fl.._ IT IS SO ORDERED this \u0026 day of May 1997. ~l~~~ff UNITED STAT ms CJUDGE 7 MAY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION ? 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. NOTICE OF APPEAL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Arkansas Department of Education appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the District Court's order, filed April 22, 1997 and entered on the docket sheet on April 23, 1997, granting summary judgment in favor of the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District \"on the issue of state fundLTJ.g of the public school employee insurance program.\" Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General ~  TIMO ~tio19 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 6th day of May, 1997, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 3 John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. THOMPSON \u0026 LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 RECE~VED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL litr-id- W-Yen J !.'./.\\)' 8 1997 \u003c/:~,,,,,., OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MDrJliORING MOTION TO RELEASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL KINDERGARTEN SEATS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its motion to release incentive school kindergarten seats, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD encouraged parents who reside in the incentive - school zones to register their children for kindergarten during the 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. These are the only parents in the district who are presently unable to receive assignments. 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 hereto as Exhibit 1 is a partial listing of those recruitment efforts conducted by the district. Additionally, the information contained in the district's quarterly program planning and budget documents status reports and project management tools serve to supplement this listing. 3. Although the recruitment efforts yielded positive results, seats still remain vacant at the kindergarten level in the incentive schools. 4. Taking into consideration the importance of reserving seats for the recruitment of white students, the LRSD made special efforts during the recruitment season to register as many new white students as possible into these programs. The seats that still remain vacant should now be released to black students who can benefit from the educational opportunities which will be provided. 5. Attached to this motion as Exhibit 2 is a copy of the LRSD incentive school kindergarten assignments for the 1997-98 school year as of April 22, 1997. LRSD seeks permission to fill the - vacancies shown on Exhibit 2 with students from the waiting list. 6. LRSD is not seeking to release four-year-old program seats at this time. The district will continue its effort to recruit white parents for the four-year-old program and, to the extent seats remain vacant, will petition the court at a later date for release of those seats. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District moves for an order permitting it to release the vacant kindergarten seats at the incentive schools for the 1997-98 school year to students on the waiting list. {:\\bomc\\btll),llne!moe.- Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 B~ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of Incentive School Kindergarten following by depositing copy of this 8th day of May, 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 (:lliomolb1l,yllndlnao.- the foregoing Motion To Release Seats has been served on the same in the United States mail on 3 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 4 - April 21 , 1997 To: ~ancy Acre, Director of Student Assignmen1 From: Bed..-y Rather. Essie Middleton. Parent Recruiters Re: Recruitment efforts for third quaner 96-97 January edition of Little Rock Family Magazine published Public School Issue as a results of our involvement. Jan. 2 Worked with Dawn Jackson in planning neighborhood parent meeting. Jan. 6 Provided packets to Rector Phillips Morse Realtors Jan. 6 Mailed 15,000 Home and School Connection newsletters informing parents of registration. Jan. 6 Mailed registration packets to: I 3 5 Childcare centers 44 Homeowners Associations 210 Special Interest Patrons of Little Rock 88 Ministers Jan. i Gave presentation to HlPPY staff Jan. IO Held registration training meeting with all school secretaries. Jan.. IO Taped promo for Channel 11. \"Always Kids, Educated Choice\" Jan. 13 ?resented aI (?- grade transition evening meeting at Crystal Hill Jan. 13-14 Show and Tell in all schools sponsored and advertised through . .\u003c\\!Hance for Our Public Schools Jan.. 14 Attended PTA Council meeting aI Pulaski Heights Elementary Jan. 14 Presented at Early Childhood meeting Jan_ 14 Presented at evening HIPPY parent group meeting Jan. 16 Sent flyers home with elementary children on registration Jan. 16 Mailed letters to all P-4s on v.-aiting list to encourage kindergarten registration. Jan. 16-17 Posted flyers throughout the city on registration. Jan.. 16 Attended evening parent meeting in private home of Dawn Jack.son. Jan.. 17 An.ended 6~ grade orientation aI Dunbar Jan. 17 Mailed 400 brochur~ to PCSSD on Incentive Schools Jan.. 18 Panicipated in Saturday Mall show Jan. 2 I Registration begins through Jan. 3 L Jan 21 Open House, Elementary magnets Jan. 21 Provided information to Christ Temple Church Jan_ 24 Assist Steve Pintor Realtors Jan. 27 Assist Rainey Realty Jan. 27 Opai House. Incentive and Interdistria Jan. 28 Open House. Elementary Area and Secondary Magnet Jan.. 30 Participate in Arlc:ansas Legislative Day on Education with PTA Jan. 30 Open House, Secondary Area Jan. 31 Assist McNeil Smith Realtors Feb . 3 Evening presentation to network of Exeaitive Women Feb. 4 Presentation to Charlotte John Realty Feb. 4 Report of Biracial Committee Feb . 6 Presentation of Superintendents Student Council al Hall High Feb. 6 Parent Involvement meeting Feb. 7 Work with CARE office Feb. 8 Anend Sarurday, Title l Parent Involvement program Feb IO Open House, Metropolitan Feb IO Chili Supper at Mabelvale Junior High Feb 11 Attend PTA Founders Day luncheon Feb 11 Report 10 Early Childhood board on 4-year--old registration Feb 12 HIPPY board meeting Feb 17 Meet with Southwest Jr. High Recruitment team Feb I 8 Assist in assigning magnet students Feb 19 Attend Kids Count Coalition at Children's Hospital Feb 20 Meet with PCSSD PTA parents Feb'.? 1 Worlc with McKay Realry Feb 24 Meet with Janet Jones Realty Feb 2A Meet ,1,ith ~1LR PTA parents Feb 24 An.end HIPPY Black History Celebration Feb 26 Participate in Parent Involvement Workshop for Secondary Vice Principals Feb 28 Participare in parent Involvement Workshop for Elementary Vice Principals Mar 3 Assist Byer Agent Realtors Mar 4 Mail assignment letters Mar 4 Report to Biracial Committee Mar S -~ ho-well Realtors Mar 9 Desegregation application opened through Mar. 28 Mar 10 Worked with T omado victims in reassignment or transpOrtarion Mar 10.As.sembly for Success Mar 11 Anend PT A Council at mcClellan ~-1ar 1.2.Anend Friends Day at King Mar 13 Assisted Grobmyer Realty Mar 13 Requested labels from PCSSD to assist Hall High with recruitment Mar 18 Presentation to Janet Jones Realty Mar 19 Spent afternoon with Lisa Woodrow. new relocation specialist for RPM Realty :Mar20 Compiled Recruinnent Survey Results \\far 25 HIPPY Parent Appreciation Mar 26 Worked with Barbara Sumpter. new relocation specialist for Entergy Mar 27 Early Childhood Parent Involvement meeting.. Pro\";ded 80 packets for mailouts Pro\\;ded 31 tours to individual families during this guaner December 19, 199-j- To: From: Nancy Acre, Directo\u0026 of Student Assignment .\"'{! J ;,- / ~ ~\"-13,ecky Rather \u0026 ~;,i,t(ddleton, Parent Recruiters Re: Recruitment Report, 2nd Quarter, 96-97 OCTOBER 2 Attend Youth Suicide Planning Meeting 3\u00264 Held Recruitment Workshops for all Principals and individual school recruitment teams. 5 Participate in Youth Suicide Conference 7 Met with LR Fa.1nily Magazine on story ideas for public school issue. 7 Met with Booker recruitment team 8 Attended PTA Council at Rightsell 8 Assisted UALR with maps 8 Assisted with Garland PrA recruitlllent 9 Met with Junior High principals and Dr. Anderson on planning transition meeting 10-11Delivered recruitment packets to schools not attending recruitment workshops 11 Prepared Program Budget Document Report 14 set up dates to meet with HIPPY 15 All school level recruitll1ent plans due 17 Attend Parent Involvement Advisory committee meeting 21 Send PYI to all elementary principals on 6th grade transition meeting 24 Met with Alliance for Our Public Schools 24 Attend Kids Count meeting 24 Mailed 216 letters to churches and homeowners associations about transition meeting 28 Mailed transition meeting letters to all 6th grade parents in the District 28 Delivered 600 transition flyers to PCSSD 28 Met with Eddie Collins and Susie Roberts at PCSSD about meetings on recruitment to incentive schools 31 Attended PUblic Education Forum 31 Met at Henderson about Jr. High meeting 31 Met with HIPPY advisory board NOVEMBER 1 Sent newly developed recruitment survey in tablet form to all schools to have parents fill out and return to parent recruiters. 1 Held meeting with communications on registration 7 Participated in evening meeting with Southwest Little Rocle United for Progress 10 Tour with 15 6th grade parents from Cathedral School at Mann, Dunbar and Pulaski Heights 12 Mailed letter to 6th grade private school letters - - 12 12 13 14 14 15 17 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 2S 25 25 26 27 inviting to transition meeting Attended regional PTA meeting with parents from all school districts Attended PTA Council at Badgett Attended meeting in Pine Bluff on school vouchers Sent flyers home with all 6th graders about meetings Prepare agenda, survey, and last minute details for Sunday meeting Schools first Bi-monthly recruitment survey due Held 6th grade transition meeting attended by approximately 600 parents Assisted with two tours at Cloverdale Jr. High Assisted with two tours at Dunbar Jr. High Meet about registration Mailed 100 evaluations to parents who attended transition meeting Assist at parent meeting on Adolescents Assisted with two tours at Forest Heights Assisted with t~o tours at Henderson Assisted with two tours at Mabelvale Jr. Assisted with two tours at Mann Jr. Met with Alliance for Our Public Schools about registration Assisted with two tours at PHJH Assisted with two tours at Southwest Met with Geyer Springs recruitment team Attended local meeting on charter schools Mailed Thank You notes to transition participants DECEMBER 2 3 4 4 6 6 9 10 11 12 12 13 16 17 17 17 17 18 19 20 Attended meeting with Hall High School parents Parent Open House at PH.JH Met with. principal at Hall High Met with committee on incentive schools Attended 90th birthday party at Rightsell Met with new principal at Mitchell on recruitment Parent open House at Forest Heights Made presentations on registration and legislation at PTA Council at Geyer Springs Attended luncheon for realtors at Forest Heights Attended Legislative meeting Attended Parent Involvement ~eeting Participated in planning meeting for PTA Founders Day Prepare mailouts for ministers, daycares and Housing Authority for registration Mail transition meeting evaluation results to schools Request private school labels for recruitment Met with Connie Whitfield on Rightsell and Mitchell recruitment Make Biracial Cot:llllittee report Attend celebration at Martin Luther King Attend meeting for legislative Advocates for Kids Attend ~eeting with Alliance for Our Public Schools The parent recruiters toured 48 families during the second quarter (Oct.-Dec.) of 96-97. Each family tour includes between one and six schools, depending on the grade level of child and availability of seats. At the special tours for 6th grade parents, the 16 tours at the junior highs ranged from 1 set of parents at one tour to approximately 80 at another. November 25, 1996 To: From: Re: JULY Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment Becky Rather \u0026 Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Recruitment Report, 1st Quarter, 96-97 1-31 Developed ad for Kid's Directory featuring Incentive Schools, CARE, 4-year-old program and registration dates. Ad was distributed trhoughout month of July 2 Met with Suellen Vann a.bout new Incentive School brochures 10 Met with Mable Donaldson for information on Gifted/Talented in schools 10 Mailed letter to all white students on 4-year-oid waiting lists offering available seats 12 Met with Parent Involvement Administrative Team about new District Parent Involvelllent Policy 14 sent memo to communications outlining agreed upon plans for Incentive Schools 17 Presented recruitment plans for the year to Director of Student Assignment 17 Met with Alliance for OUr Public Schools 19 L.~D 96-97 calendars ready for distribution to Realtors, prospective parents, etc. 19 Registration letters and flyers mailed to 156 churches and childcare providers in the city. 22 Attended monthly meeting of Parent Involvement Administrative Team 23 Met with Janet Jones Realty to provide new calendars 24 Work with new principal at Chicot on recruitment for school 24 Met with Pat Price on Parent Involvement workshop 25 Sent OERFs to McClellan and Henderson for recruitlllent efforts 25 Met with Ark. Co!!lIIlunity Fou.ndation 25 Julie Wiedower represented office in Magnet Meeting 29 Mailed calendars to all LRSD households informing them of registration, school opening dates, etc. 29 Participated in Principal Workshop on Parent Involvement 30 Attended Parent Involvement Conference with State Dept. 31 Attended Nuts \u0026 Bolts on Planning 31 Developed new letter to newcomers AUGUST 1 Press releases distributed on registration dates l Hold Secretaries inservice on registration \" - - 1\u00262 3 5 7\u00268 12 13 14 15 23 26 26 27 27 29 JO Distributed registration posters throughout city in grocery stores, housing projects, medical offices, youth centers, Department of Human Services, etc. Meet with McKay Realtors Worked on CARE closing at several schools Registration in Schools Attend Early Childhood meeting Attend PTA Council Workshop at Ro~ine Met with Alliance for our Public Schools Nancy Acre met with ODM, PCSSD, NLR Sent letter to Communications about Incentive brochure Interdistrict schools open houses Magnet elementary schools open houses Area schools open houses Incentive schools open houses Mann, Dunbar, Metro open houses contact Sterling Ingran on extended day information SEPTEMBER 3 3 4 5 9 10 10 12 12 16 17 18 23 23 25 25 26 JO Assist Henderson Pl'A Ju..~ior High open houses Acre met with Bowles, Collins, Acklin, Jackson High school magnets open houses Area high schools open houses PTA Council ueeting Board Room Report to Biracial Co11I111ittee Attend Parent Involvement Administrative Team meeting Assist Henderson in Recruitment Attend Department of Education retreat Talked to Fa1nily Magazine about prOl:lotional stories due day - Gathered lists of names of recruitment team members from each school Worked with Sweeney Realty Review incentive school brochure Held meeting on planning 6th grade orientation Attended Kids Count meeting at Arkansas Children's Hospital Assist McCaskell Realty Attend Amendment One meeting at Governor's mansion The parent recruiters toured 16 families during the first quarter (July-Sept.) of 96-97. Each family tour includes between one and six schools, depending on the grade level of child and availability of seats. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ASSIGNMENTS AT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1997-98 AS OF 4/22/97 ENROLLED WAITING LIST SCHOOL BL W/0 TOTAL VACANCY %BL BL AZ* W/0 CAPACITY Franklin 52 6 58 22 89.7% 33 13 0 80 Garland 23 3 26 14 88.5% 14 2 0 40 Mitchell 20 3 23 17 87.0% 36 13 0 40 Rightsell 20 2 22 18 91.0% 29 13 0 40 Rockefeller 28 26 54 6 52.0% 49 0 0 60 TOTALS 143 40 183 77 78.1 % 161 41 0 260 BL - Black Students W /0 - White and Other Students AZ* - Students who live in the attendance zone *The attendance zone students on the Incentive Schools' wa1tmg list registered during the initial registration period in January. These students were unable to be assigned to their zone schools due to rising P4 students who filled all seats available for black students. These students were the ~ students who registered during January that could run be assigned to their attendance zone school. I' 'V I , FILED U.S. DISTRICT COU\"'l' EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSA8 1,:f\\ I .I. ;_ 1997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT MAY 1 4 1997 CFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LR-C-82-866 NOTICE OF APPEAL By: __________ _ OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Notice is hereby given that the Intervenors, 111 Arkansas School Districts, listed on Attachment 1, as Defendants in the above case, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the District Court's Order entered in this action on April 23, 1997. Respectfully submitted, INTERVENING SCHOOL DISTRICTS, DE.f\"C...NDANTS THOMPSON AND LLEWELLYN, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-818 Telephone: 501-785-2867 Facsimile: 501-782-8046 r. #66040 THE NITED ST A TE DISTRlCT CO RT EASTERN DI TRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISlON i,i,'.\\ Y 1 5 1S97 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT av: -------,o~E\":,\"\";:,_rcLIEE~Ri\u003c PLAI TIFF V. 0. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COU TY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 0. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. ~'Av l : o::n f 'I, J .., lvv, OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MOTIO FORT AXA TION OF COSTS DEFENDANTS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS ll\\TER.VENORS Knight, et al. , Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, ROA CHELL LAW FIRM, for their Motion for Taxatio "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1664","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to motion to add parties; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, two orders; Court of Appeals, petition for rehearing by the panel","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":["1997-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School employees","School management and organization","Education--Economic aspects","Insurance","Student assistance programs","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to motion to add parties; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, two orders; Court of Appeals, petition for rehearing by the panel"],"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/1664"],"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":["119 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 OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT R ECEIVEr.APPELLANT v. NO. 96-3333 APR 1 4 1997 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OF.71CE OF DESEGREGArior~ MONJTORit,GAPPELLEE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD's deadline for filing a petition for rehearing by the panel is April 14, 1997. Because of the time necessary for a public body such as LRSD to determine a course of action, and because of the press of business, LRSD requires additional time within which to file its petition for rehearing by the panel. 2. Mr. Sam Jones, counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District, has stated that he does not oppose this motion. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD requests an order extending the time within which it may file a petition for rehearing by the panel of fourteen (14) days, to and including April 28, 1997. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 501/376-L.J.j-'T\"-- sas Ba CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time has been served on the following on this 11th day of April, 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 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 l:lhomo~J.at ~ 2 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 APR l 1 1~~7 OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INT ERVEN ORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO ADD PARTIES For its response, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The Joshua Intervenors have asked this court for permission to add as defendants the Little Rock Municipal Court and the Police Department of the City of Little Rock. Joshua has not provided the court any authority to support the proposition that these parties can be brought into this case at this time. This court has found that \"with the entry of the settlement agreement, the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter.\" March 11, 1996 Memorandum and Order, p.a. The police department and the municipal court are not parties to the settlement agreement. Joshua has provided the court no basis for enforcing a consent decree against entities which are not parties to that decree. 2. Joshua has not even discussed the issues inherent in asking a federal court to interfere with the operations of another court or a police department. This court should not consider adding parties without requiring more from Joshua. 3. The primary basis for Joshua's motion was the issuance by the municipal court of a standard \"no contact order. \" Joshua complains that the no contact order \"effectively restrains a black school child from attending Hall High School.\" The no contact order has been amended to insure that the student who is the subject of the order will be able to attend classes at Hall High School without violating the order. Therefore, in addition to being unfounded, Joshua's motion is moot. 4 . A copy of the order amending the municipal court no contact order is attached to this response. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Joshua's \"Motion to Add Parties\" should be dismissed. 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 B~~ Bar No. 81083 2 ------ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of Little Rock School District's Response to Motion to Add Parties has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 11th day of April, 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 istopher 3 Ll\u003cl'U UtltlJllVt UIV IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS ST ATE OF ARKANSAS vs. NO. 97-2313 DANTE MILES ORDER TO AMEND NO CONTACT ORDER r. u~ l. It is ordered that the No Contact Order issued in the case of Dante Miles, defendant, in the name Patricia Bona, victim, be amended to state that Mr. !v1iles is authorized to go peacefully and directly past room 612 at Hall High School before and after third period in order to go to and from class. 2. This amendment does not alleviate Mr. Miles duty to refrain fro any contact with Patricia Bona. Approved as to Form and Acknowledged: Defense Attorney .. f':30 Time 04/02/97 WED 13:56 [TX/RX NO 6528) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK HUIICHIEL H , F\"IDAY (1822-1184. WILLIAM H. IUTTON, P . A . JAMEi W. MOOftE IY,.ON M . USEMAN. J\"   , . A . JOIE 0. IElL. r.A . A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN C , ECHOLS , , . A . JAMES A . IUTTRY, r . A .  ICIC 8 . U\"SIERY , , . A . \"ZELERE, r . A . C E. DAVIS, JR . P. A. , JA 8 C. CLA\"\"-  JR ,, , . A . THOMAS,. , LEGGETT, P .A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P . A . PAUL I . BENHAM Ill , P. A . LAftftY W. BURKS , P.A . A . WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR ., P . A . JAMES EDWARD HARRIS , P. A . J . PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A . JAMES M . SIMPSON , P. A. JAMES M. SAXTON, l' . A. J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill , P. A . OONA.LOH . IA.CON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS IAXTER , P. A . WALTER A . PAULSON 11 , P. A . IA\"\"y E. COPLIN , P.A . IUCHARO 0 . TAYLOR , P. A . JOSEPH B. HURST , JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY , P. A . CHftlSTOrHER HELLER, P. A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P. A . ROBERTS . SHAFER, P. A. WILLIAM M . GRIFFIN Ill, P.A . MICHAELS . MOORE, P. A. DIANE 6 . MACKEY , P. A . WALTER M . EBEL 111, P.A. lEVIN A . CRASS , P. A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR ., P. A . Mr. Michael E. Gans 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 601-37e-2011 FAX NO. 601-37e-2147 April 22, 1997 RECEIVED APR 2 3 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING United States Court of Appeals U.S. Court \u0026 custom House 1114 Market Street st. Louis, MO 63101 Re: Court of Appeals No. 96-3333 Dear Mr. Gans: SCOTT J , LANCASTER , P. A. M. GAYLE CORLEY , , . A . ROBERT 8 . IEACH, Jlll . , P . A . J . LEE BROWN, P, , A . JAMES C . BAICER , JR ., P, ,A . HARRY A . LIGHT, P. A. SCOTT H. TUCKER , P. A . JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH . P. A . GUY ALTON WADE, P. A . PRICE C . GARONE\", P. A . TONIA P. JONES , P. A . DAVID 0 , WILSON . P. A . JEFFREY H . MOORE. P. A . ANDREW T . TURNER, P. A . DAVID M . GRAF, P. A . CARLA G . SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR . ALLISON GRAVES JONA.NH C . ROOSEVELT R. CHllllSTOPHEfl LAWSON GREGORY 0 . TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRANC . HIClMAN BETTY J. DEMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W. SMITH r CLIFFORD W. PLUHlETT DANIEL l. HERRINGTON ALLISON J . CORNWELL TOOO A. GREER ELLEN M . OWENS OF COUNHL WILLIAM J . SMITH 8.8 . CLARK WILLIAM l. TERRY . P. A . WILLIAM l. PATTON. JR , P. A . JUTEll\"S OI IIECT NO. (601) 370-1606 I have enclosed for filing the Little Rock School District's Motion For Extension of Time in the above-referenced matter. CJH/k Enc. Yours very t Christ er. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLANT V. NO. 96-3333 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD requested and was granted an extension of time of fourteen ( 14) days to April 28, 1997 within which to file its petition for rehearing by the panel. It has now become necessary for LRSD to seek an additional four (4) days, to and including May 2, 1997, within which to file its petition for rehearing. 2. This second request is necessary because of the unanticipated amount of time counsel has had to spend dealing with emergency issues which have arisen in the school desegregation case and due to the unanticipated amount of time counsel has lost in the aftermath of a traffic accident. 3. Mr. Sam Jones, counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District, has stated that he does not oppose this motion. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD requests an order extending the time within which it may file a petition for rehearing by the panel of four (4) days, to and including May 2, 1997. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 501/376-z.u,,H:--- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time has been served on the following on this 22nd day of April, 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 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr . . Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 f:lbcmc~\\3333.cxl 2 - FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. OIS,iliCT COURT EASTERN ~i:,TR iC 1 AA..; . .-,;.,SA:3 APR 2 2 1997 LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenor. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, Intervenor. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 APR 2~ 1997 OFFICE oi:: DESEGREGATION MONITORING MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District for summary judgment on the issues of state funding of the public school employee insurance program (health insurance matching), state funding for special education students, and loss funding. The State of Arkansas, Arkansas Department of Education, has responded to the motion, and other Arkansas school districts have joined in filing an amicus curiae response in opposition to the 2 9 6 7: motion. 1 Upon careful consideration of the motion, responses, statements of facts, briefs, and exhibits, the Court finds that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part. I. In 1995, the Arkansas General Assembly passed Acts 917 and 1194, legislation that changed the method the State uses to distribute aid to school districts. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-301 et seq. (Michie 1995 Supp.) (\"Equitable School Finance System Act of 1995\"). Prior to 1996-97, the Arkansas Department of Education distributed the majority of state aid as Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). In addition, the State funded other programs such as Transportation Aid and At-Risk Grants by formulas or based on need. The State also paid Teacher Retirement Matching and Health Insurance Matching on behalf of school districts. The calculation for MFPA included add-on weights for various categories such as Special Education, Isolated School Districts, Consolidation Incentives, Vocational Education and Centers, Gifted and Talented Students, and growth and loss funding. See Arkansas Budget System, Agency Program Commentary for the 1997-1999 Biennium(\" ABS\") [Doc. 2896, Ex. C, p. 29]. Under the new funding scheme, no school district will receive money from the State specifically earmarked for health insurance matching. Also, State Equalization Funds are now distributed to districts based on the number of students, Average Daily Membership (\" ADM\"), 1In reply to the State's response, the Pulaski County Special School District filed an additional affidavit of Donald Stewart [ doc. 2950]. The State filed a motion to strike the affidavit and for leave to file a sur-reply [doc. 2954]. The Court finds that the motion to strike should be granted. The Stewart affidavit serves only to point out differing interpretations of the new funding formula and raise questions of how the formula will operate. The State's motion for leave to file a sur-reply is denied as moot. 2 equalized by the wealth of the district. Weighting for special education and loss funding is eliminated from the State Equalization funding formula. The three Pulaski County school districts urge the Court to find that these changes to the funding formula violate the desegregation Settlement Agreement. II. The Settlement Agreement obligates the State to continue to pay the settling districts \"[t]he State's share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funding.\" See Settlement Agreement II, 1 E. The Agreement also provides that the \"State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate.\" See Settlement Agreement  II, 1 L. The Agreement goes on to state that \"[f]air 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.\" Id. In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996), the Eighth Circuit held that direct state funding of workers' compensation costs is a \"program\" for purposes of the Settlement Agreement. It further held that the State's decision to change the law to require individual school districts to provide their own coverage did not violate the Settlement Agreement because it was an equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts. 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.'\" Id. at 1018. \"So long 3 as that change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement.\" Id. The Eighth Circuit went on to hold, however, that when the State disbursed \"seed money\" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation insurance, the formula, which was based upon enrollment rather than number of employees, created a disparity between the Pulaski County school districts and other school districts. \"This results in precisely what the anti-retaliation clause was meant to prevent. It  funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state. It is of no moment that the State reached this result in a mathematically consistent manner.\" Id. A. The three Pulaski County school districts move for summary judgment on the issue of state funding of health insurance, arguing that requiring them to pay health insurance costs from state equalization funding or local funds violates their desegregation Settlement Agreement with the State. For the same reasons the Court granted summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching, see doc. 2930, the Court grants the motion for summary judgment on the issue of funding of health insurance matching. This Court found that direct funding of teacher retirement matching contributions by the State was a program in existence at the time of the Settlement Agreement, and that funds for programs such as teacher retirement and health insurance, which under the old scheme were not a part of the funding formula but were distributed directly by the State, were included in state funds to be distributed according to the new formula. This Court further found that the distribution of teacher retirement contributions through the new funding scheme worked to, the detriment of the employee-heavy settling districts because they, to a certain extent, are not 4 in a position to control their teacher retirement costs due to the many added obligations under the settlement plans. 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 ufair 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 ufair and rational\" adjustment to the funding formula. B. Concerning the issues of funding for special education students and loss funding, the Court finds that summary judgment is not warranted. Under the old funding formula, the calculation for MFPA included add-on weights for various categories, including special education and loss funding. That weighting system has been eliminated and no district receives any identifiable money for special education or other high cost students or for loss funding'. The three Pulaski County school districts argue that because they have extraordinarily high special education expenses compared to other school districts, the new funding scheme is not fair and rational because it does nothing to recognize these costs or factor them into the formula. They also contend that they will suffer more from the elimination of loss funding because they lose students at a higher rate than other school districts. The settling districts argue that because the new funding scheme does not recognize . 5 the added costs of special education or loss funding, they are penalized unfairly and irrationally. The State says that under the new funding scheme, districts will continue to receive funding for the highest cost special education students, those requiring treatment at residential facilities. The State has historically reimbursed districts on a per diem basis equivalent to the actual charges made by these facilities. The new fund distribution method, the State says, as was the case under the distribution method in effect prior to the 1995 legislation, is a pure funding \"pass through\" in which residential treatment facilities do not bill school districts in excess of the amount of state funding provided to the district. The State, it appears, has determined to appropriate less money during the 1996-97 school year for this program, and has advised school districts that the reimbursement rate will be approximately $44.00 per day, down from average per diem reimbursement of $57.00 during the 1995-96 school year. The settling districts acknowledge that many institutions have reduced their charges to reflect this new rate; however, they express concern that this will be only a temporary arrangement and predict that the rate eventually will be raised. The Pulaski County districts also complain that elimination of weighting for special education students in determining formula funds violates the Settlement Agreement because they have a higher proportion of special education students. With regard to loss funding, depending on how the settling districts' M-to-M students are counted, which apparently has not been determined, the Pulaski County Special School District, for example, may or may not be eligible for growth funding. Student growth fundin\u0026 provides school districts additional funding for first quarter growth in the number of students 6 over the previous year's ADM. Act 917 retained student growth funding as a feature of state aid for districts with expanding enrollments. In addition, under Act 917, school districts' 1996-97 state aid is based upon the prior year's ADM, and thus there is a one-year adjustment period for districts with declining enrollment. See Wilhoit Dep., Ex. 2, ADE's Resp. Mot. Summ. J. Unlike teacher retirement and health insurance, where the costs for those programs are directly impacted by the obligations imposed by the desegregation settlement plans, the alleged disproportionately high number of special needs students in the settling districts is a circumstance that was not created by the settlement plans. Similarly, the loss or gain of students is not the result of obligations under the settlement plans. Further, it is unclear whether in these two areas the State has made an \"adjustmenf to the funding formula which has \"general applicability\" which is \"fair and rational adjustment. Even though the Settlement Agreement provides that the \"State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate, it also provides that \"[f]air 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. See Settlement Agreement  II, 1 L. Thus, the Court finds that the evidence indicates there are unresolved questions of interpretation as well as questions about how the new funding formula will operate and how the settling districts will be impacted. Because the Court finds that there remain genuine issues of material fact in dispute, the motion for summary judgment on the issues of special educatio~ and loss funding is denied. 7 III. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment [doc.# 2906] is granted as to health insurance and denied as to special education and loss funding. DATED this ~~ay of April 1997. ~ )Mi;;f~vr UNITED sii l)lsTRic 1unaE 8 ... ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT us~,{ktJlRr EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASH:,,\\; .::;s-:-;\"~ c, AR,-.;,,,c:, \"' WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 2 1997 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenor. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, Intervenor. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * QRDER OFFICE o:OESEGREGATIO:~ f!.OfJiTOh11 w.- Upon motion of the State of Arkansas, Arkansas Department of Education, the Court hereby orders that Special Assistant Attorney General Tim Humphries and Assistant Attorney General Timothy G. Gauger be, and are hereby substituted for Elizabeth Boyter Turner, as attorneys for the Arkansas Department of Education. Also before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors to add as defendants the Little Rock Municipal Court and the Little Rock Police Department to which the Little Rock School District has filed a response.  I t ,  I I I I t I  t   t 2 9 6 8 The Little Rock Municipal Court and the Little Rock Police Department are not parties to the settlement agreement and the Joshua Intervenors have provided the Court with no authority for enforcing a consent decree against entities which are not parties to that decree. 1 In addition, it appears that the issue behind the filing of the motion is moot. . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to substitute attorneys [doc. 2964] is granted and the motion to add parties [doc. 2962] is denied. ~ DATED this # day of April 1997. 1The Court points out that while ServiceMaster Management Services was not a party to the settleme~t agreement, it asked the Court for leave to intervene in order to protect its contract rights. See doc. 2547. 2 APR 2 2 1997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURffiMl:S w. i,1cu.Jrti,1ALr-., CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By: -------;::D-;:;EP:;-:.C;::;LcE\"RK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF APPEAL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS RECEive~. APR 2 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONliORf fJG Notice is hereby given that the Joshua Intervenors do hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the District Court's order, entered on March - 24, 1997 (DOCKET NO.2959). Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-37i,-37 _/) ~ j \" : By: \\ ~ ~jt,7)(7~ Walker - #64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby acknowledge that a document was sent to all counsel of copy of the foregoing th's 22nd day of April, 1997. Ye~ I J UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas Office of the Clerk 600 West Capitol, Room 402 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 April 23, 1997 Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63103 Case No. LR-C-82-866 Re: LRSD vs. PCSSD Dear Sir: Enclosed please find in duplicate, copies of the following in the above case: Notice of Appeal [certified] Joshua Intervenor., Docket Entries [certified] Order filed 3/24/97 l\\lemorandum Opinion and Order filed 9/23/96 Sincerely, James W. McCormack, Clerk Doris Collins, Deputy Clerk cc: w/encs. All Counsel of Record Waunzell Petre - Court Reporter - APR 2 ~ 1997 Off\\CE Of DESEGREGA110N MONl10RING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION FILED UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenor. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, Intervenor. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER U 5 DISTRICT COURT .,.., EASTERN DISTRICT ARKAN-APR 2 8 t991 JAMES~ORMACK. ClERK By: U{.~- ' ~ DEP Cl.RK No. LR-C-82-866 Before the Court is the motion for reconsideration filed by the Joshua Intervenors on February 21, 1997 to which the Pulaski County Special School District has responded. The Joshua Intervenors seek reconsideration of the Court's Order dated February 20, 199:7, in which the Court dismissed the Joshua Intervenors' motions to require ODM monitoring or in the alternative for the Pulaski County Special School District to show cause concerning a teacher at Oak Grove Elementary School. Upon consideration of the motion and response, the Court finds that the motion should be denied. In support of their motion, the Joshua Intervenors submit an exhibit which contains a number of letters and memoranda which they contend support to their contention that there are serious problems regarding the discipline of minority students in the PCSSD. The Joshua Intervenors ask the Court to direct the ODM to monitor the PCSSD's compliance with its discipline plan or, in the alternative, hold the PCSSD in contempt for violating its student discipline plan. In its response, the PCSSD has demonstrated its attention to and resolution of the specific conflicts about which the Joshua Intervenors complain. As stated in the February 20, 1997 Order, the Court believes these are matters that should be and are being addressed by the PCSSD. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (doc. 2940) is hereby denied. DATED this ~y of April 1997. '.22~ Jtlf\u0026~ UNITED STADISCTGE 1141 m11EN'1 ENI ERED ON DOCKET a\u0026T _. Calll\"IJAIICE Willi AUlf 58 AN~ 7e{a) FRCP ~ - OM i--;; 8~qvz av ,~ \u003c.. 2 - FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 9 1997 JAMES_ \\fl. McCRRMACK, CLERK Br- v , Q:l~b I\\ W 1\\.. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenor. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, Intervenor. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * QRDER No. LR-C-82-866 RECE]VED APR 3 0 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OEl'CURI( Before the Court is a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors on September 27, 1996, requesting attorney's fees for the work of their counsel in successfully opposing the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") to end federal court jurisdiction regarding the LRSD. In that motion filed on May 17, 1996, the LRSD argued that it had agreed to an implementation period of six years, that the six-year period had expired, and that it was in substantial compliance with the settlement plans. On September 23, 1996, the Court denied the LRSD's motion. The , Joshua Intervenors then filed their motion for attorney's fees. 2 9 7 0, The LRSD moved for reconsideration of the Court's September 23, 1996 Order denying its motion and also moved for an extension of time to respond to the Joshua Intervenors' motion for attorney's fees. The LRSD asked that it not be required to respond to the motion for attorney's fees until after the Court ruled on its motion for reconsideration. The LRSD additionally stated that it should it not receive relief from this Court on its motion for reconsideration, it intended to appeal to the Eighth Circuit and requested that any response to the Joshua Intervenors' motion for fees be delayed until the issue was resolved, if necessary, by the appeals court. The Joshua Intervenors responded in opposition, arguing that the LRSD's requested extension was too long and that the LRSD should not be allowed to wait until after a ruling by the Eighth Circuit before responding to the attorney's fee motion. Subsequently, the LRSD filed a motion on December 6, 1996, asking the Court to approve a plan development period, during which time the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD could work together in preparing proposed plan modifications. The LRSD also filed a motion to withdraw its motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order regarding federal court jurisdiction. On December 27, 1996, the Court granted the motion for a plan development period and also granted the LRSD's motion to withdraw. The Court has determined that in the interest of judicial efficiency and fairness the Joshua Intervenors' motion for attorney's fees should be resolved. The Court is mindful that tire parties ..,._ are engaged in a period of discussion regarding proposed modifications to the settlement plans and the Court does not wish to place the parites in an adversarial position. However, the Court 2 finds that it is in the interest of justice to address the motion for attorney's fees. Therefore, the Court denies the motion for extension of time ( doc. 283 7) and directs the LRSD to respond to the motion for attorney's fees within ten days from the date of entry of this Order. 1 SO ORDERED this .,,2..i~ day of April 1997. n-ug DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPU~~ RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) f=ACP ON L 9J IY :et:: 1The resolution of the issue of attorney's fees will not defeat the LRSD' s right to refile its' motion for reconsideration as set forth in the Court's Order of December 27, 1996. 3 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY lt1221tl4J WILLIAM H. SUTTON, f' .A . JAMES W. MOOJU IYflOH M. EISEMAN. JR , , f' . A. JOE O. IELL, f' . A . JOHN C. ECHOLS, f' . A . A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW JAMES A. IUTTflY . f' . A. FREOEIIICIC S. UflSEIIY, f' . A . H. T. LAIIZHERE. f' .A. OSCAR . OAVIS. Jfl ., f' . A . JAMES C . CLARK, Jfl . , f' . A . THOMAS f' . LEGGETT . f' . A . JOHN DEWEY WATSON, f' . A . f'AUL I , IENHAM Ill, f' .A. LAlllltY W. IUflCS , f' . A . A. WYCCUFF NISl(T. JR ., f' . A . JAMES (OWAIIO HAIIRIS. f' . A . J . ,.HILLlf' MALCOM . ,. A . JAMES M. SIM,.SON, f' . A . JAMES M. SAXTON , f'.A . J . SHEPHEIIO flUSS(ll Ill.  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1655","title":"Court filings concerning ADE's objections to and motion to strike the ''counter-affidavit'' of Donald Stewart, Joshua motion for reconsideration, and Court of Appeals, judgment","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)","United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1997-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Little Rock School District","Educational planning","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning ADE's objections to and motion to strike the ''counter-affidavit'' of Donald Stewart, Joshua motion for reconsideration, and Court of Appeals, judgment"],"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/1655"],"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":["81 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Stewart, Donald"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for enlargement of time; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for enlargement of time as to Joshua motion for reconsideration; District Court, two orders; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) objections to and motion to strike the ''counter-affidavit'' of Donald Stewart or, in the alternative, for leave to submit a sur-reply; District Court, brief in support of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) objections to and motion to strike the ''counter-affidavit'' of Donald Stewart or, in the alternative, for leave to submit a sur-reply; District Court, two notices of appeal; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) objections to and motion to strike the ''counter-affidavit'' of Donald Stewart or, in the alternative, for leave to submit a sur-reply; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua motion for reconsideration; District Court, order; District Court, motion to add parties; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; Court of Appeals, judgment  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  /MAR 1997 Ut~~~~tQR}, c:.,~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT co~s-~;; C:  l i.,; EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS MAR 3 'i997 WESTERN DIVISION D~ GA iQ,.; ,.,,nmroR1~. LITTLE RO~ SC..,H OOL DISTRICT ~ . cCOR \\ACK. CL~nK JM,\\b  tv, PLAINT I FF By:~ V. NO. LR-C-r8-2 - 8 6 6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. REr~11 ~~ MAR  !{ 11q7 MOTION FOR l ~~ ~~NITO/YNG ENLARGEMENT OF TIME DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS '. INTERVENORS This Court entered its order regarding teacher retirement on February 18, 1997. Theoretically, a fee petition by the districts could be due on March 4, 1997 in respect of the teacher retirement order. Counsel for the districts and the State have agreed to ask the Court to enlarge the time to file this or any other fee petition. Matters remain pending before this Court which ~nvolve additional claims and the parties believe that efficiency can best be accomplished by postponing the due date for any fee petition until and including 15 days after this Court rules on all pending motions for summary judgment embodying claims against the State. WHEREFORE, the Pulaski districts seek an enlargement of time to pursue and file any fee petition until and including fifteen (15) days after this Court adjudicates all of the pending motions for summary judgment. 1 Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By _ 7\"\"\"'-:__-::'-c'-----=-,,.:--J=:...__----: _ _ M. County ec t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On March .3 , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons of record:. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 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, Suit~ 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 041997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: -------- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO., ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. REc~n l11'2 . ::: DEFENDANTS .,, INTERVENORS MAR - 0 l9J7 OFFICE OF lfSEGfifGATJOti MONITORING PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME AS TO JOSHUA MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION INT ERVEN ORS INT ERVEN ORS The Pulaski County Special School District for its motion states: 1. on February 11, 1997 Joshua filed a motion regarding an incident which occurred at one of the Oak Grove schools. Pulaski County Special School District responded and the Court dismissed Joshua's motion because it involved a personnel matter. 2. Joshua replied on February 20, 1997 and filad its motion for reconsideration on February 21, 1997. The motion for reconsideration contains multiple Joshua memos and correspondence. 3. Pulaski County Special School District needs an enlargement of time until and including March 24, 1997 to respond to the motion for reconsideration. The Pulaski County Special School District relies upon the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for this requested enlargement. WHEREFORE, the Pulaski County Special School District prays that it be granted an enlargement of time until and including March 24, 1997 to respond to the Joshua motion for reconsideration. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By_-V-IL..f\u0026.:;..:::~~~~-.,\u0026./.----M. S~~.,._ Attorneys for County Special 2 60) Pulaski School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On March 4- , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons of record: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 Sout~ 18th Street P. o. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 r:pm,1194.nuj 3 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 - RECEIVED MAR 7 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES 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., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * .).\u003e.. . * Interve:nor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRQER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MARO 5 1997 JAMESfaV. ~ORMACK, CLERK By: ~, ~V.,/)J,A ~ C\\ oep CLERK'\"\u003c.....__ \"' Before the Court is the motion of the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") to add eight (8) classrooms at Seventh Street Elementary School. The NLRSD states the additional cla.sswow:s are necessary to accommodate those elementary students at Redwood Elementary who will be displaced by the NLRSD's plans to convert Redwood into a specialized preschool program for four-year-old students. There have been no timely responses, and the Court finds that the motion should be g'ranted. 2 95 2 While the Court will continue to closely watch all proposed school capacity alterations to determine the effect on desegregation and whether there is a pattern of closing schools in areas largely inhabited by black citizens while increasing capacity of schools in areas largely inhabited by white citizens, Seventh Street Elementary is located in a predominantly black neighborhood. In addition, the NLRSD argues convincingly that its plan will have a positive impact on desegregation goals as well as provide enhanced early educational development services to at-risk children. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to add classrooms at Seventh Street Elementary (doc. # 2928) is granted.  ,,.. _--1h_ :. ~--- DA TED this ~ day' of March 1997. n-us DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WiTH RULE 5a ANOOR 7S(a) FRCP JN 3/S-/97 IV tl?-  2 RECEI\\IED FilcD US OIST:llCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS A MAR 7 1997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS MARO 5 1997 JAMES 't/, Mc~MACK, CLERK OFFICE OF WESTERN DIVISION By: ~ .,, ~ \\ \\ [\\ \"\"cV'- DESEGREGATION MONITORINr, LITT[E \"l~OCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * oeP CL.ERK - * Plaintiff, * * VS. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District for an extension of time within which to file a fee petition. The motion [doc. 2947] is granted. Any fee petition in connection with the teachers' strike must be filed within thirty days from the date of the return of the Eighth Circuit mandate in this matter. Also before the Court is the motion by the Pulaski County school districts for an enlargement of time within which to file a fee petition concerning the teacher retirement order. The motion [doc. 2949] is granted. The districts must file any fee petition regarding the teacher retirement issue within fifteen (15) days after the Court adjudicates pending motions for summary judgment embodying claims against the State. Finally, the Pulaski County Special School District moves for an extension of time within which to respond to the Joshua Intervenors motion for reconsideration. The motion [doc. 2951] is granted. The PCSSD has until and including March 2-1-, 1997, within which to file its response to the motion for reconsideration. -1A. SO ORDERED this~ day of March 1997. :HIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKETSH9:TIN ;( ,MPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(8), FRCP ,it ::\u003eN 3/5791 BY-...,_.;.---- 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION MAR 1 J 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGJiEGATtON MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS ARKAl~SAS DEPARTMEitt OF EDUCATION~s OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE \"COUNTERAFFIDA VIT\" OF DONALD STEW ART OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT A SUR-REPLY The Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") hereby objects to and moves to strike the \"Affidavit of Donald M. Stewart, Ed.D.\" (\"Stewart Affidavit\"), which was served on March 3, 1997. In the alternative, should the Court decide not to strike the Affidavit in its entirety, ADE requests leave to file a sur-reply to address the issues raised in the Affidavit. The motion is made on the following grounds: i. Portions of the Stewart Affidavit refer to matters (Exhibit \"A\" to the Districts' January 13, 1997 motion for summary judgment) that constitute inadmissible hearsay that is not subject to any exception to the hearsay rule. 2. The Stewart Affidavit contains testimony that is not within the affiant's personal knowledge, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). 1 3. Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor this Court's local rules authorize the filing of \"reply briefs,\" \"reply affidavits,\" or \"reply counter-affidavits\" in support of a motion for summary judgment, and it is improper in any event to use a reply brief or affidavit to introduce new evidence or argument. 4. . The grounds for the motion are more fully explained in the brief served and filed herewith. Wherefore, ADE requests that the Stewart Affidavit be stricken in its entirety and not be considered in ruling on the Districts' motion for summary judgment. In the alternative, should the Court deny the motion to strike in whole or in part, ADE requests leave to file a sur-reply in response to the Stewart affidavit and the evidence and argument contained therein. . Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant Attorney eneral 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served this 6th day of March, 1997, by first-class mail, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 425 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 John Walker JOHN WALKER., P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. THOMPSON \u0026 LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 ~~ Timothy G.Ga ~ ~ 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REcr~~ 7~sJ MAR 1 0 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS BRIEF IN SlJFPORT OF ARKANSAS DEPARTl\\1\"\"ENT OF EDUCATiON'S OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE \"COUNTERAFFIDA VIT\" OF DONALD STEWART OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT A SUR-REPLY I. INTRODUCTION On March 3, 1997, three weeks after ADE filed its opposition to PCSSD, LRSD and NLRSD's motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, loss funding and special education, PCS SD filed an \"Affidavit of~ Donald M. Stewart, Ed.D.\" (hereinafter referred to as the \"Stewart Affidavit\"). The Stewart Affidavit is presumably submitted as a \"reply\" to ADE's opposition to the Districts' u1.otion. As discussed below, the Stewart Affidavit should be stricken from the record in whole or in part and should not considered by the Court in ruling on the Districts' motion for summary judgment. Should the Court decline to strike the affidavit in its entirety, this Court should give ADE the opportunity to file a \"sur- - reply\" to address the issues raised in the Stewart Affidavit before ruling on the summary judgment motion. II. ARGUMENT A. Exhibit \"A\" To The Districts' January 13, 1997 Motion For Summary Judgment And References To It In The Stewart Affidavit Must Be Stricken As the Court will recall, Exhibit \"A\" to the Districts' January 13, 1997 motion for summary judgment is a photocopy of a newspaper article that was published sometime in mid-1996, and was offered by the Districts to prove state school funding for 1996-97 as compared to 1995-96. Exhibit \"A\" to the Districts' January 13, 1997 motion and all references to that Exhibit in the Stewart Affidavit 9 should be stricken because the Exhibit constitutes inadmissible hearsay. See, e.g., I Dowdell v. Chapman, 930 F.Supp. 533,541 (M.D. Ala. 1996). B. Paragraph 13 Of The Stewart Affidavit Must Be Stricken Because It Does Not Comply With Fed. R. Civ. P, 56(e) Federal_ Rule of Civil Procedure 56( e) requires that supporting affidavits \"be made on personal knowl~dge.\" In paragraph 13 of his affidavit Dr. Stewa...11: purports to give testimony \"[ u ]pon information and belief.\" 2 It is well-settled that an affiant's testimony based upon \"information and belief' does not meet the 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) states that affidavits in support of a motion for summary judgment must \"set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence.\" 2 At the conclusion of his Affidavit Dr. Stewart similarly states that the matters set forth in the affidavit are \"true based upon [his] best information and belief.\" - \"personal knowledge\" requirement of Rule 56(e). See Automatic Radio Mfg. Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 94 L.Ed. 1312, 1317 (1950).3 C. Neither The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Nor This Court's Local Rules Authorize The Filing Of \"Reply\" Affidavits, And In Any Event It Is Improper To Introduce New Evidence Or Argument By Way Of Reply Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor this Court's local rules provide for the filing of \"reply\" briefs or \"reply\" or \"counter\" affidavits in support of motions for summary judgment. Moreover, to ensure fairness to the nonmoving party, courts have uniformly held that it is improper to submit new evidence or raise arguments for the first .time in a reply brief. See, e.g., CIA. Petro/era Caribe, Inc., v. ARCO Caribbean, Inc., 754 F.2d 404, 408-410 (1st Cir. 1985) (trial court erred in considering reply brief and affidavits in ruling on motion for summary judgment); Hall v. Cropmate, 887 F.Supp. 1193, 1199 (S.D. Ind. 1995) (new argument may not be advanced for the first time in a reply brief); Hartley v. Wisconsin Bell, Inc., 930 F.Supp. 349, 352- 53 (E.D.Wis. 1996). Wh'!re, as here, the motion at issue is one for summary judgment, it is error for a court to consider new evidence or argument contained in 3 See also Bank Melli Iran v. Pahlavi, 58 F.3d 1406, 1412-13 (9th Cir. 1995) (\"information and belief' declarations do not satisfy personal knowledge requirement); Price v. Rochford, 947 F.2d 829,832 (7th Cir. 1991) (verification stating that testimony was based upon the witness' \"own personal knowledge or upon his information and belief' was insufficient under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)); Gore v. GTE South, 917 F.Supp. 1564, 1570 (M.D. Ala. 1996). - reply papers without at least giving the non-moving party an opportunity to respond: The District Court therefore had two choices when it was informed that defendants had filed a reply brief: it could strike the brief or grant ... the nonmoving party the opportunity to respond to it. Certainly, after discovering that use of the information contained in the tardily served brief and affidavit would be helpful to its opinion, the district court should then have provided the nonmoving party with an opportunity to respond. CIA Petrolera Caribe, Inc., supra, 754 F.2d at 410; see also Povenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) ('\"[w]here new evidence is presented in a reply to a motion for summary judgment, the district court should not consider the new evidence without giving the [ non-]movant an opportunity to respond.\"') ( quoting Blackv. TIC Inv. Corp., 900 F.2d 112, 116 (7th Cir. 1990). Paragraph 10 of the Stewart Affidavit should be stricken because it contains new factual assertions concerning residential treatment centers that could have and should have been submitted along with the Districts' initial moving papers.4 Paragraphs 11-14 and Exhibits D through F of the Stewart Affidavit, concerning Fiscal Crisis Relief Funds, should also be stricken. No mention of Fiscal Crisis \"Paragraph 10 of the Stewart Affidavit is also contrary to representations made in the Districts' brief in support of their motion for summary judgment. In their brief filed on January 13, 1997, the Districts did not even argue that any residential treatment facility in the County was charging any District in excess of the existing per diem state aid rate. Rather, the Districts stated only that \"many of the major institutions have reduced their charges to reflect the newly reduced daily reimbursement.\" Relief Funds were made in any of the Districts' previous motions or filings, and this issue was certainly not raised in ADE's response to any District submission. ill. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, ADE respectfully requests that the Stewart Affidavit be stricken in its entirety. In the alternative, should the Court decline the strike the Stewart Affidavit in its entirety, ADE requests leave to file a sur-reply in response to the Stewart Affidavit and the new evidence and argument contained therein. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General ---' -~~ ~ BY: I ~  -;;;--]'c,,...--~ TIMOTHY G~ER;95019 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served this 6th day of March, 1997, by first-class mail, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 425 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JAC~ LYON \u0026 JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway  Little Rock, AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. THOMPSON \u0026 LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 ~~ Timothy G. ~ RECE;VEE. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION MAR 1 8 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LI1TLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. NOTICE OF APPEAL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS . INTERVENORS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TIIA T the Arkansas Department of Education appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the District Court's order, entered February 18, 1997 (docket no. 2930), granting summary judgment in favor of the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District \"on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions.\" Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant Atto ey General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Lh.tle Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education 2 _ __,___ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this / 71'4.day of March, 1997, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones m WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE b. CLAR. \"..f ( 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 3 John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. THOMPSON \u0026 LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 .I RECEIVED - MAR I 8 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DOCKETNO. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS - EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPELLANT'S FORM A Appeal Information From To Be Filed With the Notice of Appeal Style Of Case: Cc!msel: Nrur~, Addr'!ss, and tdephon'! number ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APPELLANT vs. TIMOTHY G. GAUGER Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-2007 -------------------------- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEES 1 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 200 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 425 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 722201  Date of District Court Judgment: February 18, 1997 Basis of: District Court Jurisdiction: Federal Question Appellate Jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. 1291, Final Collateral Order Jurisdictional Isssue, If any: None Is this case suitable for consideration in this Court's Settlement program? LJ Yes. (_X_) No. If no, state why: Case concerns interpretation of consent decree. Appropriate Standard of Appellate Review: De Novo. List !s~ues on Appe~l: (List below): Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District on the districts' claims that changes in the State of Arkansas' public school funding laws violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement between the State and the school districts. Does this Constitute Your Statement oflssues under FRAP 10(b)(3)? (__) Yes. (_X_) No. Submitted by:~~!- Signature' u V 1 Copy - Send to Appellee (together with an uncompleted Form B) 2 Copies - Send to Clerk, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 1 Copy - Retain lorettap\\forms-July 31, 1996 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this ( 1 t.: day of March, 1997, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones Ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 400 W. Capitoi, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 7220 I John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREET 410 W. O:.pitoi, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. THOMPSON \u0026 LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 ~J:_ ~ - Timothy ger 3 DOCKET NO. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS - EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPELLEE'S FORM B Appeal Information Form STYLE OF CASE: IS THE ALIGNMENT OF PARTIES, NAMES, ADDRESSES, AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS CORRECT ON APPELLANT'S FORM A? L_) YES. L_) NO. If no, list corrections below. IF YOU WISH TO CLARIFY THE JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT OR GENERAL STATEMENT, LIST THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES OR COMMENTS: DO YOU BELIEVE THIS CASE IS SUIT ABLE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS COURT'S SETTLEMENT PROGRAM? L_) YES. L_) NO. Ifno, state why. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL COMPLETING THIS FORM: Submitted by: ________ _ 1 Copy - Send to Appellant 2 Copies - Send to Clerk, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 1 Copy - Retain lorettap\\forms-August 6, 1996 FILED U.S. 018T~ICT OOUlff EASTE\"N OIS'ffllCT AIU(ANSAS IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR 1 8 N97 JAMES W. McCORMACK. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKl COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LR-C-82-866 NOTICE OF APPEAL 8t:AIN LIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Notice is hereby given that the Intervenors, 111 Arkansas School Districts, listed on Attachment 1, as Defendants in the above case, hereby appeal to the United States Court of OEP CLEllK - Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered in this action on February 18, 1997. Respectfully submitted, INTERVENING SCHOOL DISTRICTS, DEFENDANTS THOMPSON AND LLEWELLYN, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-818 Telephone: 501-785-2867 Facsimile: 501-782-8046 Byfamres iM.U LlewJell~yj~# 66040 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James M. Llewellyn, Jr., do hereby certify that I have on this I 7 day of March, 1997, caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing NOTICE OF APPEAL to be mailed first class, postage prepaid, to: Timothy G. Gauger ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 M. Samuel Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 425 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 425 West Capitol Ave., Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 7220 I John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 l Richard Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Alma School District Alread School District Altus Denning School District Ashdown School District Barton-Lexa School District Batesville School District  Beebe School District Bentonville School District Bergman School District Berryville School District Biggers-Reyno School District Black Rock School District Blevins School District Blytheville School District Booneville School District Bradford School District Bright Star School District Brinkley School District Bryant School District Buffalo Island School District Caddo Hills School District Carthage School District Center Point School District Charleston School District Clarendon School District Corning School District Cotton Plant School District County Line Public School Crossett School District Cutter-Morning Star School District Decatur School District Dermott School District Dewitt School District Dollarway School District Dumas School District Elaine School District Fordyce School District Foreman School District Fort Smith School District Fountain Lake School District Gillett School District Glen Rose School District Gosnell School District Grady School District Green County Technical Schools Green Forest School District Greenland School District Greenwood School District Guy-Perkins School District Harrisburg School District Hamburg School District Holly Grove School District Hoxie School District Huttig School District Jackson County School District Jonesboro School District Junction City School District A TI ACHMEi'IT 1 Kirby School District Lakeside School District Lavaca School District Lead Hill School District Leslie School District Lewisville School District Magazine School District Malvern Special School District Mammoth Spring School District Manila School District  Marion School District Marshall School District Mayflower School District Maynard School District McGehee School District Mountainburg School District Nettleton School District Newport School District Oden School District Ola School District Ozark School District Paragould School District Parkin School District Plainview-Rover School District Pleasant View School District Pocahontas School District Prairie Grove School District Quitman School District Rural Special School District Saratoga School District Searcy School District Smackover School District South Conway County School District Southside School District #2 Bee Branch Spring Hill School District Stamps School District Stephens School District Strong School District Stuttgart Schooi District Turrell School District Valley Springs School District Van Buren School District Waldron School District Warren School District Watson Chapel School District Weiner School District West Fork School District West Memphis School District White Hall School District Wickes School District Winslow School District W onderview School District Wynne School District Yellville-Summit School District UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas Office of the Clerk 600 West Capitol, Room 402 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 March 20, 1997 Mr. Michael g_ Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63103 Case No. LR-C-82-866 Re: LRSD vs. PCSSD ET AL Dear Sir: MAR 2 1~ 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed please find in duplicate, copies of the following in the above case: Notice of Appeal [certified] by intervening School Districts Docket Entries [certified] Memorandum and Order filed 2/18/97 Sincerely, James W. McCormack, Clerk Doris Collins, Deputy Clerk CC: w/encs. All Counsel of Record IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO ADE'S OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE \"COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT\" OF DONALD STEWART OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT A SUR-REPLY The PCSSD for its response states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VENO RS MAR 2 O 'i897 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONffORING 1. The PCSSD has no objection to the State filing a surreply, assumes that the State is at work upon a sur-reply, and suggests that a limited period of time be permitted by this Court for the filing of any sur-reply authorized by the Court. 2. The PCSSD did not set forth the residential treatment center charg "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1646","title":"Court filings: District Court, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), Little Rock School District (LRSD), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) statement of material and undisputed facts with respect to issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding","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":["1997-02-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School employees","Employee rights","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), Little Rock School District (LRSD), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) statement of material and undisputed facts with respect to issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding"],"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/1646"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["50 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  .. RECE~VED FILED FEB 181997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT co~\"0AfJ~~~l./,~~,~::,c:A~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FEB '1 0 1997 DESEGREi~~: ~tNITOR!NG WESTERN DMSION JAr..'.[:i W. NICvlJrtMnul'\\, liL~RK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL By: ____ -:;::;;-;:;-;;-;;;;- oEP CLERK FEB 1 ::- 10 OFFiC2 ..,, DESEGREGATIOt~ MONITORJNG DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD, LRSD AND NLRSD'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS WITH RESPECT TO ISSUES OF HEALTH INSURANCE, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND LOSS FUNDING The Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") responds to PCSSD, LRSD and NLRSD's \"Statement of Material and Undisputed Facts\" with respect to issues of health insurance, special education and loss funding as follows: Fact No, 1: State EquaHzation Funding - Act 917 of 1995 changed the method the State uses to distribute aid to school districts. Prior to 1996-97 the Department of Education distributed the majority of state aid as Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). In addition, the state funded other programs such as Transportation Aid and At-Risk Grants by formulas or based on need. The ' I  State also paid Teacher Retirement Matching and Health Insurance Matching on behalf of school districts. The calculation for MFP A included add-on weights for various categories such as Special Education, Isolated School Districts, Consolidation Incentives, Vocational Education and (sic) Centers, Gifted and Talented Students, and growth and loss funding (Arkansas Budget System, Agency Program Commentary for the 1997-1999 Biennium, (\"ABS\") p. 29). Act 917 now requires State Equalization Funds 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 (ABS p. 29). ADE's Response: It is undisputed that the Districts have accurately quoted the ABS. However, the statement that the purpose of Equalization Funding is to \"equalize the disparities of property wealth\" between districts is an oversimplification. The formula for calculating Equalization Funding takes into account local assessed property values, miscellaneous funds, the amount of funds available for Equalization Funding, and the number of students in the State and in each district. See generally Sections 4(d), 4(n), 4(s) of Act 917 of 1995 (Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-203(4), (14) and (19)). More precisely stated, the purpose of equalization funding is to reduce the disparity of total state and local funds available to school districts for the education of children. 2  I Moreover, the Districts inaccurately state that the quoted passage from ABS comes from the \"Agency Program Commentary\" section. In fact, the quoted passage comes from the section entitled \"Analysis of Budget Request,\" which is drafted by the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, and not ADE. Fact No. 2: Prior to this fiscal year, the _$tate distributed formula aid utilizing weighted average daily memberships (\"W ADM''). ADE's Response: It is undisputed that W ADM was one of several factors used in the calculation of Minimum Foundation Program Aid for school districts prior to fiscal year 1996-97. See generally Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-306 (b) (Michie 1995 Supp.) (Repealed effective July 1, 1996). Fact No. 3: The previous Arkansas school funding formula (Act 34) used W ADM to determine the amount of money a school district received. The formula added weights to account for the high cost of educating certain students and provided more money for those students. The add-on weights included: special education, gifted and talented, vocational education, isolated district, consolidation incentive funds, growing district, loss funding, and vocational centers. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 8) ADE's Response: It is undisputed that WADM was one of several factors used in the calculation of Minimum Foundation Program Aid for school districts prior to fiscal year 1996-97. See generally Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-306 (b) (Michie 3 - 1995 Supp.) (Repealed effective July 1, 1996). It is also undisputed that the calculation of W ADM included weights for special education, gifted and talented, vocational education, isolated district, consolidation incentive funds, growth funding, loss funding, and vocational centers. Fact No, 4: It was not clear that the add.-on weights that were assigned were sufficient to meet the needs of the students. For 1994-95, the W ADM was approximately 505,000, of which 435,000 was actual students and 70,000 was addon weights. The percentage of add-ons in districts ranged from 6% to 40%. There were some students who, because of their high need, generated three times the SBER (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 9) (Gooden p. 17). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 5: Any aid distributed for health insurance matching this fiscal year will be distributed on an \"equalized\" ADM basis and will not consider employee costs or numbers of employees. ADE's Response: Disputed. There is no appropriation for \"health insurance matching\" for school district employees in Act 1194 of 1995 for 1996- 97, and there are no identifiable or earmarked \"health insurance matching\" dollars distributed to school districts as state equalization funding. Rather, under Section 14 of Act 1194 of 1995 the responsibility for paying the health insurance contribution rate for eligible employees has now been shifted to school districts 4 throughout the State. A school district may satisfy this obligation in total or in part with moneys received from the State as state equalization funding, and it may satisfy this obligation in part or in whole with local revenue. Moreover, the statutory formula for the distribution of state equalization funding does not \"equalize\" ADM. Rather, the formula \"equalizes\" or \"adjusts\" the amount of money distributed per ADM to each district based upon a district's local wealth. See response to Fact No. 1. Fact No. 6: The State has terminated its payment of health insurance matching for the employees of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No. 7: The responsibility for funding health insurance matching for employees of the ODM has now become the responsibility of the three school districts in Pulaski County and their contributions to the budget of the ODM have been increased accordingly. ADE's Response; Disputed. The obligation for paying for health insurance matching for ODM employees now rests with ODM. The total ODM budget is funded by contributions from the three Districts and the State. Fact No. 8: For 1994-95, $36,315,000 was budgeted for public school employee insurance which was paid (by the State) to Blue Cross Blue Shield for insurance for teachers. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 24(8)). 5 ADE's Response: Disputed. The $36,315,000 budgeted for public school employee insurance was budgeted for the payment of health insurance matching for all eligible employees who elected to participate in the Public School Health Insurance program. The pool of eligible employees included teachers and other eligible \"non-teacher\" school district employees~ Fact No. 9: Public School Employee Insurance - provides for health insurance contributions for employees of the Cooperative Education Service Areas, Vocational Centers and the school operated by the Department of Correction. The priority request of$36,030 in FY98 and $74,222 in FY99 allows for a 6% growth in rates of employees (ABS p. 13). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 10: Public School Employee Insurance - This program pays the health insurance contribution rate established by the State Board of Education for employees of the Cooperative Education Services Areas, Vocational Centers, and the school operated by the Department of Correction (ABS p. 32). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No. 11: Any aid distributed and thus available for special education costs this fiscal year will be distributed on an \"equalized\" ADM basis and will not consider the costs of educating special education students. (Rossmiller, p. 99) 6 ADE's Response: Disputed. The cited testimony of Dr. Rossmiller concerned the formula for calculation of state equalization funding. While Act 1194 contains appropriations for 1996-97 for, e.g., Special Education Services and Early Childhood Special Education, there is no general \"special education\" appropriation for distibution to school districts, and there are no identifiable or eannarked \"special education\" dollars distributed to school districts as state equalization funding. School districts may fund special education programs in whole or in part with moneys received from the State as state equalization funding, from local revenue, or from federal funds. Moreover, the statutory formula for the distribution of state equalization funding does not \"equalize\" ADM. Rather, the formula \"equalizes\" or \"adjusts\" the amount of money distributed per ADM to each district based upon, among other things, a district's local wealth. See response to Fact No. 1. Fact No, 12: School districts located in urban centers with extensive medical services available can anticipate a high concentration of high cost special education students. (Gooden, p. 17) ADE's Response: Disputed. The Districts have not produced any evidence that they have such a \"high concentration\" of such \"high cost\" students. School districts with small enrollments may have a higher percentage or 7 - concentration of severely disabled students than school districts located in urban areas. Sydoriak Deposition at 62: 17-63 :8. Fact No, 13: At page 14 of the ABS, the ADE has commented in part concerning residential centers that: \"Students are the responsibility of the district where the facility is located.\" ADE's Response: It is undisputed that these Districts have accurately quoted page 14 of the \"ABS.\" However, the statement is not accurate. The District where the facility is located is responsible for the children if it is known at the time of placement that the placement will be for more than 60 days. If it is not known at the time of placement that the placement will be for more than 60 days, the district from which the child originated is responsible for the first 60 days, and the district in which the facility is located is responsible for the child beginning with day 61 of placement. Sydoriak Deposition (attached hereto as Exhibit 1) at 8:22-9:5. Fact No, 14: Residential Centers - This is a special education program to provide reimbursement to school districts for educational costs associated with students in approved residential tre.atment facilities. Prior to 1996- 97, the ABS asserts, the program was funded as an add-on weight through the minimum Foundation Aid program. The 1995-96 reimbursement of approximately 8 $6 million funded 710 beds in 8 approved residential treatment facilities. The Department has budgeted $6,512,000 for FY97 (ABS p. 27). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 15: The priority request of$856,662 in FY98 and $908,062 for FY99 is to provide additional funding for anticipated growth in student placement at approved residential treatment facilities and/or juvenile . detention facilities (ABS p. 27). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 16: For the 1996-97 school year, the special education specialists at the Arkansas Department of Education calculated that an appropriation in excess of $12,000,000 would be necessary to fund the costs for residential education. ADE's Response: Disputed. In May of 1996 the administrator for grants and data management for ADE's Special Education division calculated that approximately $12 million would be necessary for funding of students in residential treatment facilities under the fund distribution method that existed prior to the enactment of Act 917 of 1995. At the time the calculation was made, the individual who made the calculation was unaware that the method of distribution had been changed by Act 917. Sydoriak Deposition at 15:19-17:23. The new fund distribution method, as was the case under the distribution method in effect prior to 9 - the enactment of Act 917, is a pure funding \"pass through\" in which residential treatment facilities do not bill school districts in excess of the amount of state funding provided to the district. The amounts distributed under the prior and new law are therefore, by definition, \"adequate.\" Sydoriak Deposition at 39:11-40:12. Fact No, 17: For the 1995-96 school year, the State reimbursed school districts approximately $57 per child per day for treatment in residential treatment facilities. For this school year, those school districts, including the districts in Pulaski County, have been advised that this per diem reimbursement has been reduced to just over $44 per child per day for the same treatment. ADE's Response: Undisputed. It is also undisputed that no treatment facility, including the facilities located in Pulaski County, is charging any school district in excess of the state's current per diem reimbursement rate. ~ response to Fact No. 16. Fact No, 18: Pursuant to Act 1194, there was no line item appropriation for student growth funding for the previous fiscal year but the line item appropriation for this fiscal year is $29,000,000. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Under the school funding statutes in effect prior to July 1, 1996, student growth funding was not a separate line item appropriation but rather was generated through a ''weight\" as part of Minimum 10 -' . .1 Foundation Program Aid. See Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-302(1) (Michie 1995 Supp.) (Repealed effective July l, 1996). Fact No, 19: Student Growth - This provides school districts additional funding for first quarter growth in the number of students over the .. previous year's ADM. Prior to 1996-97, student growth was part of the Minimum Foundation Aid calculation (ABS p. 25). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 20: In 1995-96 the state funded growth of approximately 7,400 additional students times the State Base Equalization [sic] (SBER) of $2,754 for a total of $20.3 million. For 1996-97 growth funding is calculated as the Base Local Revenue Per Student (\"BLRPS\") (currently $3,759) times .4 plus $1,500 for a total of $3,003 per student This rate is then multiplied by the increase in the district's ADM for the first quarter over the previous year's ADM. For FY97 the Department has budgeted $22.6 million for Student Growth (ABS p. 25). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 21: Act 917 retained student growth funding as a feature of state aid for districts with expanding enrollments. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Student Growth funding for 1996-97 is provided from available funds in a line-item appropriation within the Public School Fund. See Sections 3(b )and 4(u) of Act 917 of 1995, Ark. Code Ann.  6- 11 - - 20-303(21), 6-2~307(a). All districts with inar.asing ADM, including PCSSD, LRSD and NLRSD, will receive growth funding for the 1996-97 school year. See Declaration of Tristan Greene in Opposition to 1his Motion (\"Greene Declaration\"), 12 and Exh. A Fact No, 22: Subsection (b )( 4) foDd that there were 24,166 students in kindergarten through Grade 12 in the state's largest school district. ADE's Response: As written, this \"f.acf' is unintelligible. Assuming the Districts are referring to Section 2(bX4) of Act 917 of 1995, it is undisputed. Fact No, 23: The state's largest school district is the Little Rock School District. ADE's Response: Assuming this .. fact' refers specifically to a comparison of school districts by the.ir Average Daily Membership, it is undisputed. If this \"fact\" refers to geographic area, it is disputed. FactNo.24: In fiscal year 1995 State funds for public schools totaled approximately $1.2 billion, of which $941 million was distributed through the Minimum Foundation Program Aid Formula (\"MFPA\") and approximately $300 million was distributed outside ofMFPA (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 6) ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 25: School districts received money outside the Act 34 MFPA formula to help offset the costs of transportation. The Act 34 formula took 12  into account the size of a district, the number of students to be transported and the age and size of the buses used. Under the Act 34 formula the state used to disburse transportation funds, some districts received more money than they actually spent on transportation and some districts did not receive enough money to cover their actual costs of transportation. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 28) ADE's Response: The school funding statutes in effect prior to July 1, 1995 contained no formula for distribution of transportation funds. Transportation funds were distributed based upon a formula contained in Rules and Regulations promulgated by the State Board of Education. With the foregoing qualification, Fact No. 25 is undisputed . Fact No, 26: Transportation aid was eliminated under Act 1194 as a separate line item and incorporated into the new school funding formula (ABS, p. 32). ADE's Response: It is unclear what is meant by the term \"incorporated into.\" It is undisputed that Act 1194 contains no specific line-item appropriation for Transportation Aid for 1996-97. It is also undisputed that Act 917 includes \"Transportation Aid\" in the definition of \"Student Needs Funding.\" See Section 4(v) of Act 917 of 1995 (Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-303(22)). However, to the extent the Districts claim that there is some identifiable amount of\"Transportation Aid\" being distributed as state equalization funding, the fact is disputed. There are no 13 identifiable or earmarked \"transportation aid\" funds in state equalization funding. School districts may pay their transportation costs in whole or in part with funds received from the State as state equalization funding or in whole or in part with local revenue. See Section 3(a) of Act 917 (Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-309(a)). Fact No. 27: Page 14 of the ABS_contains a new request by the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") for $10,000,000 each fiscal year \"to assist districts with high cost transportation.\" This is a \"priority request\" of the Arkansas Department of Education. ADE's Response: Undisputed. ADE has requested an appropriation of $10 million for fiscal years 1997-98 and 1998-99 to assist districts with high transportation costs. The Executive Recommendation, however, is for a total of $10 million dollars for each year to be used for assisting districts with high transportation costs and for funding safety training for school bus drivers and mechanics. So that the Court will not be misled, \"priority request\" is a tenn of art that simply means a request for an appropriation that is in excess of Base Level. All such requests are called \"priority requests\" in the ABS. Fact No, 28: For 1994-95, the State of Arkansas forecasted general revenue at $2,527,765,452, including Education Excellence Trust Funds. Of that amount 48.8%, or $1,233,546,155, was spent on the Public School Fund. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 23). 14 -' -'  . 1 __ .. - .. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 29: The Public School Fund provides the primary state financial assistance to Arkansas public elementary and secondary schools. For FY97, the Public School Fund is projected to receive General Revenue funding of $1,261,159,912. The Educational Excellence Trust Fund forecast for the Public School Fund will provide an additional $142,454,921. For FY97, the Public School Fund will receive approximately 47% of the State's Revenue Stabiliz.ation allocations. With Educational Excellence included, the Public School Fund is scheduled to receive 49% of the State's General Revenues (ABS p. 23). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 30: Money is not the only factor which affects the quality of a student's education. Factors other than money which affect the quality of education include (1) the education level of the family, (2) the socioeconomic level of the community, (3) the curriculum, (4) the teachers, (5) the percentage of money going into the classroom as compared to other costs, such as administration and capital expenditures, and ( 6) the course-taken patterns of the students. The Arkansas school funding formula (Act 34) did not take these factors into account in determining the amount of aid available per student. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 130) 15 ADE's Response: Undisputed. While the formula for calculating MFPA did not take these factors into account for purposes of calculating MFP A, other statutes, funding programs and rules and Regulations of the State Board of Education took into account these factors. Fact No, 31: Neither Act 917 nor ,Act 1194 take into account the factors set forth in paragraph 31. ADE's Response: Disputed. Among other things, the new funding scheme includes teacher salary requirements that can affect the \"percentage of money going into the classroom.\" Moreover, because the distribution of equalization funding takes into account the local wealth of the district, it roughly takes into account the \"socioeconomic status of the community.\" Further, as was the case prior to July 1, 1995, there are other existing statutes and rules and Regulations of the State Board of Education that take into account the listed factors. Fact No, 32: There have been no studies to show how much it costs per pupil to provide a \"general, suitable and efficient\" educational opportunity to Arkansas school children. The amount of money spent on a student's education in Arkansas is directly related to the amount of money available to be spent. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 132) ADE's Response: Undisputed. 16 Fact No, 33: Equality does not necessarily mean equal dollars spent per student because some students have greater needs and require more money to educate. Equality means equal access to programs. Differences in money should depend on the cost and the need. High cost students should receive more money. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 133). ADE's Response: To the extent the third and fourth sentences of this \"fact\" are understood to be reffering to the total amount of state, local and federal funds available to and expended by school districts, it is undisputed. Fact No, 34: As part of Act 917, the three districts in Pulaski county will be required to expend state and local revenue on special education students \"in accordance with existing federal and state laws and department regulations\" and based further upon criteria including a formula derived from a three year average percentage. The three districts in Pulaski County have three year average special education expenditures which are more than double those required by Act 917. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 35: Neither the expenditure requirements of Act 917 for special education nor the distribution of aid that could be utilized for special education factor in the actual education expenditures of these three school districts. ADE's Response: This \"fact\" is unintelligible and is therefore disputed. 17 Fact No. 36: Act 917, at Section 3, established four categories of State funding. The first is State Equalization Funding for students. The last category, Category 4, is Student Needs Funding. Section 3 prohibits funding Category 4 until Categories 1, 2 and 3 are fully funded. ADE's Response: Undisputed. ... . Fact No. 37: During its last session, the Arkansas Legislature appropriated $250,000,000 for students (sic) needs funding. However, Section 29 of Act 1194 authorized the Director of the Department of Education to transfer funds from one category to another. The Director has transferred all $250,000,000 from Category 4 to Category 1. There will be no distribution of student needs funding during 1996-97. ADE's Response: Section 29 of Act 1194 authorizes the Director of ADE to request appropriation transfers and other budget-related adjustments with the approval of the Chief Fiscal Officer of the State and after review by the Arkansas Legislative Council. With that qualification, Fact No. 37 is undisputed. The transfer of $250,000 from Category 4 to Category 1 was done because Category 1 was not fully funded and, pursuant to Section 3(a) of Act 917, the $250,000 appropriated for Student Needs Funding could not have been distributed to school districts at all unless it was moved to Category 1. 18  Fact No. 38: Act 917, at Section 4( v) defines Student Needs Funding to include \"[T]he amount of state financial aid provided to each Local School District from available Special Education funding.\" ADE's Response: Undisputed. However, section 3(i) of Act 917 (Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-309(a)) expressly permits school districts to expend Category 1 funds for \"student needs funding.\" Fact No, 39: There are three ways to identify at-risk children within a district: (I) low test scores, (2) the number of children receiving free or reduced lunches within a district, and (3) the number of households below the poverty level within a district. (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 137) ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No. 40: At page 13, the ABS contains the following commentary by the Arkansas Department of Education: \"State Equalization Aid the priority request of$79,255,218 in FY98 and $157,750,338 in FY99 provides for a 6% increase each fiscal year and for the continuation of $5,203,218 budgeted from FY97 fund balances for potential desegregation cost.\" ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 41: At-Risk Grants and Training - Act 917 of 1995 (The Equitable School Finance Act of 1995) and Act 1194 of 1995 (Appropriation Act for the Public School Fund) eliminated at-risk funding as a separate line item and 19 - combined approximately $30 million into the State Equalization Funding fonnula. The Department is requesting that this be established as a line item once more at $17,100,000 each year (ABS p. 23). ADE's Response: Disputed. While the Districts have accurately quoted page 11 of ABS, the statement is incorrect. There are no identifiable or earmarked \"At-Risk Grants and Training\" dollars distributed as state equalization funding. Fact No. 42: Acts 917 and 1194 for 1995 eliminated all at-risk funding from the Department of Education's budget and shifted approximately $30,000,000 into State equalization aid (ABS p. 11) ADE's Response: Disputed. While the Districts have accurately quoted page 11 of ABS, the statement is incorrect. There are no identifiable or eannarked \"At-Risk Grants and Training\" dollars distributed as state equalization funding. Fact No, 43: Act 1194, at Item 28, reflects a $30,000,000 appropriation for at-risk grants and training for 1995-96, the last year that Act 34 operated. ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 44: Page 44 of the ABS reflects actual expenditures for at-risk grants and training in 1995-96 of $29,784,239. ADE's Response: Undisputed. 20 . - Fact No, 45: Act 917 defines at-risk funding as \"Financial aid provided to Local School Districts based upon the number of students with low test scores, the number of children receiving free or reduced price lunches, the number of households below the poverty level, or the number of children with limited English proficiency.\" ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 46: Act 1194 appropriated $34,000,000 for at-risk grants and training for 1995-96. There was no appropriation for this category for 1996- 97. ADE's Response: Disputed. See Section 1, Item (28) of Act 1194 of 1995. Fact No, 47: Grants to School Districts - These payments are made to Missouri for educating students in North Arkansas who can't get to their assigned district because Bull Shoals Lake separates them from their district, and it would require a round trip of more than 35 miles. This program was incorporated into the school funding formula, but the Department is requesting a separate line item of$27,000 for the 1997-99 biennium (ABS p. 34). ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 48: In Act 1194, $27,000 was appropriated for \"grants to school districts\" for 1995-96, the last year of operation of Act 34. 21 . . # ' . - -- ADE's Response: Undisputed. Fact No, 49: Mr. Charles Dyer is Superintendent of the Alma School District. Mr. Dyer was Superintendent of the Alma School District when Alma v, Dupree was tried. It is Mr. Dyer's understanding that moneys previously distributed as MFP A, transportation funds, teacb\"er retirement payments, and health insurance payments, all as previously made under Act 34, were put into one large pool to be distributed pursuant to Act 917. ADE's Response: It is undisputed that Mr. Dyer testified that this is his \"understanding.\" Mr. Dyer's \"understanding,\" however, is incorrect. Moreover, because Mr. Dyer is not a legislator or a state official his ''understanding\" has no probative value concerning the intent of the Arkansas Legislature, and does not bind or estopp the State. Fact No. 50: It is Mr. Dyer's understanding that together with additional money of approximately $60,000,000, that all of this added up to the appropriation of $1,300,000,000. ADE's Response: It is undisputed that Mr. Dyer testified that this is his ''understanding.\" Mr. Dyer's ''understanding,\" however, is incorrect. Moreover, because Mr. Dyer is not a legislator or a state official his ''understanding\" has no probative value concerning the intent of the Arkansas Legislature, and does not bind or estopp the State. 22 Fact No, 51: It is the sworn testimony of Dr. Bobbie Davis that the total dollars that previously went to public schools under Act 34 were all consolidated into equalization funding under Act 917. (Davis deposition, pp. 6-7). ADE's Response: Disputed. The cited testimony related specifically to transportation aid, and Dr. Davis also testified iliat there are no specifically earmarked or identifiable funds for transportation being distributed as equalization funding. Davis Deposition, pp. 6-7. Fact No, 52: 1996 is accurate. Exhibit \"F\" to the Districts' reply dated December 23, ADE's Response: Disputed. See Greene Declaration,~ 2 and 7 and Exh.A. Fact No, 53: Even though the Newark School District will not receive state equalization funding, it will nevertheless receive State aid in the form of additional base funding so that its expenditures per student will be at the minimum level required by the State. ADE's Response: Disputed. The Newark school district will receive additional base funding for 1996-97 because, due to a \"quirk\" in Act 917, Newark's total state and local revenue per ADM for 1996-97 is less than the minimum state and local revenue per ADM as defined by Act 917. See Section 3(e) of Act 917 of 1995 (Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-308). As a result of the 23  enactment of Amendment 74 to the Arkansas Constitution, Newark will receive no additional base funding for 1997-98. See Greene Declaration, ,i 3. Fact No. 54: In terms oflocal wealth, Newark is either the richest or second richest school district in the state. ADE's Response: lfthe Districts are defining \"local wealth\" as base local revenue per student calculated at a millage rate of 25 mills, Fact No. 54 is undisputed. Fact No. 55: Newark votes a millage of23.6 mills. This millage rate does not result in an amount of money per student sufficient to satisfy present state expenditure per student requirements. ADE's Response: Disputed. Newark's millage for purposes of 1996-97 state funding was 19.28 mills, and as a result Newark's total state and local revenue per ADM for 1996-97 was less than the minimum state and local revenue per ADM as defined by Act 917. See Section 3(e) of Act 917 of 1995 (Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-308). As a result of the ratification of Amendment 74 to the Arkansas Constitution, however, Newark's maintenance and operation millage has been increased to 25 mills and it will receive no additional base funding for 1997-98. See Greene Declaration, ,i 3. Fact No. 56: The three Districts in Pulaski County all vote millages approximately 20 mills higher than the Newark School District. 24 ADE's Response; Disputed, particularly after the effect of millage rollbacks and Amendment 74 are taken into account. See Greene Declaration,, 4. Fact No, 57: The three Districts in Pulaski County vote millages that are among the highest in the State. Only four other districts exceed the millage rate voted in LRSD-and PCSSD. ADE's Response: Disputed. See Greene Declaration,, 4. Fact No, 58: The Umpire School District has one of the smallest student bodies in t "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1662","title":"Court filings concerning summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding, requiring the ODM Monitoring monitoring, NLRSD motion to add classrooms at Seventh Street Elementary School, and LRSD 1996-97 second quarter status report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Joshua Intervenors","Seventh Street Elementary School, (North Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","School facilities","School buildings","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration","Teachers","Student assistance programs","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding, requiring the ODM Monitoring monitoring, NLRSD motion to add classrooms at Seventh Street Elementary School, and LRSD 1996-97 second quarter status report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1662"],"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":["114 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) brief in opposition to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), Little Rock School District (LRSD), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding; District Court, declaration of Tristan Greene in opposition to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), Little Rock School District (LRSD), and NLRSD's motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding; District Court, motion to require Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to motion to require Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to motion to require Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion to add classrooms at Seventh Street Elementary School; District Court, memorandum; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, joint motion to postpone argument; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District?s (PCSSD's) request for extension of time; District Court, reply of the Joshua intervenors to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua intervenors' motion to require Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, alternatively, for the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, order; District Court, judgment; District Court, order; District Court, motion for reconsideration; Court of Appeals, motion to dismiss; Court of Appeals, opposition to motion to dismiss; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1996-97 first quarter status report addendum program planning and budget document for desegregation programs and Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1996-97 second quarter status report program planning and budget document for desegregation programs; District Court, two notices of appeal; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, further motion to enlarge time  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FEB 1 S 1897 FILED - - _JLS....OISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CMURllJ DISTRICT ARKANSAS Qfr1Cf. OF DESEGREGATiON MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FEB 1 O 1997 WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: PLAINTIFF DEP. CLERK v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. FEB 1 8 1997 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PCSSD, LRSD AND NLRSD's MOTIONOc\"EGREGAOFFJIOICtl N~FO NITO . FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUES OF 1.:i 1 1 RING HEALTH INSURANCE, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND LOSS FUNDING I. INTRODUCTION In their motion, which presumably relates solely to the \"issues\" of health insurance matching, special education and loss funding, the Districts level a broad, scattershot attack directed at Acts 917 and 1194 of 1995. These and other new statutes concerning school finance were designed to comply with a State Court's order that requires a funding system that reduces the disparity between the amount of combined state and local funds available to wealthy and poor school districts for the education of children. No matter how it is accomplished, compliance with the State Court's directive to reduce the disparity of available local and state resources between wealthy and poor districts necessarily requires, in one manner or another, that poor school districts be treated somewhat more advantageously in terms of state aid as compared to wealthy districts like the three districts in Pulaski County. As shown in ADE's response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the \"teacher retirement,\" issue, the State chose to enact a new funding system that ensured that all school districts, including the very poorest, had a minimum level of combined state and local funds for the education of children while, at the same time, leaving the three Pulaski County districts unscathed.1 Nonetheless, in what might be viewed by some as a pure \"money grab,\"2 these Districts now argue that while they are ''winners\" under the new funding statutes (in the sense that their total state aid for this year exceeds their total state aid for 1995-96) they deserve even more state aid for 1996-97 because poorer districts in the State got a larger relative increase in state aid than they did. The Districts press this argument without regard to the fact that the Settlement Agreement clearly contemplates that the State can make generally applicable changes to its funding statutes even if the changes 1 LRSD and NLRSD, in particular, have presented no evidence to indicate that they are receiving less state aid this year as compared to last year. Further, neither LRSD nor NLRSD has even argued that it would have received more total state aid for 1996-97 if the old \"Act 34\" funding scheme were still in place. Even if one were to accept the questionable method of comparison used in Exhibit \"F\" to PCSSD's December 23, 1996 Reply brief, PCSSD can only argue that it received $106,579 less state aid for this year as compared to last year. 2 These districts often complain that other school officials throughout the State view these Districts as \"greedy.\" These districts do little to discourage such a view when, as they have done here, they file motions asking this Court to force the State to (a) reimburse them for more than 100% of their actual teacher retirement costs, (b) provide them with the same percentage increase -in state funding as that received by poorer school districts, (c) reimburse them at a rate of$57 per day for students in residential treatment facilities when the facilities themselves will only bill the Districts $44 per day for such students; and ( d) reinstate \"loss funding\" for them when each of the Districts is eligible for and will receive growth funding for 1996-97. 2 - serves to \"reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts.\" Settlement Agreement,  ILL. The question of whether the Settlement Agre,ernent mandates the absurd result these Districts seek is for another day. For now, this Court must address the Districts' motion for summary judgment. As di~russed below, the motion cannot be granted. I. The Motion Must Be Denied Or, In The Alternative, This Court Must Again Abswn Pending Final Resolution Of The Lake View Case In response to the Districts' initial motions to enforce the Settlement Agreement, in which these Districts clearly argued that the new funding statutes - did not comply with the Lake View Court's 1994 orders, ADE requested that this Court abstain until a final judgment was rendered in Lake View. Thereafter, in a \"Preb.earing Brief' filed November 18, 1996, PCSSD essentially withdrew its state law and/or Lake View compliance claims, saying that the Districts only wished to pursue issues \"separate and distinct from the constitutional and compliance issues raised\" in Lake View. The Districts now appear to have changed their minds; they again ask this Court to intrude upon the Lake View court's jurisdiction and/or evaluate the new funding system under state law. See 1he Districts' Brief in Support of this motion at p. 5: \"[H]ad Judge Imber ruled on the new formula, she would have found the 3 - changes objectionable and neither fair, rational, nor reasonable under the State constitutional rational basis test.\" The Districts' attempt to litigate state law issues in this Court must be summarily rejected. Under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution this Court lacks jurisdiction to fore~ state officials to comply with state law, even if the state law claim is pendent to a federal law claim. Pennhurst State School \u0026 Hosp. v. Halderman, 79 L.Ed.2d 67, 92 (1984). Moreover, even if this Court could exercise some concurrent federal jurisdiction over Lake View compliance issues, ADE renews its request that this Court abstain from considering the Districts' motions pending a final judgment in the Lake View case. II. Summary Judgment Is Inappropriate Because There Are Numerous Disputed Issues Of Material Fact In ruling on the Districts' motions for summary judgment this Court may not resolve disputed factual issues, but rather must simply determine as an initial matter whether any material facts are in dispute. As outlined more fully in ADE's response to the Districts' Separate Statement Of Undisputed Facts, there are numerous issues of material fact in dispute. Accordingly, the Districts' motion must be denied. 4 m. Health Insurance and Special Education For the same reasons the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement must be denied, this motion as it relates to health insurance and special education must also be denied. The Districts have failed to present any admissible evidence showing the effect, if any, that the elimination of the \"weighting\" system for special education funding has had on them, nor have they cited this Court to any provision of the Settlement Agreement that requires the State to maintain some form of''weighting\" system for special education students. Further, the District's newly-raised claim concerning the State's per diem reimbursement rate for children in residential treatment centers must be - dismissed for lack of a justiciable case or controversy. It is undisputed that all of the residential treatment facilities within the Districts have agreed to charge the Districts, at most, the per diem rate of reimbursement established by the State for 1996-97. In short, the State continues to fund 100% of the per diem rate for children in residential treatment centers as it did in 1995-96. Unless and until that situation changes, there is not even arguably a case or controversy for this Court to resolve. IV. Loss Funding The Districts' attempt to resurrect loss funding must fail for three basic reasons. 5 First, loss funding has not been completely eliminated. The new funding scheme has retained a \"loss funding\" feature. Under Act 917, a district's current year's equalization funding is based upon the prior year's ADM, thereby giving any district with declining ADM a one-year period of continued funding to enable it to \"adjust\" to the drop in enrollment. Second, the Districts, who bear the burden of proof, have supplied no evidence whatsoever to support their argument that the elimination of loss funding will cause their students to leave for adjoining school districts. There are many reasons why enrollment might decline in these Districts, reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with \"loss funding\" or \"growth funding;\" and not all students that leave the Pulaski County Districts go on to attend school in the surrounding counties. For example, parents may choose to move their children to private schools within the County when they become fed up with the effects of a teacher strike and a school district's inability to come to terms with its teachers. Enrollment may decline due in part to changing demographics, such as an increase in the average age of a district's inhabitants and a concomitantly lower birth rate. Some students leave when their parents move elsewhere in the State or even out of State to take advantage of lower crime rates or better job opportunities. The Districts' argument that the elimination of loss funding causes them to lose students is not only a non sequitor, it flies in the face of Dr. Don Stewart's 6 - testimony in September of 1994 that parents do not decide to take their students out of PCS SD schools based upon the existence or nonexistence ofloss funding or growth funding for PCSSD or any other district. Third, in a crowning bit 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\" ofloss funding under these circumstances is plainly frivolous. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, ADE respectfully requests that the Districts' motion be denied. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General BY:~ TIMO .GR,#95019 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed this 10th day of February, 1997 by first-class mail, to the following person(s): M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 425 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 8 John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. .J. 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. TIIO1\\.1PSON \u0026 LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 FILED FEB 1 8 1997 OFflCE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING u.s OIHRICT cou~T EA~Tcou \"'C:Tn~T ~ ,,...,  .. ,c:,a.~ INTIIElJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F-B 1 O 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS t . \" WESTERN DMSION JM~[:; W. MClJUl'\\IVl\"\\JI\\, liL.:.RK. By: ___ --:::01'-::-, ::-:-CL;:;;-ER:;--~ LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS DECLARATION OF TRISTAN GREENE IN OPPOSITION TO PCSSD, LRSD AND NLRSD's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUES OF HEALTH INSURANCE, SPECIAL EDUCATION AND LOSS FUNDING I, Tristan D. Greene. declare as follows: 1. I have been the Assistant to the Assistant Director for Finance and Administration for the Arkansas Department of Education since April of 1995. During the course of my work for ADE, I have become familiar with the laws and regulations conrem.ing the system of public school finance in Arkansas, and, in particular, the operation of and calculation of state aid outcomes under the State's prior school funding statutes and under the school funding statutes enacted by the Arkansas General Assembly during the 1995 legislative session. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are ADE's December 27, 1996 printouts reflecting projected State Aid for LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD for 1996- 97, based on 1995-96 three quarter average ADM and adjusted for growth in the 1  - 1996-97 first quarter. Unless one of these Districts reports (a) a clerical error in its previous year's attendance reports, or (b) an error in its abstract of assessment, or (c) an error in its previous year's miscellaneous funds, or (d) a clerical error in its scheduled bonded debt payment or ( e) an error in its 1996-97 first quarter attendance report, the amounts reflected in the ~ecember 27, 1996 printouts will accurately reflect the amount of regular state aid distributed to the three Districts for 1996-97. Among other things, these printouts show: a. LRSD's 1996-97 first quarter ADM exceeds its 1995-96 three-quarter average ADM by 247.74, and LRSD will receive student growth funding in the amount of$ 744,183 for 1996-97; b. PCSSD's 1996-97 first quarter ADM exceeds its 1995-96 three-quarter average ADM by 27.02, and PCSSD will receive student growth funding in the amount of$ 81,165 for 1996-97; and c. NLRSD's 1996-97 first quarter ADM exceeds its 1995-96 three-quarter average ADM by 140.79, and NLRSD will receive student growth funding in the amount of$ 422,917 for 1996-97. 3. Due to a .. quirk\" in the new funding formula that did not require the Newark School District to raise its millage rate (Section 7(f) of Act 917), the Newark School District will receive approximately $27,000 in Additional Base Funding for 1996-97. However, because Newark's millage has now increased due 2  - to the enactment of Amendment 7 4 to the Arkansas Constitution, and assuming that the operative provisions of Act 917 are not materially altered during the 1997 legislative session, Newark will receive no Additional Base Funding for 1997-98. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a ranking of school districts by total voted millage on taxable real property, which repects such millage rates in effect in each district as of September, 1996. It shows that four districts have higher total voted millages on real property rates than LRSD. However, after the millage rollbacks pursuant to Amendment 59 of the Arkansas Constitution are taken into account, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will fall in the ranking. 5. Using information supplied by the Child Nutrition section of ADE - and October, 1996 ADM figures, I have prepared a table showing the number of students eligible for free and reduced-price meals in each school district in Arkansas ( as of October, 1996) and the concentration of such students in each district expressed as a percentage of October 1996 ADM. The table is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 6. Using information derived from the 1990 Federal Decennial Census, I have prepared a ranking of school districts by the percentage of households in each district that are below the 1989 poverty level. The ranking is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 3 7. I have reviewed Exhibit \"F' to the Districts' December 23, 1996 Reply Brief. It is incorrect Among other things, on the first page of Exhibit \"F\" the third column purports to show a \"1996-97 M-M adjustment\" of state aid that to my knowledge will not be made by ADE. Moreover, Exhibit F is methodologically unsound in that it purports to be a comparison of revenue PCS SD received from the State or paid by the State on behalf of PCS SD in 1995- 96 and 1996-97, and yet columns 2 and 3 of page l of Exhibit F purports to add a district cost into the equation. On page 2 of Exhibit Fan incorrect \"1995-96 3Q ADM'' figure is listed. 8. In my declaration filed December 13, 1996, I erroneously stated that - the Table Rate used to calculate M-M incentive funding for the three Districts for 1995-96 was: LRSD: $ 977.28; PCSSD: $ 1889.51; and NLRSD: $ 1686.21. While those were the correct Table Rates that were used to calculate ordinary state aid in 1995-96, the Table Rates used to calculate M-M incentive funding were as follows: LRSD: $ 1064.96; PCSSD: $ 1904.18; and NLRSD: $ 1695.42. 9. The photocopied table from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette attached to the Districts' brief does not contain accurate information. Assuming the newspaper accurately reported information that may have been provided by ADE, the table at best reflects 1996-97 state aid estimates made on or before the end of June, 1996. Actual 1996-97 state aid calculations differ. For example: 4 (a) Compare PCSSD's 1995-96 K-12 three quarter average ADM reflected on Exhibit A hereto (20,025.77) with the \"students\" figure for PCSSD in the newspaper table (20,080); (b) Compare the total ofNLRSD's 1996-97 Adjusted State Equalization Funding, General Facilities Funding, Debt Serv~e Supplement Payment and Growth Facilities funding as reflected on Exhibit A hereto($ 23,784,504) to the \"Projected 1996-97 State Aid\" figure in the newspaper table for NLRSD ($ 23,697,999); (c) Compare the total ofLRSD's 1996-97 Adjusted State Equalization Funding as reflected on Exhibit A hereto($ 41,530,927) to the \"Projected 1996-97 State Aid\" figure in the newspaper table for LRSD ($41,513,676); and (d) Compare the total of the Lake View School District's 1996-97 Adjusted State Equalization Funding, General Facilities Funding and Debt Service Supplemental Payment ($ 706,648) as reflected in Lake View's December 27, 1996 printout (attached hereto as Exhibit E) to the \"Projected 1996-97 State Aid\" figure in the newspaper table for Lake View($ 709,486). I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 10th day of February, 1997, at Little Rock, Arkansas .. 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed this 10th day of February, 1997 by first-class mail, to the following person(s): M. Samuel Jones Ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY., ELDREDGE\u0026 CLARK 425 W. Capitol, Suite2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 grccndc2.doc John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. -. 1723 Broadway -.. little Rock., AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504  Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. THOMPSON \u0026 LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O.Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 /e-~ - ' ~ ~ Timothy G.Qr 6 - (_ STATE AID TO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE TRUST FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 DECEMBER 27, 1996 LEA: 60-01 COUNTY: PULASKI l. 1995-96 ADM (K-12. 3 QTR AVG) 1996-97 ADM (K-12. 1ST QTR) 2. REAL PROPERTY AN S 1.185.286.533.00 75% MISC FUNDS $102.158.00 DISTRICT: Little Rock 22,231 .64 ~ 22,47938 . PERSONAL PROPERTY AN $444,714.987.00 M \u0026 0 MILLS AVAILABLE 39.82 3. 4. 5. TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR EQUALIZATION LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT .6. W7. ( . 8. 9. BASE LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT (BLRPS) ST A TE EQUALIZATION FUNDING PER STUDENT 1996-97 ST A TE EQUALIZATION FUNDING SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT 1996-97 ADJUSTED STATE EQUALIZATION FUNDING \"\" 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. _18. 19. 20. 21. AMOUNT OF EQUALIZATION FUNDING (7) THAT IS TRUST FUNDS GENERAL F ACILlTIES FUNDING STUDENT GROWTH FUNDING ISOLA TED AJD CONSOLIDATION AID DEBT SERVICE SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENT GROWTH FACILlTIES FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL ST A TE REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL \u0026 ST ATE REV. PER ADM FOR ADDITIONAL BASE MINIMUM TOT AL LOCAL \u0026 STA TE REV. PER ADM ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING  EXHIBIT ' ' A UTILITY PROPERTY AN $82.309.700.00 ST A TE WEAL TH INDEX -0.01259 $ s s s s $ s s s $ $ $ $ $ $ s s $ $ 42.053. 782.00 1.891.62 3.759.72 1.868.10 41.530.927.00 41.530.927.00 4.025.593.00 0.00 744.183.00 0.00 0.00 66.956.758.00 42.275. I I 0.00 4,859.20 3,887.36 0.00 STATE AID TO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE TRUST FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 DECEMBER 27, 1996 LEA: 60-02 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRlCT: N. Little Rock 1. 1995-96 ADM (K-12. 3 QTR AVG) 1996-97 ADM (K-12. 1ST QTR) 8.982.18 9..122.97 .. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. - 7. ( 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. REAL PROPERTY AN $301.59).503.00 75% MISC FUNDS $12.655.00 PERSONAL PROPERTY AN SI 00,003.317 .00 M \u0026 0 MILLS AV Al LAB LE 39.37 TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR EQUALIZATION LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT BASE LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT (BLRPS) ST ATE EQUALIZATION FUNDING PER STUDENT 1996-97 STATE EQUALIZATION FUNDING SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT 1996-97 ADJUSTED STATE EQUALIZATION FUNDING AMOUNT OF EQUALIZATION FUNDING (7) THAT IS TRUST FUNDS GENERAL FACILITIES FUNDING STUDENT GROWTH FUNDING JSOLA TED AID CONSOLIDATION AID DEBT SERVICE SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENT GROWTH FACILITIES FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL ST A TE REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL \u0026 STA TE REV. PER ADM FOR ADDITIONAL BASE MINIMUM TOTAL LOCAL\u0026 STATE REV. PER ADM ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING UTILITY PROPERTY AN $23.8 I 6.6 79 .00 ST A TE WEAL TH INDEX 0.55281 s $ s s s $ $ s $ $ s $ $ s s s s s s I 0.435.236.00 1.161.77 3.759.72 2.597.95 .23.335.255.00 .23.335.255.00 .2.261.886.00 173.790.00 4::?2.917.00 190.733.00 84.726.00 16,430.355.00 13.931.962.00 4.424.25 3.887.36 0.00 ST ATE AID TO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE TRUST FUNDS FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 DECEMBER 27, 1996 LEA: 60-03 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: Pulaski Co. Spec. 1. 1995-96 ADM (K-12. 3 QTR AVG) 1996-97 ADM (K-12, JSTQTR) 20,025.77 20,052.79  2. ... .J. 4. 5. 6. .7. (8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. REAL PROPERTY AN $558,008,639.00 75% MISC FUNDS $73.473.00 PERSONAL PROPERTY AN S 190.866. I 69.00 M \u0026 0 MILLS AV AI LAB LE 41.04 TOTAL LOCAL REVENUE FOR EQUALIZATION LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT BASE LOCAL REVENUE PER STUDENT (BLRPS) ST A TE EQUALIZA TJON FUNDING PER STUDENT I 996-97 ST A TE EQUALIZATION FUNDING SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT 1996-97 ADJUSTED ST A TE EQUALIZATION FUNDING AMOUNT OF EQUALIZATION FUNDING (7) THAT IS TRUST FUNDS GENERAL F ACILITJES FUNDING STUDENT GROWTH FUNDING ISOLATED AID CONSOLIDATION AID DEBT SERVICE SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENT GROWTH FACILITIES FUNDING TOT AL LOCAL REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOT AL ST ATE REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING TOTAL LOCAL \u0026 ST ATE REV. PER ADM FOR ADDITIONAL BASE MINIMUM TOT AL LOCAL \u0026 ST A TE REV. PER ADM ADDITIONAL BASE FUNDING UTILITY PROPERTY AN $3 7. 720.003.00 ST A TE WEAL TH INDEX 0.65422 $ s $ $ $ $ s s s $ s s $ $ s $ s s $ 19.345.045.00 966.01 3.759.72 2.793.71 55.946.194.00 55.946.194.00 5.422.865.00 458.544.00 81.165.00 614.706.00 0.00 31.734.178.00 56.485.903 .00 4,399.39 3.887.36 0.00 . ' \\ 1 HOWARD 2 UNION 3 UNION .t WASHINGTON \u0026 PULASKI 6 PULASKI 7. UNION t 8 DESHA 9 PULASKI 10 FAULKNER \\ 11 UNION 12 UNION 13 COLUMBIA 14 POINSETT 15 SEBASTIAN 16 GRANT 17 MILLER 18 IZARD 19 SEBASTIAN 20 MILLER 21 BOONE 22 FAULKNER - 23 FAULKNER 24 MILLER 25 BOONE 26 JEFFERSON 27 RANDOLPH 28 BAXTER 29 WASHINGTON 30 LONOKE 31 UNION 32 BENTON 33 SALINE 34 JACKSON 35 GARLAND 36 CLARK 37 HOT SPRING 38 SEBASTIAN 39 CRITTENDEN 40 HOT SPRING 41 SEBASTIAN 42 SALINE 43 FAULKNER 44 HOWARD 45 GARLAND 46 MARION 47 CRAWFORD -  48 BENTON 49 SEARCY 50 POPE 51 BENTON 52 BENTON , 33 JEFFERSON RANKING OF MILLAGES SEPTEMBER 1996 LARGEST TO SMALLEST UMPIRE 56.40 HUTTIG 34.30 MT HOLLY 44.00 FAYETTEVILLE 17.30 PULASKJ CO SPEC 34.00 LITTLE ROCK 27.80 UNION 21.80 ARKANSAS CITY ~ 35.00 NO LITTLE ROCK 29.40 GUY-PERKINS  6.40 SMACKOVER 24.70 STRONG 25.70 WALKER 8.10 WEINER 36.40 HARTFORD* 22.20 POYEN 36.20 GENOA CENTRAL 20.70 CALICO ROCK 21.00 HACKETT 13.00 TEXARKANA 16.30 OMAHA 24.60 VILONIA 25.90 MT.VERNON/ENOLA 33.00 FOUKE 12.10 LEAD HILL 32.00 WHITEHALL 24.90 BIGGERS-REYNO 28.00 COTTER 37.00 ELKINS 15.90 HUMNOKE 18.00 NORPHLET 10.20 PEA RIDGE 16.10 BAUXITE 26.50 SWIFTON 34.85 LAKESIDE 13.30 ARKADELPHIA 22.60 MAGNET COVE 28.00 FORT SMITH 33.30 EARLE 19.60 GLEN ROSE 20.30 GREENWOOD 14.90 HARMONY GROVE 10.40 CONWAY 14.80 DIERKS 24.60 HOT SPRINGS 8.20 MARION CO 19.60 VAN BUREN 13.60 SILOAM SPRS 16.30 WITTS SPRINGS  6.10 POTTSVILLE 35.70 BENTONVILLE 7.66 ROGERS 17.00 PINE BLUFF 13.10 Page 1 EXHIBIT B 2.00 58.40 19.30 53.60 5.80 49.80 3.00 23.70 44.00 9.90 43.90 1.00 15.10 43.90 0.00 21.20 43.00 1.00 6.50 42.50 3.00 9.50 41.90 3.00 31.60 41.00 16.30 41.00 15.20 40.90 31.90 40.00 3.50 39.90 17.10 39.30 3.00 39.20 18.50 39.20 18.00 39.00 26.00 39.00 3.00 19.60 38.90 2.00 11.50 38.10 12.10 38.00 5.00 38.00 2.00 23.90 38.00 6.00 38.00 12.80 37.70 3.00 6.50 37.50 37.00 1.70 19.40 37.00 19.00 37.00 2.00 24.80 37.00 20.90 37.00 10.30 36.80 1.80 36.65 2.00 21.30 36.60 2.00 11.90 36.50 8.50 36.50 2.50 0.70 36.50 3.00 13.60 36.20 15.80 36.10 21.20 36.10 25.60 36.00 21.20 36.00 2.00 9.40 36.00 27.80 36.00 16.30 35.90 22.30 35.90 1.50 18.00 35.80 3.00 26.70 35.80 35.70 28.00 35.66 1.00 17.30 35.30 I 1.00 21.20 35.30 54 BENTON 55 WASHINGTON 56 WOODRUFF 57 BENTON 58 DALLAS 59 WASHINGTON 60 PIKE 61 WASHINGTON 62 CRAWFORD 63 OUACHITA 64 NEVADA 65 ARKANSAS 66 YELL 67 INDEPENDENCE 68 LONOKE 69 CLEBURNE 70 SALINE 71 POPE 72 PIKE 73 POLK 74 DREW 75 PIKE - 76 CHICOT 77 COLUMBIA 78 GARLAND 79 CLEBURNE 80 CRAIGHEAD 81 INDEPENDENCE 82 POLK 83 OUACHITA 84 UNION 85 WASHINGTON 86 JOHNSON 87 JOHNSON 88 FRANKLIN 89 LOGAN 90 COLUMBIA 91 DREW 92 CLARK 93 YELL 94 LAFAYETTE 95 LINCOLN 96 UNION 97 FAULKNER 98 WASHINGTON 99 POLK 100 HEMPSTEAD - 101 LITTLE R.IVER 102 WASHINGTON 103. JEFFERSON 104 LOGAN 105 YELL 106 FULTot-: RANKING OF MILLAGES SEPTEMBER 1996 LARGEST TO SMALLEST DECATUR 19.00 SPRINGDALE 18.20 COTTON PLANT 20.00 GENTRY 18.70 SPARKMAN 33.60 WEST FORK 9.10 CENTERPOINT 6.70 LINCOLN .. 14.70 ALMA 14.20 BEARDEN 7.10 NEVADA CO 4.70 GILLETT 9.00 DARDANELLE 28.10 CUSHMAN* 9.80 LONOKE 13.35 QUITMAN 20.40 PARON 15.60 ATKINS 25.40  DELIGHT 13.36 ACORN 17.40 DREW CENTRAL 26.10 MURFREESBORO 23.90 LAKESIDE 20.80 EMERSON 19.10 LAKE HAMIL TON 32.40 HEBER SPRINGS 11.27 BROOKLAND 17.90 SULPHUR ROCK 14.70 HATFIELD 20.00 CAMDEN/FAIRVIEW 22.50 JUNCTION CITY 16.00 WINSLOW 31.00 CLARKSVILLE * 15.30 OARK* 9.90 PLEASANT VIEW 25.00 BOONEVILLE 17.00 TAYLOR 12.90 MONTICELLO 15.10 GURDON 20.00 OLA 24.50 LEWISVILLE 12.20 GRADY 21.80 PARKERS CHAPEL 26.70 GREENBRIER 21.60 GREENLAND 21.70 WICKES 14.30 SPRING HILL* 17.20 ASHDOWN 7.00 PRAIRIE GROVE 20.50 AL THEIMER UNIFIED 14.60 PARIS* 15.50 PLAINVIEW-ROVER 17.04 SALEM 16.23 Page2 16.20 35.20 16.90 35.10 15.00 35.00 16.30 35.00 1.40 35.00 25.90 35.00 28.30 35.00 3.00 17.30 35.00 20.80 35.00 27.80 34.90 30.20 34.90 25.80 34.80 3.00 3.60 34.70 24.70 34.50 3.00 18.05 34.40 14.00 34.40 3.00 15.70 34.30 8.80 34.20 3.00 17.80 34.16 3.00 13.60 34.00 7.90 34.00 3.00 7.10 34.00 2.00 11.20 34.00 14.80 33.90 1.50 33.90 3.00 19.53 33.80 1.00 14.80 33.70 18.90 33.60 13.40 33.40 3.00 7.70 33.20 17.00 33.00 2.00 33.00 1.40 16.30 33.00 2.00 21.10 33.00 8.00 33.00 16.00 33.00 20.10 33.00 1.00 16.90 33.00 1.00 12.00 33.00 8.50 33.00 3.00 17.60 32.80 11.00 32.80 6.10 32.80 2.00 9.10 32.70 11.00 32.70 1.20 17.20 32.70 3.00 12.50 32.70 25.60 32.60 2.00 10.10 32.60 17.80 32.40 16.90 32.40 15.30 32.34 16.00 32.23 RANKING OF MILLAGES SEPTEMBER 1996 LARGEST TO SMALLEST 107 LOGAN SCRANTON* 15.32 16.90 32.22 \\ 108 CRITTENDEN TURRELL 8.67 23.50 32.17 109 MARION YELLVILLE-SUMMIT 15.21 3.00 13.80 32.01 110 MONTGOMERY ODEN 21.60 10.40 32.00 111 CRAWFORD MOUNTAINBURG 19.60 2.00 10.40 32.00 112 HOWARD MINERAL SPRINGS 10.40 2.10 19.50 32.00 113 IZARD IZARD COUNTY 15.00 17.00 32.00 11, NEWTON DEER : 12.20 2.70 17.10 32.00 115 CONWAY NEMOVISTA 7.80 3.00 21.20 32.00 116 IZARD MELBOURNE* 5.80 2.00 24.20 32.00 117 WOODRUFF MCCRORY 32.00 32.00 118 BAXTER NORFORK 14.00 18.00 32.00 119 JOHNSON WESTSIDE 12.00 20.00 32.00 120 LINCOLN STAR CITY 19.20 2.00 10.80 32.00 121 CLEVELAND KINGSLAND 9.90 3.00 19.10 32.00 122 DALLAS CARTHAGE 32.00 32.00 123 CROSS WYNNE 9.90 3.00 19.10 32.00 124 GARLAND FT.LAKE 20.00 3.00 9.00 32.00 125 DESHA DUMAS 31.90 31.90 126 LAWRENCE LYNN 19.00 3.00 9.80 31.80 127 POLK VAN COVE 24.10 2.00 5.70 31.80 128 JEFFERSON WATSON CHAPEL 24.30 3.00 4.50 31.80 - 129 CARROLL EUREKASPR 11.25 0.50 20.00 31.75 130 CROSS CROSS COUNTY 8.90 2.00 20.80 31.70 131 CLEVELAND RISON 8.30 2.00 21.40 31.70 132 WHITE SEARCY 19.90 1.00 10.80 31.70 133 VAN BUREN SHIRLEY 12.00 0.00 19.60 31.60 134 INDEPENDENCE BA TES VILLE * 14.75 1.00 15.80 31.55 135 WASHINGTON FARMINGTON 13.90 17.50 31.40 136 CARROLL BERRYVILLE 25.50 5.90 31.40 137 HEMPSTEAD SARATOGA 10.20 1.42 19.70 31.32 138 PHILLIPS LAKEVIEW 8.30 23.00 31.30 139 BAXTER MT. HOME 16.20 15.10 31.30 140 STONE RURAL SPECIAL 23.20 8.10 31.30 141 CLEBURNE WILBURN 16.90 2.00 12.40 31 .30 142 HEMPSTEAD BLEVINS 12.40 18.90 31.30 143 JEFFERSON OOLLARWAY 11.38 19.90 31.28 144 FRANKLIN OZARK* 13.10 18.10 31.20 145 WHITE BALD KNOB 7.90 23.30 31.20 146 HOWARD NASHVILLE 23.00 0.50 7.70 31.20 147 GARLAND JESSIEVILLE 15.80 15.30 31.10 148 PHILLIPS HELENA W-HELE 9.55 21.50 31.05 149 LONOKE CABOT 9.30 1.00 20.70 31.00 150 GARLAND CUTTER MORNING 14.00 2.00 15.00 31.00 151 CHICOT EUDORA 14.50 3.00 13.50 31.00 152 LONOKE CARLISLE 20.40 2.00 8.60 31.00 153 FRANKLIN CHARLESTON 22.50 1.00 7.50 31.00  154 YELL WESTERN YELL 19.00 1.90 10.10 31.00 155 YELL DANVILLE 11 .00 20.00 31.00 156 LAWRENCE RIVER VALLEY 22.00 2.00 7.00 31.00 157 LONOKE ENGLAND 16.93 3.00 11.00 30.93 158 CRITTENDEN MARION 9.10 21.80 30.90 159 SHARP WILLIFORD* 17.00 3.00 10.90 30.90 Page 3 160 VAN BUREN 161 GARLAND 162 SEVIER 163 ASHLEY 164 INDEPENDENCE 165 MILLER 166 CONWAY 167 RANDOLPH 168 NEWTON 169 SEBASTIAN 170 RANDOLPH 171 CRAIGHEAD 172 POLK 173 SALINE 174 GRANT 175 CRAIGHEAD 176 POINSETT 177 ASHLEY 178 CRAWFORD 179 MADISON 180 CONWAY 181 CHICOT - 182 BOONE 183 CRAIGHEAD -- 184 GREENE 185 OUACHITA 186 WHITE 187 CLAY 188 CRAIGHEAD 189 MISSISSIPPI 190 POPE 191 HEMPSTEAD 192 PRAIRIE 193 PERRY 194 MONROE 195 GREENE 196 WHITE 197 MADISON 198 CLEBURNE 199 LOGAN - 200 CRAWFORD 201 VAN BUREN 202 DALLAS 203 POINSETT 204 GREENE 205 FRANKLIN 206 FAULKNER - "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1638","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellants","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":["1997-01-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","Knight Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Employee rights"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellants"],"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/1638"],"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":["223 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  EDWARD L. WRIGHT ( 1903- 1977) ROBERTS. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A . SCOTT. JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVIO M . POWELL ROGER A . GLASGOW C . DOUGLAS BUFORO. JR. PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M . SAMUEL JONES ru 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 . .IR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER SAMMYE L. TAYLOR WALTER E. MAY ANNA HIRAI GIBSON GREGORY T. JONES H . KEITH MORRISON Ms. Ann Brown ODM WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS ATTO RNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501l 376-9442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BEVERLY BASSETT SCHAFFER M. TODD WOOD January 16, 1997 201 E. Little Markham, Suite 510 Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: PACT'S Appeal of the Strike Ruling Dear Ann: BETTINA E. B ROWNSTEIN W ALTER MCSPADDEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIM BERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR. H ARRY S . HURST . .IR. TROY A . PRICE PATRICIA A . SIEVERS JAMES M . MOODY. JR. KATHRYN A . PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W . K ENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS FRED M . PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY M. ROBINSON BETSY MEACHAM AINSLEY H . LANG KYLE R. WILSON DONS. McKINNEY MICHELE L . SIMMONS KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH CFFlGE OF DESEGREGATl01J MmllTORiNG I thought you might be interested in reviewing PACT's opening brief on the strike issues pending in the Eighth Circuit . The PCSSD response is due on or about February 7, 1997 . MSJ/jhs Enclosure Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS \u003c\\~:~. -- / M. Shmuel Jones, III ( / ------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-3841 Katherine Knight, et .5!.L_, Appellants, RECEIVED JAN 1 7 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING v. Pulaski County Special School District, Appellee. On Appeal From the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas BRIEF OF APPELLANTS ROBERT H. CHANIN VIRGINIA A. SEITZ JONATHAN D. HACKER Bredhoff \u0026 Kaiser, ?.L .L . C. 1000 Connec';:icut Ave., N.W . Suite 1300 Washington, D.C ; 2003 6 (202) 833-9340 RICHARD W. ROACHELL Roachell Law Firm 504 Lyon Building 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-5550 Ark. Bar No. 78132 Counsel for Appellants I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-3841 Katherine Knight, et .aL.., Appellants, v. Pulaski County Special School District, Appellee. On Appeal From the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas BRIEF OF APPELLANTS ROBERT H. CHANIN VIRGINIA A. SEITZ JONATHAN D. HACKER Bredhoff \u0026 Kaiser, P.L.L.C. 1000 Connecticut Ave., N.W. suite 1300 Washington, D.C. 20036 {202} 833-9340 RICHARD W. ROACHELL Roachell Law Firm 504 Lyon Building 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 (501} 375-5550 Ark. Bar No. 78132 Counsel for Appellants I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY OF CASE AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Pursuant to its jurisdiction to monitor implementation of a consent decree designed to desegregate schools in the appellee Pulaski county Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\") and certain surrounding school districts, the district court entertained a request by PCSSD to enjoin a strike by its teachers that took place when collective bargaining between PCSSD and the teachers' exclusive representative, the Pulaski County Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") -- represented in this case by appellants Katherine Knight, rt g_L,_ -- broke down. The court below issued its preliminary injunction five days after an Arkansas state court, in a case brought by parents of several PCSSD students, had ruled that the strike could continue because the state law prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief had not been met. Because of the complex history of this case -- and the important federal and state law issues raised by this appeal plaintiffs believe that oral argument will be of assistance to this Court. Plaintiffs ask that they be allowed 30 minutes for oral argument. ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF CASE AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT .. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. STATEMENT OF ISSUE STATEMENT OF CASE AND STATEMENT OF FACTS A. B. c. The Underlying Constitutional Violation .. The 1992 Consent Decree .. The 1996 Teachers' Strike. 1. 2. The state court Proceeding The District Court Proceeding SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. ARGUMENT A. B. CONCLUSION The District Court Erred in Issuing the Injunction Because It Was Not Designed (1) To Enforce the Terms of the 1992 Consent Decree, or (2) To Effect a Valid Modification of the 1992 Consent Decree 1. Enforcing the Terms of the 1992 Consent Decree ..... . 2. Modifying the 1992 Consent Decree Dataphase Systems. Inc. v. C.L. systems. Inc. Does Not Provide the Proper Framework for Ruling on PCSSD's Request for an Injunction; Even Assuming, Arguendo, That It Does, the District Court's Injunction Does Not Meet the Dataphase Criteria ..... 1. Application of Dataphase 2. The Dataphase Criteria iii ii 1 2 2 3 5 8 9 10 18 20 20 20 29 37 37 38 46 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Alexander v. Britt, 89 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 1996) American Trucking Ass'ns. Inc. v. Gray. 657 S.W.2d 207 (Ark. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appeal of Little Rock Sch. Dist., 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991) ........... . Berger v. Heckler, 771 F~2d 1556 (2d Cir. 1985) Boatmen's First Nat'l Bank v. Kansas Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys., 57 F.3d 638 (8th Cir. 1995) ..... Dataphase Sys . Inc. v. C.L. Sys . Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) .............. . EEOC v. Local 40. Int'l Ass'n of Bridge Workers, 76 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1996) .... Finney v. Arkansas Bd. of Corrections, 505 F.2d 194 ( 8th Cir. 197 4) . . . . Firefighters Local 1784 v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561 (1984) Harley-Davidson. Inc. v. Morris, 19 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 1994) ............ . Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1342 (3d Cir. 1995) ..... Hughes v. United States, 342 U.S. 353 (1952) Johnson v. Robinson, 987 F.2d 1043 (4th cir. 1993} Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 114 s . ct . 16 7 3 ( 19 9 4 ) . . . . Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Knight, 725 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1983) . . . . . ... Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Martin, No. 87-4537 (Ark. Ch. Ct. Sept. 28, 1987) .... Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 584 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Ark. 1984) iv 30 9 14, 17 23 38,39 42 passim 22 38 19 23 23 22 19,22 33 1 3 25 3,11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 738 F.2d 82 (8th Cir. 1984) ... Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996) Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 597 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Ark. 1984) Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) .... Little Rock Sch. Dist v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 869 (1988) .... Mahers v. Hedgepeth, 32 F.3d 1273 (8th Cir. 1994) Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 706 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1983) .... Paccar Fin. Corp. v. Hummell, 606 S.W.2d 384 (Ark. Ct. App. 1980) ..... People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist. No. 205, 961 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. 1992) Picon v. Morris, 933 F.2d 660 (8th Cir. 1991) Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) ......... , Smith v. American Trucking Ass'n, Inc., 781 S.W.2d 3 (Ark. 1989) .... United States v. Armour \u0026 Co., 402 U.S. 673 (1971) United States v. Atlantic Ref. Co., 360 U.S. 19 (1959) United States v. City of Chicago, 978 F.2d 325 (7th Cir. 1992) ................. . United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 998 F.2d 1001 (2d Cir. 1993) United States v. Knote, 29 F.3d 1297 (8th Cir. 1994) V 4 29 4 4,5 19,31 passim 2,11 35 2, 22- 31 9 31 19 2,30 9 2,22 29 22 32 23 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I United states v. O'Rourke, 943 F.2d 180 (2d Cir. 1991) United states v. Western Elec. Co., 8~4 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1990) .............. . Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909 (6th Cir. 1983) STATUTES AND RULES 28 u.s.c.  1292 (a) (1) 28 u.s.c.  1331 Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 (a) Fed. R. civ. P. 60(b) Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) . Ark. Code Ann.  6-17-1001 (Michie 1995) vi 23 19,23 33,34 22 1 1 38 30 38 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-3841 Katherine Knight, et al., Appellants, v. Pulaski County Special School District, Appel lee. BRIEF OF APPELLANTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Susan Webber Wright, D.J.) had jurisdiction over the underlying school desegregation case pursuant to 28 u.s.c.  1331, and it had jurisdiction over the instant proceeding pursuant to its continuing authority to monitor implementation of the consent decree entered in said case. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1376, 1384 (8th Cir. 1990). See also Kokkonen v . Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, , 114 s. ct. 1673, 1677 (1994). This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal from the district court's order granting PCSSD's motion to enjoin the teachers' strike pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 1292(a) (1). The District Court's order was formally entered on october 2, 1996, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 and appellants Katherine Knight, et al., filed a timely notice of appeal on October 27, 1996. STATEMENT OF ISSUE Whether the district court erred in abrogating appellants' state-law right to continue the teachers' strike, inasmuch as the court's injunction was not designed (1) to enforce the terms of the consent decree, or (2) to effect a valid modification of the consent decree. The four cases most apposite to this issue are: United states v. Armour \u0026 Co., 402 U.S. 673 (1971) Mahers v. Hedgepeth, 32 F.3d 1273, 1275 (8th Cir. 1994) Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992) Little Rock Sch. Dist v. Pulaski County Soecial Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 869 (1988) STATEMENT OF CASE AND STATEMENT OF FACTS Although only a few recent developments are directly relevant to this appeal, the appeal inevitably is bound up with the complex and continuing 14-year effort to desegregate PCSSD and certain surrounding school districts. Accordingly, in order to provide a context for analysis, it is necessary to review -albeit briefly -- the history of this case. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 A. The Underlying Constitutional Violation This case began in 1982, when the predominantly black Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a complaint in the United states District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Alleging interdistrict constitutional violations, LRSD contended that meaningful school desegregation could be achieved only by consolidating LRSD and the two predominantly white surrounding school districts -- i.e., PCSSD and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") -- into a single county-wide school district. Shortly after the case was filed, a group of black students and their parents, on behalf of all black students in the three school districts, intervened as plaintiffs -- i.e., the Joshua intervenors. Several teachers in the three affected school districts, PACT, and the counterpart teacher associations in LRSD and NLRSD moved to intervene in order to protect the teachers' state-law contractual and statutory rights - i.e., the Knight intervenors. The district court denied their motion, and this Court affirmed, noting that the district court intended to bifurcate the litigation into a liability and a remedy stage, and \"[t]he interests that appellants seek to protect relate to the remedy stage.\" 725 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam), quoted in 738 F.2d 82, 83 (8th Cir. 1984). After the district court entered a judgment of liability against PCSSD and NLRSD, see 584 F. Supp. 328 (E.D. Ark. 1984), the Knight intervenors renewed their motion, but the district I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 court again denied intervention. On appeal, however, this Court reversed, holding that the Knight intervenors had shown that \"the disposition of the action 'may as a practical matter' impair their interests,\" and it directed the lower court to grant the motion to intervene. 738 F.2d at 84 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) (2)) . 1 The district court then turned to the question of remedy, and, after additional hearings, ordered consolidation of the three school districts into a single county-wide school district. See 597 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Ark. 1984). Defendants appealed from both the liability and remedy judgments. This Court, sitting en bane, affirmed the lower court's judgment of liability, but ruled that the interdistrict remedy \"exceed(ed) the scope of the violations.\" 778 F.2d 404, The \"interests\" in question derived primarily from the collective bargaining agreements between the teacher associations and the school districts. Recognizing that consolidation of the three school districts was a possible remedy for the unconstitutional segregation, this Court commented as follows: Those who have a contract with existing entities have an interest in the continued existence of those entities. It may be true that the successor school district (assuming consolidation is ultimately ordered) will choose to bargain collectively with the (teachers), but there can be no assurance of that fact. In addition, even if a successor district does agree to bargain collectively with appellants, there is no assurance that whatever contract will then be agreed on will be as favorable to appellants' members as the present agreements are. 738 F.2d at 84. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 434 (8th Cir. 1985). Opining that the district court's remedy violated principles of federal court respect for local autonomy in the educational process, see .i_g_._, this Court remanded for entry of remedial orders consistent with a set of guidelines set forth in its opinion. See id. at 434-36. B. The 1992 Consent Decree During 1987, the district court issued a series of remedial orders that abrogated state-law rights of the Knight intervenors, including, inter alia, orders that altered negotiated teacher assignment systems. The Knight intervenors appealed, contending that the district court exceeded the scope of its remedial authority because the remedial orders were not properly connected to the underlying constitutional violation. This Court agreed: The remedial authority of the District Court empowers it to alter or, in the extreme case, abrogate a collective bargaining agreement which perpetuates segregation or impedes a desegregation plan. The agreements between a school district and a teachers organization, however, must be permitted to stand if they do not adversely impinge on these constitutionally mandated remedies. Any modification or abrogation can only be made after an evidentiary hearing and upon a finding that the change is essential to the desegregation remedy. 839 F.2d 1296, 1314-15 (8th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). This Court added that \"the authority of a federal court to alter or modify collective bargaining contracts in school desegregation cases must be based on a finding that the alteration or modification is necessary to further the effort to integrate the schools in question.\" lg_._ at 1316 (emphasis added). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 Finally, after further piecemeal implementation and appeals of various court-ordered remedies, the parties entered into intense negotiations in an effort to develop an agreed-upon plan to remedy the unconstitutional segregation. In 1990, \"in a sharp departure from the adversary bitterness that had marked this controversy,\" all of the parties voluntarily agreed to a \"comprehensive and complicated\" series of plans. 921 F.2d 1371, 1376, 1384 (8th Cir. 1990). This series included a separate desegregation plan for each of the three school districts involved in the litigation, and a financial agreement with .the state, pursuant to which the state was obligated to provide funding for certain desegregation programs. The parties submitted the agreed-upon plans to the district court for approval, but the court rejected the plans, and \"purported to modify them and to order the unwilling parties to put them into effect as modified.\" .I.9...._ at 1376. This Court reversed, explaining that the district court had failed to credit sufficiently the voluntary, negotiated nature, of the agreed-upon plans: The law strongly favors settlements. Courts should hospitably receive them. This may be especially true in the present context -- a protracted, highly divisive, even bitter litigation, any lasting solution to which necessarily depends on the good faith and cooperation of all the parties, especially the defendants. As a practical matter, a remedy that everyone agrees to is a lot more likely to succeed than one to which the defendants must be dragged kicking and screaming. Id. at 1383. In rejecting the district court's proposed \"modifications\" of the agreed-upon plans, this Court stressed the I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7 need for courts to defer to the expressed will of the parties as reflected in a settlement: \"Because settlement of a class action, like settlement of any litigation, is basically a bargained exchange between the litigants, the judiciary's role is properly limited to the minimum necessary to protect the interests of the class and the public. Judges should not substitute their own judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\" In addition, courts are generally without authority to require parties to comply with a \"settlement\" different from their own agreement. Id. at 1388 (quoting Armstrong v. Board of Sch. Directors, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7th Cir. 1980)). Accordingly, this Court directed the district court to approve the four separate settlement plans that had been agreed to by the parties. Id. at 1394. On remand, these plans were incorporated into a consent decree that was finalized on April 29, 1992 ( 11 1992 consent decree\") (JA 34). 2 Among the programs established for PCSSD by the 1992 consent decree is a system of student assignment designed to achieve at least 20% black enrollment in all PCSSD schools. 1992 consent decree at 84 (JA 119). This system depends on a number of variables, including initial student assignments and voluntary transfers of students among PCSSD schools. Id. at 81-84 (JA 116- 19). The system also calls for voluntary transfers of black students from LRSD to PCSSD, and voluntary transfers of white students from PCSSD to LRSD. Id. at 83 (JA 118). The 1992 2 Although only the PCSSD plan is directly relevant for purposes of this appeal, and only that plan is included in the Joint Appendix, see JA 34, references in this brief are to the 1992 consent decree. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 consent decree indicates that Pesso has had little difficulty attracting black students from LRSO, and that the principal focus should be to encourage white students to transfer from Pesso to LRSO. Id. (\"Pesso will continue to encourage its students to exercise interdistrict M-to-M [.L.Jh, majority-to-minority) transfers to LRSO. Efforts directed toward M-to-M transfers from LRSO have already been successful.\" (emphasis added)). In addition to the provisions designed to remedy segregation in Pesso, the Knight intervenors received a specific assurance that the recognized collective bargaining process for Pesso teachers would not be displaced. Thus, the 1992 consent decree provides for an Office of Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, who, inter alia, must \"negotiate as representative for the (School] Board a master agreement with certified personnel.\" Id. at 21 (JA 56). The decree does not include any limitations on the capacity of PACT or the Pesso teachers to exercise their rights under state law to resolve disputes arising during the collective bargaining process. c. The 1996 Teachers' strike The instant dispute has its genesis in negotiations between PACT and PCSSO for a successor to the collective bargaining agreement that was scheduled to expire on June 20, 1996. Among other proposals, PACT sought a salary increase for the teachers that it contended was necessary to comply with a recently-enacted state minimum teacher salary law. Ark. Code Ann. S 6-17-1001 (Michie 1995) (\"Act 917\"). PCSSD rejected the proposal, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 asserting that it was not obligated to comply with Act 917, because this might require PCSSD to divert money from desegregation programs, thereby breaching its obligations under the 1992 consent decree. Negotiations on this and other matters proved unsuccessful, and the teachers -- under PACT's direction -- went on strike on August 19, 1996. 1. The state Court Proceeding on August 22, 1996, Mike Wilson and several other parents of PCSSD students (\"Wilson\") filed suit in Pulaski County Chancery court seeking a temporary restraining order -- on state-law grounds -- directing PACT to terminate the strike. The state court held a hearing on August 23, and issued its ruling the same day. Wilson v. Pulaski Ass'n of Classroom Teachers, No. IJ96- 5788, slip op. (Ark. Ch. Ct. Aug. 23, 1996) (JA 430). The chancery court denied Wilson's request for a temporary restraining order, finding that plaintiffs had not satisfied the state-law prerequisites for the granting of such relief: specifically, they had failed to demonstrate that the strike was \"clearly illegal\" under Arkansas law, see id. at 4 (JA 434), and that the students or PCSSD were suffering \"irreparable harm\" at the time of the hearing, id. at 8 (JA 438) . 3 With regard to the 3 Under Arkansas law, plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctive relief must prove both that they are likely to succeed on the merits, and that they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of such relief. See Smith v. American Trucking Ass'n, Inc., 781 S.W.2d 3, 4 (Ark. 1989); American Trucking Ass'ns. Inc. v. Gray, 657 S.W.2d 207, 208 (Ark. 1983); Paccar Fin. Corp. v. Hummell, 606 S.W.2d 384, 385 (Ark. ct. App. 1980). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 latter point, the court noted that lost school days could still easily be made up, and that all other concerns expressed by plaintiffs were, at that early date, totally speculative. Id. at 6-8 (JA 436-38). The court indicated that it would revisit the question of irreparable harm if the strike did not end shortly, by \"setting a hearing on September 19th[, 1996] at 8:30.\" Id. at 9 (JA 439) . 4 Although several of the plaintiffs in Wilson, as well as their attorneys, were in contact with PCSSD representatives before and during the state court proceeding, Transcript of August 29, 1996 Hearing (\"Tr.\") at 220-21 (JA 360-61), PCSSD was not a party to the case. PACT attempted to join PCSSD as a necessary party (JA 444), but both the plaintiffs (JA 448) and PCSSD opposed the motion, Tr. at 196 (JA 336), and it was denied. 2. The District Court Proceeding On August 24, 1996, the day after the chancery court denied Wilson's request for injunctive relief, PCSSD filed a motion in the district court -- based upon the court's continuing jurisdiction over the implementation of the 1992 consent decree 4 Wilson has appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court, and this appeal is now pending. The only point on appeal, however, is the chancery court's ruling on the likelihood of success on the merits; no appeal was taken from its determination that the strike was not causing irreparable harm. As Wilson put it in the brief that was filed with the state supreme court, \"[i]t is from the chancery court's denial of the injunction requested based on the illegality of the strike from which Wilson appeals. Wilson is not appealing the court's decision with respect to irreparable harm.\" Exhibit D to PCSSD Motion to Stay the Appeal at 3. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 seeking to enjoin the teachers' strike (JA 410). In support of the requested injunction, PCSSD argued that the 1992 consent decree could not be implemented if \"the schools are not open.\" PCSSD Brief In Support of Its Motion Seeking Equitable Relief (\"PCSSD Trial Br.\") at 7 (JA 419). Although the primary beneficiaries of the 1992 consent decree are the black students in PCSSD, 5 PCSSD did not consult with the Joshua intervenors before filing their motion in the court below. Tr. at 211 (JA 351). And, in fact, the Joshua intervenors opposed PCSSD's motion. Tr. at 16 (JA 156). On August 29, 1996, the district court held a hearing on PCSSD's motion. Four witnesses testified: Deen Minton, President of PACT; Linda Pondexter, President of the Little Rock/ School District Board of Directors and former President of PACT;j Sandra Roy, Executive Director of PACT; and Bobby Lester, PCSSD Superintendent of Schools. There was no dispute about the fact that all of the schools in PCSSD were in operation, notwithstanding the strike. Minton, Pondexter and Roy all asserted that a nonnegotiated end to the strike, such as by an injunction, would have a significant negative impact on teacher morale, which in turn would adversely affect implementation of the 1992 consent decree. Tr. at 132-34 (JA 272-74); Tr. at 231- 5 See 839 F.2d at 1303 (\"The right most prominently involved [in this litigation) is the right to a public education free of racial discrimination.\"); 584 F. Supp. 328, 347 (E.D. Ark. 1984) (finding constitutional violation in part because ''there is no indication that [black students] will be treated fairly or with openness and inclusiveness\" in PCSSD). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12 32 (JA 371-72); Tr. at 252-53 (JA 392-93). Lester, the only witness supporting the PCSSD motion, did not dispute this assertion. Tr. at 161, 164 (JA 301, 303-04). Lester testified that, in his opinion, the students who transferred from LRSD to PCSSD might be less likely to stay at PCSSD because of the strike, but he was unable to produce any PCSSD attendance records or other evidence to support this opinion. Tr. at 216-17 (JA 356-57). Before specifically ruling on PCSSD's request for an injunction, the court below issued several orders designed to improve PACT/PCSSD labor relations. First, the court stated that PACT's bargaining demand for a teacher salary increase did not fully account for PCSSD's financial obligations under the 1992 consent decree: [I)t was apparent to me, listening to the testimony of PACT members that they are focused on their rights under Arkansas law, instead of the District's multiple obligations under federal law, as well as under state law. And keep in mind, I'm not doing this tonight, I'm not saying this as -- I'm not ruling this way right now, but keep in mind at times this Court has superseded state law. I have that authority as a federal judge, to require that a party actually not follow state law. Order at 6 (attached as Addendum to Appellants' Brief). The court then observed that: Mistrust between the parties in this case is evident. There is certainly a lot of bad feelings, which is not good for the future of either this District or the success of the overall settlement decree. Complications to the funding formula have added to this feeling of ill-will and uncertainty. And I hope in a year or two all of these uncertainties with respect to the funding formula will be I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 13 resolved. But still, there has been a lot of damage done between the parties, and this is not a time of good feeling. Id. at 7. For these reasons, the district court directed PACT and PCSSD to establish a \"Labor Relations Committee, with representatives from each side, [which) will make recommendations to the Union and to the Board, and if necessary to this Court, with respect to their relations with each other. In other words, how to talk to each other and how to build back an era of trust.\" Id. at 7-8. The court also ordered \"the Labor Relations Committee to develop some sort of education program for PACT members, so that they can understand the District's [budget) predicament.\" Id. at 8. Finally, asserting the authority to interpret and enforce the collective bargaining agreement, the court ordered the parties to mediate their differences in accordance with the impasse procedure contained in the agreement. Id. at 9-10. The district court then turned to PCSSD's request for an injunction. Notwithstanding PCSSD's argument that the strike should be enjoined simply to facilitate implementation of the 1992 consent decree, the court applied the criteria for a preliminary injunction set forth by this Court in Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981): (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the moving party; (2) the balance of that harm against the interests of the other parties; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 14 The court below based its discussion of irreparable harm on the testimony of PCSSD Superintendent Lester: [T]he testimony of Bobby Lester indicates that the District will suffer from having to make up school days, from the sparse attendance of regular teachers, from the absence of students, and from the threat of losing students, including interdistrict students. The interdistrict part of the plan is a crucial element of this plan. The Eighth Circuit has so ruled, and that is not the District Court's ruling, that is the Eighth Circuit's. Id. at 11-12. The court therefore found that there is a threat of irreparable harm to the District, and further [found] there is a threat of irreparable harm to the overall success of the settlement decree. Judge Arnold, once again, of the Eighth Circuit, has said \"Stability is important to the success of this decree.\" And there are very few things more destabilizing than a teacher's strike. I've witnessed all the interest in this case today, the emotions, the news coverage, which I cannot take judicial notice of, but there has certainly been -- we cannot say that the situation has been stable. Id. at 12-13. 6 6 Judge Arnold has never written, in any published opinion of which we are aware, the words ascribed to him by the district court. The closest he has come was in an opinion issued on November 14, 1991, in which this Court directed the lower court to permit certain modifications to an earlier version of the 1992 consent decree. See 949 F.2d 253, 257 (8th Cir. 1991). In permitting these changes, this Court, through Judge Arnold, noted that the district court must proceed cautiously, because the public deserved stability in the terms of the decree: The 1989 settlement is a benchmark. Although changes can be made, the District Court and we must take into account the potential for confusion, even chaos, that constant change creates. The parties and the public deserve a period of stability. Changes in details, or at the margin, will not seriously interfere with this goal. Changes of greater significance, however, may well do so, and that fact must be taken fully into account when such changes are proposed and considered. Id. at 257. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 15 The district court turned next to PCSSD's likelihood of success on the merits. Although PCSSD's claim was that the strike was prohibited by the 1992 consent decree, the court did not address the likelihood of PCSSD's success as to that claim. Instead, the court dealt with this criterion on the basis of two state-law questions. The first question involved PACT's contention during collective bargaining that PCSSD was obligated to increase teachers' salaries in accordance with Act 917, the new state minimum salary law. PCSSD, on the other hand, had taken the position that it was not required to comply with Act 917, because to do so might make it difficult for PCSSD to meet certain obligations under the 1992 consent decree. 7 The district court treated the merits aspect of the request for a federal injnction as turning on the eventual outcome of the dispute over Act 917: it ruled that \"the District has carried its burden of showing that more likely "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1668","title":"Court filings concerning summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding, PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South junior high schools, ADE semiannual monitoring report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Knight Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Jacksonville North Junior High School (Jacksonville, Ark.)","Jacksonville South Junior High School (Jacksonville, Ark.)","School buildings","School facilities","School management and organization","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding, PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South junior high schools, ADE semiannual monitoring report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1668"],"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":"District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, Knight, et al.,'s reply to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to motion; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, Pulaski districts' motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding; District Court, statement of material and undisputed facts with respect to the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, special education, and loss funding; District Court, motion for hearing; District Court, order; District Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South (junior high schools); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to fix time; District Court, three orders; District Court, motion for extension of time in which to file notice of appeal; District Court, judgment; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) semiannual monitoring report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) program planning and budgeting tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  u.s~,\\k~JdRr EASTERN OISiRICT ARK,\\NSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN 6 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: -----------PLRiN'PfFf1( DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Knight, et al., Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL L-\\ W FIR:.\\1. for their Motion, state: 1. PACT, by and through Knight, et al. Intervenors, filed a Motion for Extension of Time until close of business on Monday, January 6, 1997, to file its Reply to the Response of PCSSD. 2. The data collection for the reply by PACT personnel was severely curtailed during the holidays as they only returned to work on the morning of January 6, 1997. The data collected by PACT did not arrive at its attorneys office untii the afternoon of January 6, i 997 and a proper reply is not possible prior to close of business. WHEREFORE, PACT prays that it be granted one additional day to file its Reply to the Response of PCS SD and be granted all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted. c==\u003e____,, ~ Richard W. Roache!! Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIR2v1 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 January 6, 1997 to the follo,,ing persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 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 III WRIGHT, LC\\l)SEY \u0026 JEi'IN\"L\\,.GS 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. Roachell FILED u S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKA SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN 7 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKA SAS ERK WESTERN DIVISIO JAMES W McCORMACK, CL l By: -----nioE:i:p,7_C' IL8ER=ii\u003cK 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. ~.'.: ~ 11 .'l~ ~~~~ ~- O!l!ce of Desegrngc.i1cn t,\\onitonng DEFENDANTS I TERVENORS INTERVENORS KNIGHT. ET AL'S REPLY TO PCSSD RESPONSE TO MOTION In its Response to the PACT Intervenor's Motion and Brief, the PCSSD takes the ludicrous position that what PACT is requesting is that the Court approve any contract settlement with PCSSD because PCSSD would be increasing a budgeted line item without court approval contrary to the Intervenors prayer for relief. PCSSD also suggests that PACT's prayer \" ... seems an invitation by PACT to the Court to resolve the contract dispute since any resolution which increases salaries must, according to PACT's request, have the approval of the Court in any event.\" PCSSD's allegations and conclusions are disingenious when PACT's Motion is read in its entirety. PACT neither wishes the Court to resolve the contract dispute between them nor wishes the Court to approve any contract settlement that may result in expenditures for increases in salary. PCSSD's tinkering with the wording of PACT's Motion and Brief inflames an already white-hot labor dispute between the parties and wastes taxpayers money in doing so. What PACT wants is clear: that PCSSD be restrained from fiddling with its budget in spending monies that could and should be appropriated to fund a salary increase and that PCSSD negotiate in good faith. EXHIBIT \"D\" In PCSSD's zeal to further heighten an already supercharged labor dispute in its district, it discusses virtually all of the items in the exhibit that PACT had attached to its Motion as Exhibit \"D.\" It should be noted that in the briefof PACT, it addressed only the issue of a possible transfer of $100,000 in interest from the building fund. However, PCSSD goes to great lengths to try to discredit PACT by discussing that item as well as virtually every other item on Exhibit \"D'' which were not contained or addressed in the subject matter of the motion or brief of PACT. In response, PACT feels the necessity to respond to the allegations of the district as it addressed other items in PACT's Exhibit \"D.\" It should be noted that Exhibit \"D\" was created by PACT prior to this Court's - hearing on the district's Motion for Injunctive Relief. It was initially created for negotiating purposes only during the summer of 1996. PCSSD suggests that the transfer of $133,516.00 generated by the one mill technology millage would be unlawful under Arkansas Law. Hopefully, such is not the case as the district is well-versed in such transfers. It should be noted that the so-called one mill technology millage was not dedicated to math, science and technology on the ballot that was approved by the voters. It is true that the district advertised to the public that it would dedicate one mill of the proposed millage for technology if the millage was passed. However, what is technology is determined by the district itself since there are no parameters in the official ballot on which taxpayers voted. See attached Exhibit \"A.\" What PACT proposed, however, was the transfer of$133,516.00 from the regular budget to 2 the technology mill. This was the total dollars identified by PACT from district records where the district had funded technology programs not from the technology fund but from its regular budget thereby giving more to the technology budget than was generated by the mill when the technology budget is not even fully budgeted for expenditures. This scenario occurred when the budget managers were permitted to overspend their allotted millage amounts and the district, instead of balancing the budget by transferring money from the technology millage reserve to the overspending, chose rather to transfer money to cover the o,erspending from its regular budget. All that PACT requested in its negotiations was that money be returned from the technology fund that was transferred from the district's regular budget. For instance, two substantial expenditures from the regular budget that could have been allocated from the technology mill reserves were the computer lab at Fuller Junior High which was funded from the regular budget and the upgrade of district computer labs which would also qualify for technology funds. PCSSD also faults PACT for suggesting that the district defer $1,165,076.00 in budgeting expenses for the first semester to the second semester and to use that amount to fund teacher raises. The district complains that it is not demonstrated or predicted where new revenue would come from to pay these bills during the second semester. However, as the district well knows, it has done this very thing in the recent past. In the 1993-94 school year, the district similarly deferred expenditures to settle and fund a pay raise in a dispute with PACT by submitting a budget proposal to its Board of Directors for approval which contained three days less work during the second semester. See Exhibit \"B.\" Of course, with the district historically underestimating its revenues, the second semester was funded fully and the three days were restored to the school calendar. What the district finds to be irresponsible now but apparently found responsible only a few years ago is merely further 3 evidence of its unwillingness to settle its labor dispute with PACT and its willingness to create the risk that the labor dispute will boil over again. Next, PCS SD faults that part of Exhibit \"D\" to PACT's motion for representing that Act 917 requires $1,375,000.00 for funding to meet the requirements of the Act. Actually, the revised calculations by PACT are $1,262,752.00. PCSSD further represents that it would only require $117.00 to each beginning teacher salary and $298 to the contract of teachers holding a masters degree with two years experience to complete compliance with Act 917. If such a plan was the intent of the Act, there would be little dispute between the parties. However, PCS SD knows that the intent of Act 917 is not to destroy but to preserve the structure of the statutorily mandated salary schedule for teachers as it is incorporated into Article Xll  3 of the Master Contract. By not raising the base and failing to index a raise through the entire schedule to compensate teachers for - experience and education as provided by the district's plan, over 1,200 teachers would receive no raise whatsoever. Further, this Court did not rule on August 29 (sic) that PCS SD was not abiding by Act 91 7. The Act has not been challenged on the issues raised here. The Court only found that there was a probabilitv that the district was not in violation of Act 917 and that a waiver under the Act is also a possibility. With regard to PACT's projection of $500,000.00 in additional local revenue, the district's chief fiscal officer, who gave his affidavit with the district's response, stated during the first four days of the teacher strike that the $500,000.00 was his \"fudge money\" indicating how much he predicted the underestimation in local revenue. Stewart has since acknowledged his prior statement in mediation ordered by the Court. Again, this admission on the part of the district further 4 underscores the history of the dist1ict in underestimating local revenues. TITLE IX PACT's Exhibit \"A\" to its motion clearly shows that the district is willing and able to find funds for whatever it wants to do. There is no decree or order existing that binds PCSSD to fill additional coaching positions to comply with Title IX. In fact, the whole basis of the filling of the coaching positions was merely an internal memorandum suggesting that it be done. The memorandum itself is confusing and apparently contradictory. It should be noted that in the second paragraph of the memorandum, the recommendation is \"If a team has twenty (20) participants at the end of a (sic) athletic season, the assistant coach allocation \\\\'ill be implemented for the following school year.\" Therefore it appears that the memorandum suggests filling the positions would begin in the I 997-98 school year. However. in the last paragraph of the memorandum, the allocation is projected to increase the budget by approximately $9,000.00 for the 1996-97 school year. What occurred here was based on an internal recommendation that the district increase spending (recurring expenditures with nonrecurring revenues) which was not budgeted and apparently was deemed by the administration and the board to be more important than using the funds at the present time to contribute to a settlement of its labor dispute with PACT. This is the very kind of conduct by the administration and board of PCS SD that contributes to the current state of affairs with its teachers: that is, historically, the district finds a way to generate or divert revenues for programs or things that it deems it needs. To make matters worse, these are not even all Title IX positions. In fact, PACT has asked the board how many of the positions are Title IX and there has been no response as yet. 5 EXHIBIT \"B\" Whine as it will that the August 27, 1996, budget is still the official budget of the district, the shifting sands of dollars coming into the district and being expended by the district changes with each and every monthly report. Certainly, a budget may be corrected or modified. However, to represent to its board that daily changes in expenditures and projected revenues somehow obviate the necessity for a budget which has been approved by the Court is folly. In effect, the district juggles its numbers each and every month by board approval of its Financial Report which modifies the budget even though the Court does not receive it. PACT wonders whether these monthly financial revised budgets and board approval of them are also under evaluation by the ODM as being consistent with sound fiscal practices. In an attempt to clarify the intent of PACT's Exhibit \"B\" to its brief filed on December 10, 1996, a separate summary of\"budget amounts\" for each of three funds is attached hereto as Exhibits \"C,\" \"D\" and \"E.\" Each month, PCS SD generates Financial Reports. In each one of these reports, there is a column labeled \"budget.\" This column reflects the amount budgeted for each object within each function, as well as the total for each function within each of the three funds. Each of the attached summaries, while not specifically generated by PCSSD, do contain the function totals taken directly from all five of the monthly Financial Reports, which have been generated and provided by PCSSD. These summaries provide evidence that PCSSD does in fact change board-approved amounts. In the affidavit of Dr. Stewart attached to the PCSSD Response to Motion, it was stated: (1.) The board-approved budget amounts were entered into the computer in early September, and 6 (2.) to date, no changes have been made in the board-approved budget. If these two statements were true, then the budget amounts in the 9/30/96 Financial Report should reflect the same amounts as those approved by the School Board on August 27, 1996, since 9/30 is the date after the \"early September\" date that Dr. Stewart referred to as the time at which amow1ts were entered into the computer. Furthermore, the subsequent Financial Reports (dated 10/31/96 and 11 /30/96) should also contain the exact budget amounts as those of9/30/96-. However, this is not the case. Changes can be seen in the Teachers ' Salary Fund (Fund 1000) in 18 different functions (1105 , 1110, 1120, 1130, 1140, 1170, 1191, 1220, 1320, 1330. 1350. 1360, 1370, 1390, 1910, 2122. 2222, and 2410) and in 15 different functions (1105, 1120. 1 130. 1140, 1150. 1160, 1170, 1240, 2514, 2620, 2630, 2640, 2710, 2720 and 2740) in the Operating Fund (Fund 2000). In the Desegregation Fund (Fund 2900), it is interesting to note that no changes whatsoever - can be seen in function totals. The fact that all functions reflect the exact same budget amount since 9/30/96 proves that PCSSD can stick to the approved budget when it so chooses. After all, a budget is just that - an overall plan that should not constantly change due to daily changes in expenditures and revenues. Furthermore, because the official budget addresses the entire plan, including function totals, when a change is made in any function, a change has been made in the official budget approved by the board and submitted to the Court, on August 27, 1996. In his affidavit, Dr. Stewart further stated that \"The district has never taken the position that approving the Financial Report constituted a change in the budget.\" If that be the case, just what are board members doing when they approve such a report and why do they have to approve a Financial Report at all, especially one with budget amounts varying from the Court-approved budget? It would seem more logical that the budget amounts in each Financial Report should coincide with the 7 budget amounts approved by the board on August 27, 1996. However, as shown in the summaries, these amounts are not always the same. Therefore, each time the board approves a Financial Report that has different budget amounts, they are, in effect, voting to change the official budget that they approved and submitted to the Court on August 27, 1996. JACKSONVILLE SCHOOLS The money for the reconfiguration of Jacksonville Schools, which will go on line in the 1997-98 school year, was not and is not a part of the budget approved by this court. Additional funds are being spent in preparation for the implementation of the reconfiguration outside the court approved budget, money that could be channeled into a contract settlement with the district's teachers. In fact, the district admits that certain expenditures for substitutes, supplies, materials and training are being spent during this current fiscal year. \"Reconfiguration\" until late August of 1997 is a shallow statement without the expenditures of money in preparation for \"reconfiguration\" which constitutes discretionary spending by the district of money that could be used to help settle the contract dispute between the parties. The district in its response to PACT's motion informs the Court that \"impact aid\" from the federal government is forecast to be sharply curtailed and reduced compared to last year leaving the district with a forecast of a negative ending balance. In fact, as time will show, the district will end its fiscal year with a positive balance and it will do so whether or not it settles its contract dispute with PACT. This settlement depends on the district focusing and redoubling its efforts to bargain in good faith and find the money, as it surely can do, to settle the dispute and not to engage in its game of smoke and mirrors to deny its teachers the much deserved raise as intended by Act 917. If 8 ;:'j T 1 l. I 1 r r I I : : . ,\" :.e - - ~ ' OO,cl / ~ DEP - r:F ECL~rt~ I OFFICIAL BAU.OT l SPECIAL ELECTION  ' P.UUSKJ COUNTY SPECtAIJSCMOOL OISTPJCT !PULASKI COUNT, ARKANSAS I Mays,1, INS'fflJC'nONI TO VOTDa: VOtt on meaure by plld~ .,, x- In the tqu.N ~ !M ffleU\\ltt sltl'I lfOA or AGAINST. ; - . --- ~-  ' -- I I I \"A,:'  Jt.:L. 2 2 zs,z \"'-c.. . . . .  .. ! i. ' --~01- ~ E 8 I X f r c 6 I E ~E,  VAUGHN HCQUARY, HAIY LOVI!i WILLIAMS, AND tin HOL.!il:S. COUNTY aOARD o, !LICTION COMHISSIONDS, WITXIN AHn FOR PULABK:t COUNTY, AJUUNSAS, DO l'IND AND JIEQJ\\\" C?RTU''Y ffE POLLOWt~ usuirs or Tit 1992 PULASll COUN'tY SP!ClAL SCHOOL DIST1'ICT. ILECTIOH HiLD IH TX! VA.RIOOS rRECI~C1'S OP POLAS~I COUNTY FpR THE MEASURI SPIClFiiU HlllSIH: i SPCUHt.AO.OSJLC I TCUO:U NTY SPEC UL SCJ{OL DIS11tICT PROPOSZll 43, 9 KILL I FOR ----~--------------------------------------11  20 VOTES AOAINST ---------------------------------- !117 VOTtS 1-J,.1._,,,, ~Ii .. re, I .J ... ,l. , I ; OF SAID BOA.JU) TRI! JL1L 2 ~ 1992 !raHriio l/.1, J.1y  Program Analysis For The Def et Ing Three Days From Pulaski County Special School District 1993-94 Schoof Year EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Pulaski County Special School Dls~SSO) budget ror the 1993.94 flscaJ year is proiected to hav an ending deficit of $1,789,099.  Ar1\u003cansas Slate law provides that a school d1'tria cannot deficit spend. Fur111ermore, the Federal District Court has directed the PCSSD Board 10 maJ\u003ce the nece~ provisions to submit a balanced budQet. On\u0026 way to accompllst'l lhls rs to delete three days from the 19939 sehool year. BACK GR OUN O ~~ ~ ;~; O'/ G:-n--.P'f:,.. The PCSSD spent more money lhan It received (non-recurring revenue durt ht 199293 school year by $1,190.178. Toe endlnQ 0;1ance for the 199.2-93 school year was :3, However, ~00.000 01 the $403.590 was money saved throuQtl the eany retirement incentive program. This money, placao in the Compensatory EdUcatJon TruS't Fund. wlU be invested and is not avaaao1e. Therefore, the ac:tlJal ndl~ balance tNt is availaola to b\u0026 spent for Iha 1993-94 sehoot year Is only $3,590. The cost ot the one-half percent raise for all ecrc,loyeu Implemented after July 1, 1993, II $32S,0\"2. The eost tor the pay scale step inc:..ase for au eligible 1mploytt1 cos~ a;\u003ep1\"0xlmately $800,000. The cost tor lnitlal materiats and equipment for the MUls High School Specialty Program It $300,000. Tht Olst,1e:t wu required to shift elementary assimnt prtncipais from tl'le Chapter I budget to tl'lt OISU'id OJ)eraUng budQet at a cost of $250,000. The cost for lmptememtno the Economic Education Specialty Program it Baker Elementary school ls $60,000. A new board policy requil'ln9 drug lt~ng of bus drivers ccsts $20,000. The total of these new expenses for 1993-94 ls $2,9~.220. In spite of the ract tl'lat focal revenue Increased by ~.305,S55. prfma,uy as a result of the new 6 mill tax. the Joss ot $959,846 in state and federal revenue caused the Olstnct to have only $1.1S9.121 in new available revenue over the expenses of 199293. These racu place the District In the position .t profectlnQ a ($1,789.099) deflol for the 1993-~ school year. PROBLEM 0EFfNITION To develop a balanced budget th, PCSSO -'dminlstratlon and Board had to txplore varlc,us ways lo rtduce expenditures. AU areas of budgeted excenses had to be examined u i,otent1al blJdQet arts In an effort to reduce expenditures by approximately S2,000.000 tor the 1993.94 school year. Slgniffcant ntdUctlons were made in oper;tlcns costs ($510.000} and In debt cests ($200,000). The decision was ffnaHy rNde to delete mree student interadlon days In order to save approximately S1 .soo.900. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The altematlves that were considered were: (1) ReductlOn ot salaries of all personnel (2) Elimination of programs not required by edUcatlon standards or !ht desegregatiOn plan (3) Reouction in lorce ot personnel not required by education $tandards or the dese9regatlon plan. To reduce salaries of all personnel would viol.le At1(a~ Slate Law 6-17-1501 \"'The Teacher Fu - Dismissal Act of 1963.\" Subchapter 6-17-1506 provides that \"(a) Every contract ot emptoyment made ti 1311 betwon a teacttet and the board of directors of a scl'lool district shall be renewed in wrttl~ on the same terms and for the same salary, unless Increased or decreased by law. for the nex1 school year succeeding the date ot termination tlxed therein. which renewal may be made by an endo~ement on the existing contract lnS11t1ment. unless by May 1 of the contract year. the teacher is notified by the school superintenderlt that the superlntendenl Is recommendlnc;, that the teacher's contract not be renewed: Since the May t deadline had passed, ~ was determined that vfolatlon of this statute could lead to lengthy nugatlon and much expense in legal fees. The penalty tor Ignoring this law was an \"Unknown. Furthermore. employees would resent woc1\u003cing a full contract year for less than their contracted salary. Elimination of programs not required by education standards or the des~regatlon plan was considered. However. while programs such as athletics and some other extracunieular programs might be considered as popular budget cuts by some people. it was decided rriat these programs are at least lndirectty (if not directly) a part of the desegr~atlon plari. The court. in Its order of August 3, , 992. directed the reinstatement of the position, Director of Athletics and Physical Education, which had been eliminated earlier. Furthermore. tt,ese programs. withOut a doubt. pmmc,te desagre(Jatton within our schoots and throughout society. Reduction In force of personnel not reqvlred by education staridards or the desegr99ation plan was attempted tn the spring of 1992. The Court. In Its order of August 3. 1992. ordered the reinstatement of approximately eleven supervisory posillons because it was determined tnat to cut these )obs would be detrlmental 10 the desegregation program. Two other positions (Aulstant Superintendents) were voluntarily restored by the Board because the Importance of these posrtlons in the organi2atlon was rruch more s~ntttcam than the amount saved by the cut. Very little consideration was ~lven to cunlnQ seNtce Jobs such as custodians. maJrnenance personnel. mechanics. etc. Significant budget cut.s Implemented since 1984 reduced the number of these persoMel to the minimum necessary to operate an eNecttve sctiool district. AECOMMENOATIONS The PCSSO Board of Education recommends that approximately $2.000.000 in expenditures be reduced from tM 1993-9 budQet by reduction of operation costs of approximately $510,000. reduction in debt costs by approximately $200,000. and by deleting tl'lree studenr interaC11on days at a savings of approximately $1.500.000. It is believed that it is far more educatlonally sound and less disruptive to eliminate these days at trie end of the sctiool year rather tt'lan at the beglnnll'IQ of the school year. The Dtstnc1 recognizes that parents need as much time as possible to prepare for a shOrtened school year. It would not be fair. at this Jate date. to shOrten school at the beginning of tt,e year. OBJECTIVES The objectives are to produce a balanced buctQet by reducing expendttures In such a way as to have the least Impact on the delivery of Instruction to the students of PCSSD, to avoid len9thy and controversial litigation. to provide \u0026QUity amo1i9 employee groups, and to assure the Cour1 that the District is making a good faith effort to manage itS finances in a 11!Sponslble way. IMPACT ANALYSIS The Impact of deleting $510,000 from operation costs and $200.000 from debt service wrll nave llttre tan\u003c.;1ible effect on tne instn;ctlonal program ol the District. Deleting three student interaction days at a savings of $1.500,000 wlll Impact Instruction. but the Instructional supervisors do not believe that ,t w,11 have a measurable effect. The penalty tor v1olat1no State Education Standard Chapter. V, Section A., which requires 178 student Interaction days will be a citation rrom 111e State Education Oepanment. Violation of the same standard for two consecutive years presents the poss1b1llty of consolidation by the Slate Board of Education. RESOURCES ANALYSIS The only atterna1lve available at this time Is to ask citizens to allow the Dlslrtct to restructure ~s bonded debt wfthOut raising their taxes. This question is on the ballot of the September, ,993 school election. Should the citizens allow restructuring of the bonded debt, current year debt payments can be stl'\\Jctured to set aside $1,500,000 In savings to help offset the !oss of desegregation settlement funds and an addHlonal savings of approximately $1,800,000 can be realized by pushing those currently scheduled payments Into future years. This could eliminate the posstblllty of deleting any student Interaction days from the 1993-94 schQQI year. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Forces supporting this approach to balancing the budget ~lleve that the daletlon ot student interaction days will have less n99atlve effect on student Instruction and the desegre\u003cjatlon plan than other attematlves considered. While there Is a state law whlcl'I prohibits a dlstl'fc:r frcm deficit spending, there is a State Law (~M3-620) which provides authonty for a school district bOard of directors to ctose sehool early . and cease paying the teachers ror the remall'lder or the t1scaI year. This approach which provides a imown penalty ls less likely to be litlgated than violatl~ a law with an 4unkrc\u003ewT, penalty. Forces against this approach are employees whO do r.ct want their salartes to be neQatfvely affected and parents who are concerned that their children will suffer educatlonally. IMPLEMENTATION FLAN The PCSSO Board of Educs1lon adopted the 1993-94 budget which provided for deletion of three student Interaction days at a special school board mcetl~ on July 27, 1993. Thls action Is contingent on Court approval. The proposal has already received considerable media attention without any appreciable opposition from patrons. However, students. employees. and parents will be nofl11ed of the possibility of the deletion of the fast three days of the school year so that summer plans can be considered. Should it be unnecessary to delete all three days. constituents will be notified at the eartlest time possible. Every effort will be made lo curtail expenditures durt~ the schOol year in an effort to prevent deletion of any school days. Furthermore, a strategic plan has been Implemented to encourage patrons lo approve the restructuring of the Dfstnct's Indebtedness. The District is considering ways to atfect employee salaries by withholdln9 pay in incremems rather than withholdtng for all three days during the fast pay period. SUMMARY OF \"BUDGET AMOUNTS\" 19')6 - 19'J7 PCSSD FINANCIAL REPORTS FUND 1000 TEACHER SALARY FUl\\.ro 1100 11115 Ill( Jl}f_l 113\u003c) 114' ! 150 IIC,O 1170 1191 121n 12! I 12:!I! !240 12(,(l 1:10 l2S5 1121) l~_~I !.\"\"'1) U5o u~_; ])C,(l 1370 1390 13~.1 15' , 19JfJ 1930 2111 2122 1142 21.:;o ::211 1212 2222 :!321 :!411) :!4~ 2501 ::(;JO 27!0 2i:,, 2PO C.\\(,1 DE3CR!PTION Rc-g P@Jw'Elcm-SccooJa,y Pre-School Ku~ortro Elrnicntary Middle ' Jr 1-hgh lhgh School AthletJcs Stu.Jient Aci.J\\ilic:. Sununc, School ROTC llincrMt lnstrucuon HClUlCOO\u003cJlld instruct.,oo Rc,nun;eRoon, Sp,\u003c:1al Class - I l 0 Scparat~ Day- Pnvat~ Rcs,dcntiaJ Day  !'nVaJA: Ex1,oJl Year Ml.si \u0026 D1stt1bu11Vc Ed Bu\u003cu,es I Oilin: Om,p Heald,('=, Trade \u0026 lndu_-:mal Trad\u003c Ins  SL:ill Trauung llomc Economics CMCCI Ori~oo Special Needs Th Prep ReadJn% Gtlted\u0026 TalrntC'd English  Sond L.~ Super AUm I Social Wed: Couns\u003c\"lulg J's,,clJologicol Tcruni; 1'1,\\-.,cal  Occupauooal Tncr-apy Super lmprovc lnstruc s-,, ln.,t i Curr SJX'('1ahru Schon! L1bmy Ct.lice  Super Lit Otlicc - Pnnc,pal Asst F'n.oc 1pal Ollicc Super Du.sl.Dess Set\\ ices Super Op/ M..mteoance Super Studcot T ran,poct lntnrmat1on Servi~ Sta:t!SCMcn l-r1 ( .her LEAS In Stau: !'L\").1) 1000 TOT.\\L --- ---DAmor- fl:-.A:-;,-L-\\L REPORT-------- 07/~l:1 ~ OS/31f.\\G 09'3(;'1)(; 10.'JJ \"),I., V ~\" -~\"'11~1 ~5St.1_,;.,.~f'K1 l-t217.7J;i.,-, ).!~17.'-.CI' IJ:I '.'.':i'\u003e).),.J 13(l -1::.\u0026-'6 (l() 14S.SIOOO iSI.4::? 00 IJ~. 77 I IY! ~..a9o,;-:. \\)0 ~32.1 :4 (\u003e.,_, J11~,.,,n1_(1 -Y..14.\"~'{') J.,.\u003c_~!-4.00 ~:S.i II 00 lS.ti5$ l lt--.~_--:,c.; ,,fl l-'.':' ~~71111 ..,J  -~ ,, ._1 7\" 7, \"l,lf !(I :,~s.7r:.-: ((1 :G9.53S 00 ~--: 7:7('1 ,. ,l~- l i{H)'I 1.12 11:2 , .J ~A J_'7-l22h(I :_!.;r_:.,ll'O 211.81800 77i l(;Sr,J l ,i.W ... ll1.a) -:.u,, c,~, , 11:1 1,4_.., ,.77 1(1 !\u003c1~ __ 111 2.n,,:.~: 1)1) :!_!)').;_::?.(\u003e') s:.c1 7 oo l~:.87\u003c. 00 ,.., 1,j-! ().j '.'k ..:;:_J ((i j~(J ,..t..t ( (t .1~ .......... 1(1 0 47.()()()()() 2. 7-1~_985 (~) 12.952.~'\u003et-l( 5,8'56,!:\u003e43 (\u003cJ ~.0'.)2.~I 5.00 454,7S8 00 157,709.00 117,920.00 126.806 00 205,304 0(1 512.415 ((J 4,1)44,520 ((I 809,639 \\l() 152,87:.00 691.19:00 611 00 187.7(1lf ,,, O\u003cH.1.J71(1 J(1.'(l(!IICI $4~\\.:!(1'.\" 1i,:_1 f) Gss.:--t:.oo 161.66] 00 21G.567.00 n 42.17f\u003c)\\/ 1.128.Jc,~ f J ,;;:,.,,.,..;2.1.(1 l41J.1l'lYl 2.212.534 00 239.653 00 641.7]100 t~,9.294 (f.) 979,\u003c.\\71\u003c, 1,4~5. ~5 1.1) 1'18.3~2 \"' 2.14J.2fl7 ll() 2.:n.153 _00 86,2-1:.00 147.80700 ;1.-1w,,, 1,0,cn...9_11 201.387((1 3Jl)\"\u003c~ ult 51.710.451.00 L'C 0 .J71Ul{_(I 2. 11\\$; ,;,.,, 11,.-, 12.0 . n.~r-.., 1_{1 5,86'1\"\"1 1'-l;_ t I lj/JC)~.'I' ,,-, -154.'8~ 1)(1 157.709 00 11--:.9:0((1 12(1)1fJn1_1tJ 2(1'.'.1.;..;.1)0 :'-i~  l:'C-1 4.1.~_,:!(!\\_)(I 8tY1r-,_l)(K' '-~ 11 i {)., i~ l1,:h n, JS].'.,._ ,J 00 2lt. :.1.J7(,.) IJ 1.1'.2~ ,,-,~ \u003c ll j 'n.-~I }.Ul. 11,; ,-11, z.;1:. ~34 ('() :39.~\u003c300 t,\u003c,S- __  IJ, 979 :\"-471)11 1.4~~.-l':- ,,. !fJ~. ': 11! :_141 ~!11' 1_1f S6.:5: 00 147.S(J700 57_,-,,,; ~JJ ':.i.;i' , ~ . ~ ~ ~9.l 87.tG9.00 0 ~.23:!50 ~ 77),.~l_t(J(.) 12,'lf').314 5{1 5.S4l.~3.f)(J ~.Ol(l.951.88 -154,71!8.00 157,70') 00 179.9'\".f.)94 12s.1,2 (() 2\u003c15.,94 00 512.-115 ()) 4/1\\',)--1_~:(, 00 SO' "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1636","title":"District Court, Amicus Curiae's memorandum brief in opposition to the Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) statement of material and undisputed facts and motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-12-24"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Retirement","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, Amicus Curiae's memorandum brief in opposition to the Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) statement of material and undisputed facts and motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching"],"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/1636"],"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":["64 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 LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF LR-C-82-866 V. a.~-- ~ ....\" '1 rr=l'l~ (! - n PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL r~U~.\\~ ~j :1 G,'.Y DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEC 3 0 1996 DEFENDAfrrs INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS AMICUS CURIAE'S MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE LRSD, NLRSD AND PCSSD'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGME T ON THE ISSUE OF TEACHER RETIREMENT MATCHING The LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment challenging - those portions of the new school funding formula they view as unfavorable while ignoring other portions from which they would admittedly benefit. The Pulaski County Districts do not allege, nor is there any showing, that the Districts receive less money under the new system. To the contrary, they receive more. By petitioning this Court for an Order 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 this Court ignore the clear Arkansas Constitutional mandate of \"equal treatment\" to which all students are entitled.1 While the Settlement Agreement permits \"fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability\", the Pulaski County Districts suggest, by implication, s1;1ch 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 1Ark.Const.Art.Il, Sections 2, 3, and 18, DuPree v. Alma, 651 S.W.2d 90,279 Ark. 340 (1983). jmljr/kl/9017 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. In all previous assaults on the school funding formula, the Pulaski County School Districts have argued the formula violated the following terms of the Settlement Agreement: 1. \"The State shall take no retaliatory action against the District\" and, 2. \"Fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability shall not be considered to have an adverse impact even if it reduces the proportion of State aid to the Districts.\" Here, however, the Pulaski County School Districts do not expressly contend either provision of the Settlement Agreement has been violated. Rather, they simply refer to the decision of the Eighth Circuit2 and invite this Court to interpret that decision as meaning they are entitled to claim more - money than they will receive under the new funding formula. This argument is misplaced. The Eighth Circuit, in dealing with whether the elimination of the worker's compensation program in its entirety violated the provisions of the Settlement Agreement obviously determined in obiter dictum that it did not because it was fair, rational and of general applicability. Had the inquiry stopped there, as it must here, there would have been no finding of a violation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. It was the seed money that resulted in disproportionate funding and therefore a funding formula which lacked general applicability. In the matter now before this Court, the new funding formula with its per pupil funding is clearly comparable to the total elimination of the worker's compensation program in its general applicability as opposed to the disproportionate distribution of seed money which raised the concern of this Court and of the Eighth Circuit. That concern is not present in this case because the program for teacher's retirement, like worker's compensation, has been totally eliminated, and there has been no seed 2Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). 2 Jmljr/kt/9017 money provided for teacher's retirement. Aside from these references, the Districts engage in great speculative leaps in comparing Act 34 and Act 917 funding. The Districts' plea is one of unequal treatment based only on rank speculation. The basic fact is that all districts are treated equally. Funding for all students has been brought to within 80% of the funding per student in the Little Rock School District. What could be fairer than funding each student substantially equally? The State Courts have interpreted the Arkansas Constitution as demanding this standard of funding. For the last 16 years Arkansas has been moving steadily to equal education opportunity for each student. In 1981 Chancellor Harrell Simpson, in Alma v. DuPree, found that the school finance system was becoming increasingly disequalizing under the system in place at that time. Judge Simpson's Findings of Fact, number 34, Exhibit 1. Judge Simpson also found that students attending school in poor districts received educational opportunities that are inferior to the opportunities offered to students in wealthier districts in the State. Finding of Fact o. 42. The - Court found that \"The Arkansas School Financing System is not designed to, nor does it, insure that all children in every school district in Arkansas will receive the educational opportunities that should be included in a constitutionally required 'general, suitable and efficient' system of public schools.\" Finding of Fact No. 43. As a result of the Alma case, major modifications were made to the Arkansas School Funding System resulting in Act 34 of 1983 (Ex. Sess.). Despite the major revisions to school funding and attempts to equalize funding, the question was reexamined by Judge Imber in the Lake View case resulting in Judge Imber's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of November 9, 1994, Exhibit 2. Among Judge Imber' s conclusions of law, she noted, in part: Paragraph 9: While Arkansas has not defined the terms \"general, suitable and efficient\", courts in other states have defined these terms. In Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W. 2d 186, 191-93 (Ky. 1989) the Court defined \"efficient\" as a system which required \"substantial uniformity, substantial equality of financial resources and substantial equal educational opportunity for all students\" and 3 j mljr/kt/90 I 7 money provided for teacher's retirement. Aside from these references, the Districts engage in great speculative leaps in comparing Act 34 and Act 917 funding. The Districts' plea is one of unequal treatment based only on rank speculation.  The basic fact is that all districts are treated equally. Funding for all students has been brought to within 80% of the funding per student in the Little Rock School District. What could be fairer than funding each student substantially equally? The State Courts have interpreted the Arkansas Constitution as demanding this standard of funding. For the last 16 years Arkansas has been moving steadily to equal education opportunity for each student. In 1981 Chancellor Harrell Simpson, in Alma v. DuPree, found that the school finance system was becoming increasingly disequalizing under the system in place at that time. Judge Simpson's Findings of Fact, number 34, Exhibit 1. Judge Simpson also found that students attending school in poor districts received educational opportunities that are inferior to the opportunities offered to students in wealthier districts in the State. Finding of Fact No. 42. The Court found that \"The Arkansas School Financing System is not designed to, nor does it, insure that all children in every school district in Arkansas will receive the educational opportunities that should be included in a constitutionally required 'general, suitable and efficient' system of public schools.\" Finding of Fact No. 43. As a result of the Alma case, major modifications were made to the Arkansas School Funding System resulting in Act 34 of 1983 (Ex. Sess.). Despite the major revisions to school funding and attempts to equalize funding, the question was reexamined by Judge Imber in the Lake View case resulting in Judge Imber's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of November 9, 1994, Exhibit 2. Among Judge Imber' s conclusions of law, she noted, in part: Paragraph 9: While Arkansas has not defined the terms \"general, suitable and efficient\", courts in other states have defined these terms. In Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W. 2d 186, 191-93 (Ky. 1989) the Court defined \"efficient\" as a system which required \"substantial uniformity, substantial equality of financial resources and substantial equal educational opportunity for all students\" and 3 jmljr/lcr/9017 which required that the educational system be \"adequate, uniform and unitary.\" Id. at 192. The Court concluded that an 'efficient' system of common schools should have several elements: 1 . The system is the sole responsibility of the General Assembly. 2. The tax effort should be evenly spread. 3. The system must provide the necessary resources throughout the state -- they must be uniform. 4. The system must provide an adequate education. 5. The system must be properly managed. Paragraph 11: The equal protection provisions of the Arkansas Constitution are applicable to school funding. DuPree v. Alma School Dist. No. 30, 279 Ark. 340, 345 (1983) (\"The constitutional mandate for a general, suitable and efficient education in no way precludes us from applying the equal protection clause [to school funding]\".) Paraeraph 12: Although money is not the only measure of equity, there is a correlation between the money spent and the quality of education received. See Tennessee Small School Svs. v. McWherter, 851 S.W. 2d 139 (Tenn. 1993); Washakie Co. Sch. Dist. No. One v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310 (Wyo. 1980). Judge Imber considered three statistical measures to evaluate school funding. First, she looked to the federal range ratio and found the State out of compliance with that measure. Next, she looked to the coefficient of variation by which measure the State was again out of compliance. Finally, she looked to the Gini coefficient by which the State was in compliance. Each of these statistical measures looks to the distribution of revenue or expenditure on a~ Pmill basis. Clearly, Judge Imber focused on providing substantially equal funding~ Pmill as opposed to 4 jmljr/kt/9017 general funding of school district operations. In his concurring opinion in Alma, Judge Hickman focused on this point: .. .I cannot justify on this record, any formula of distribution except on a per pupil basis. I do not say any formula, except one based on a per pupil basis, would fail legal examination; but it would certainly have a more difficult time surviving legal scrutiny. The evidence to justify any distribution, other than a per pupil basis, should be both clear and convincing. 279 Ark. at 351, 352. In response to Judge Imber's ruling, which granted the State two years to bring the funding system into compliance, Act 917 and related legislation became law in Arkansas. More recently, Amendment 74 to the Arkansas Constitution was approved by the voters creating an equalized method applicable to all Arkansas counties to raise a minimum level of funding for education. The funds raised by Amendment 74 will be pooled and that money combined with State funds. The - total will be distributed on a~~ basis that is in compliance with the statistical measures, particularly the federal range ratio, to provide an equalized distribution. It is this system of financing education in a general and rational manner which the Pulaski County Districts would have this Court throw out by creating exclusions for them. In the strictest of the statistical measures, the federal range ratio, Judge Imber determined that the Little Rock School District sets the standard for measurement of equitable funding in Arkansas. Finding of Fact No. 58, Exhibit 2. Using the federal range ratio, the State funding system was redesigned to bring all students to within 80% of the funding provided Little Rock students. In making this calculation, funds paid to the Pulaski County Districts by reason of the Settlement Agreement in this Court, are not included. Therefore, as to Little Rock students, not only do they receive State and local funds that establish Little Rock School District as the curvesetter for the State, but they receive additional funds flowing through the desegregation Settlement Agreement that are not counted. The distribution of State funds to North Little Rock and Pulaski 5 jmljr/lct/9017 County assures them of being funded within 80% of the Little Rock School District, on a per pupil basis plus they also receive whatever funds flow through the Settlement Agreement. It is no wonder that 111 school districts object to this attempt by the Pulaski County Districts to be excluded from what they perceive to be burdens under the new funding system while taking full advantage of the benefits of the new system. If the Pulaski County Districts are awarded additional money outside the State funding system, then funding to 400,000 students outside Pulaski County will suffer. The State funding system 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 this Court might order. Increasing funding to Little Rock will mandate corresponding increases to all districts. The Pulaski County Districts argue that their retirement costs are greater because of the additional staff and extra payroll costs that they must incur because of the Settlement Agreement. Careful analysis does not support these conclusions. Examining their costs for certified salaries as - a percent of the current expenditures3 (which excludes funds distributed under the Settlement Agreement) North Little Rock only spends 58.76% of its current expenditures for certified salaries. Declaration of Winston F. Simpson, Exhibit 3. This means that of its current expenditure money, North Little Rock has 41 % after pavment of certified salaries for other expenditures. Pulaski County is in better shape spending only 58.25% of its current expenditures for certified salaries with nearly 43% left over. The Little Rock School District, the curve-setter for the State funding system, is better off than each of the other two spending only 57 .27% of its current expenditure money for certified salaries. There are only five school districts--Newark, Altheimer, Turrell, Paron and Grady--that spend less of their current expenditure money for certified salaries than Little Rock. As to Pulaski County, only those five districts plus Lead Hill spend less for certified salaries, and as to North Little Rock, only those six plus River Valley, Perry-Casa and Leslie 3Expenditures are the current expenses which include all expenditures for the benefit of the current year, including reimbursement for textbook expenditures and amounts spent on behalf of districts by other districts or cooperatives, less capital outlay, debt service and amounts received from other school districts. Annual Statistical Report of the Public Schools of Arkansas. 6 jmljr/kl/9017 spend less than North Little Rock of their current expenditure money on certified salaries. Every school district in Arkansas spends more of its current expenditure money on certified salaries than these eleven districts. 299 of the 311 schools districts in Arkansas have less money left over after paying certified salaries than the North Little Rock School District. For example, Russellville West Memphis Alma Blytheville Fort Smith Texarkana Eldorado Jonesboro Camden Fairview Hot Springs Percent of Current Expenditures for Certified Salaries4 74.01 % 71.84% 69.04% 68.28% 68.08% 67.33% 66.07% 65.99% 65.20% 63.31 % The retirement funds which the Pulaski County Districts seek to have funded are a fixed percentage of certified salaries. Therefore, if the percentage of certified salaries paid by the Pulaski County Districts is lower than other districts, then the cost of teacher retirement will be lower than the same components of other districts. Each district will be affected in the same way. Mathematically, retirement funding is 12% of the prior year certified salary. The relationship between the Pulaski County Districts and the rest of the State remains the same when the retirement cos: is added to the cost of certified salaries. Arguments by the Pulaski County Districts that the cost of living is higher, requiring higher salaries and, that the obligations of the Settlement Agreement cause them to incur additional salary all fall by the wayside when the facts are known. f 4Declaration of Winston F. Simpson, Exhibit 3. 7 jmljr/k!/9017 Exhibit B to the Declaration of Tristan Greene submitted by the State demonstrates that the Pulaski County Districts received the following increases in State funding in 1996-1997 when compared with 1995-1996: Little Rock North Little Rock Pulaski County $2,733,988 $637,161 $710,476 This clearly evidences that these districts did not lose money when the State moved from Act 34 (1995-1996) to Act 917 (1996-1997). Summary The Pulaski County Districts' Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied. The adoption by the State of a new school funding system based on equalized l2IT J;l1lllli funding is a fair and rational method of funding. Over nearly three decades the legislature and the Courts have considered school funding and evolved to this system. The application of the formula to every - student in Arkansas aptly demonstrates the general nature of the new system. There has been no allegation that the new formula is retaliatory; and since the funding system is fair and rational, and of general application, it is not violative of the Settlement Agreement. At the very least, there are disputed questions of material facts which make summary judgment inappropriate with respect to these issues. Respectfully submitted, Amicus Curiae 8 William P. hompson, .. A. #64044 James M. Llewellyn, Jr., AB.A. #66040 THOMPSON \u0026 LLEWELLYN, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 Telephone: (501)785-2867 Telecopier: (501)782-8046 jmljr/kt/9017 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James M. Lewellyn, Jr., state that I have on this z.J.~day of December, 1996, caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed first class, postage prepaid, to: 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 Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 E. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. SamuelJones,III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 W. Capitol Ave., Ste. 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 9 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL AND STREET First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Ste. 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Ste. 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Jmljr/kt/9017 .. . : Ri::CElVEU AEA NOV 2 1981 -:;.- IN THE CHA!.;CC:RY COURT Of\" PULASKI COUNTY, ARY.A ~SAS i:IRST DIVISION Al.11A SCHOOL DISTR.i:CT NO. 30, ec al PLAIN:'I:75 V. NO. 77-406 JIM DuPRE\"='., ~ al CLOVER Brno SO!OOL DIS:::tICT NO. 12 of Law-rence County,~~ FINDINGS O!'\" FAC: Frora che t2scl..l:lony and e..v:hibi:s as inc::-oduced, che scacei:::encs and sci?ulacions of counsel, and ocher rn.a.cc2rs, chings, files and proof, che Cou::-'C finds as Eaccs: L. There were 382 operacing School Discricts in Arkansas L, 1978-79, 37~ in 1979-60, and 370 in 1980-8~- 2. ~~blic schools in Arkansas derive revenues from local and scace sources, and co a fa::- lesser e..~cenc from the federal gove=menc. r~ 1976-79, sc.ace revenues for public el=enc~=7 and. seconda::_-:J educacion cocale\u003cl. abou~ $235 million and consci~~ced 51.6% of all public school revenues. Loe.al revenues a=unccd co $210.6 million a::- J8.l 7. of cecal revenues. feuer~L revenues a~ $57,_ million provided the re=ini.--::g 10.37. of public school suppo-:-c. -::-:e propor-cians of federal-scace-local reve..'1ues ;;e::::e fai::Ly conscanc bec-~ee..'1 1973-7~ and 1978-79 . J. School disc::-iccs, by voce, lev-1 ca:t. races o-:millage races on Frcpercy wichin c_he disc::-iccs. This p::-ovides the bulk of local recei?cs. Ocher minor sources include ::-enc, inceresc, dor.acions, :-evenue in lieu of caxes, revenue f::-ol!l che Counc:y and ocher miscellaneous receipcs, and are al_ included L, cbe cacego-;:-y \"lac.al revenues\", and e2ch local dscricc recains and ex;,ends all che local school caxes collecced wichin ics boundaries. f+ . . The Arkansas school t.lis cric cs va=7 widely in che amounc of caxable properry wealch per pupil wichin chei= boundaries, ant.I because of variacions in assesse\u0026 valuacion per ?upil, ~~~: discicts in che scace have g-::eacer fiscal ~~~~~cy co raise revenue for education f=om local caxes c!'lan EXHIBIT 1  do many ocher distticcs in che scace . 5. Local =evenues a=e based in stated assessments as cercifed by the assessment co-ordinacion divi~ion of che St.ace ?ublic Service Co=ission which is responsible for certifying of=icial =acios co che Seate Deparc~e..~c of Educacion. 6. Each county in che stace has a County Board of Equalization for seccing or arriving at or levying assessmencs on Che majority of che icems of property in the cou.-:ty. Schools of che various counties are permitted to select represencacion on t.\"le board, and some schools dis ciccs employ individuals co ai~ assessors in locacing propercy to be assessed or re-assessed. .T. All counties are under-assessed in Arkansas,. and it: c.oes not. appear chat Arkansas Cons c.ic:uc.ional Amendz:lenc. No. 59, adopted in Novembe=, 1980, will a.:::ord any a?preci.3.ble relief c.o the. present: school f:.:1.ance system. 8. After any future re-assessment. it is eviden= tha.t. c..he. presently wealthy school disc.rices will sc::.J.l have g-:-eater assessed. values and therefore g=e.a::er rever.ues :o;::educacion than pla::...::.cif:: districts and ocher prope~, poor dis c:ric cs . 9. Ace: tfo. 1100 of che 1979 Arkansas General Assembly, kno;m as che School FL..ance Act of 1979, i~ Section 3(B) (1947 Ark. Scat. 1980 Replacement 00-050.J(B) ) provides a=ng oc.'ier chings, co c.\"le ef:::ecc chac che Resource Decerminacion Rate for each district: is calculaced by dividing ics adjusted base aid olus 45 mills applied co charged assessed valuation by che previous year's adjusted Average Daily M=bership, ADM. Each discricc's charged assessed valuacion is based on personal income. le. is compuced by applying its portion .of che tot.al assessed valuation in the county for the previous year to the county's charged assessed valuations. The laccer is decermined by multiplying che councy's 2 proporc:ion of cocal scace per~onal income for che lase: th=ee years by che cecal scace's assessed valuacion for che previous year less public serJice cor.unission assessnec1c:s. Utility and car::-ier assessmencs and 40~ of paymencs in lieu of tax-ation a=e added to c:he personal income component: of a disc:=icc:'s charged assesscenc to ar=ive ac a dist=icc's charged assessment:. 10. The sc:ate receives c:he income figu=es chac: ic used in the Resource Decer::iinacion Race calculation f=cm the Induscrial Research Exc:ension Center of che Universi:y of Arkansas. 11. The=e is no relation be~1een che local property wealth and the personal income index used to deter..iine district wealth in Arkansas. In addition, account is nae taken as to whether generated from L,duscrial or commercial property, and chis can resulc in some districts being charged L, assessed valuations ~~ey do noc have, and this L, cu::-:. can resulc in such dis cricts :-ec eiving less ttininn.u:a Fou:1da c::.on Prcg:-am, MF?, aid than they should. 12. Ace: No. 278 of the A::kansas Ge:1eral Asse~bly of 1951 was known as the Minimum School Budget: Law, and i: provided. a. base aid or hold-ha=less feature -..;hich g.ia::anteed that no school discricc: would receive less MFP aid in any year chan ic received the previous year. Thereafter, the amount of hold-harm.less funds increased from school finance ace co succeeding schooL finance ace so as to include any additional aid a school districc received in che previous year. Any equalization aid discribuced b:1 the stace became unavailable for equalizacion purposes in the :allowing year because it became pare of che hold-harmless aid in the year afcer ic was discribuced as equalization aid, and as result, the more recenc the base ye.a.r the less :.ione;' is available for equalization. 13. A further result under the provisions of Ace 278 of 1951 and succeeding school finance statutes for soce JO years thereafter is that lfFP aid per pupil increased in some dist-::-icts wich declining enrollments, even though the declining enrollment also result~d in an increase in yroperty wealch per pupil. lfuile Ace 1100 yrovides Ear adjust:.lents in base aid for changes in enrollillent, the adjustment does not eliminate the effects of district hold-har:nless prior to 1980. 14. Act 384 of 1977 contained a provision concerning making some adjuscnenc relative co the base for changes in average dailT attendance, and until the second year after the. passage: of Ace No. 1100 of 1979, base aid was held. ha=less on a per discicc basis. u:. In 1978-79 $220,000 ,COO or 71. li:. of all stace aid. was dist::ibuted. under the If:?, and. base. aid. accounted. for approx:.:nacely- 807. of MF? aid. 16. In. addition ta base aid, MF? aid has concai::ed a small equalization component. The equalization portion of MF?  .rs escablished i:1 Ace 384. of 19 77 caused dis cribution of aid in inverse relationship to local wealch on a 2.5 to L scale, and. established. a ceiling of eligibility-. fa 1978- 79 a total of $43,380,000 was distributed. under the. equalization portion of !ITT. This represented 19. 97. of MF? f-.!nds and 15.27. of all state reve.~ues. 17: The equalization under Ace 384. of 1977 was at a 2~ to 1 ratio, but Ace No. 1100 of 1979 eq~lizes at about 1 6/7 co 1, bec;iuse one-half of the funds are disc:ributed as flat grants; and because of the flat grant provision the 1979 Act will continue co be less equalizing than the 1977 Ace regardless of how aiuch equalizing money is available. 18; Under Ace No. 1100 of 1979 there is included a flat granc component in the equalizing funds. After base aid is allocated, one-half of any additional state lfF7 fi.mds for education are allocated in the form of flat grants on a per pupil (ADl1) basis, calculated by dividing the total avail- able funds by che Stace's adjusted ADl1 for che previous 1ea=. Sach dist:=icc =eceives the same Jollar amount regardless of property T,,/'ealch. 19. Ace '.lo. 1100 of 1979 provides :or adj us c:ients in base aid for c:.anges i:1 en=olluienc, but ch'e adjust.nenc does not elil!li::iace che effects of che district hold-har.;iless prior to 1900, and und~ Act 1100 of 1979, ear_ier inequities built into the system ~\"'ill continue to be carr~ed forwa=d on a per pupil bas is . . ?lac ~ants and T,,/'eighcing can be disequalizing factors. 20. Under Act No. 1100 of 1979, one-half of the funds left ave= after che dist=ibution of base aid is allocaced as \"equalization aid\". The funds are allocated on the basis of a 4 co 1 ratio on a graduated sliding scale bec~een key discicts =e?resencing che 5th and 95th percencile of all scude.~ts i., the scace ranked on thei= resource dece=i::iacion :-ate per AD11, a measure ot wealth. Disc:icts :,;ii:...'1. up co 200~ of w'i.e state average resou=ce rate par::ici?ate in the sliding scale aid. Discricts below che Sch per::encile receive che same amount of aid as disc=icts a:: w'i.e Sch percentile, although chey are poorer. 21. In Arkansas there is a scong relationship between a disc:icc's properi:\"f wealth and its available state and local revenues for elenentary apd secondary education. Dist.rices in the scace with high property wealth tend co have greater revenues for education, T,,/'hile low wealth districts tend to have less stace and local revenues. 22. The major determi.,anc of local revenues is disttict property wealth, and the amount of local r~venues thac a school district can raise is directly related to its property wealth. 23 .. There is a subs t.antial variation in che distribution of property wealth, mensured as equalized  assessed valua:ion per pupil in ave=age daily attendance (ADA) among the state's school dis::::-icts. In 1978-79 che range was f::-om $73,773 pe= pupil in Arkansas Ci.::y to $1853 in Gosnell. The state average assessed value per ADA in 1978-79 was $9611.18. 24. The wealthiest discricts, on average, raised about $753 more in local property taxes per pu?il than low wealth discric:s in 1978-79, and with scace aid, high wealth dist:=icts had approximately $532 more in state-local =evenues per pupil, or about 1;5 times the revenues of low wealth districts. 25. /!TI' aid increased 96. 757. per pu;i:..l in Li.:::le. Rock be~~een 1973-74 and 1980-31 or fron $229 co $452. Plai...,ti:: districc Al.~a's ai~ inc=e.aseci 119.87., or f=cm $306 co $704. 26. L, 1978-79, state and locaL revenues pe::pupil ranged from. a high of $2378 in A=kansas City co So73 in Caboc, one o= the. plai.,ti.= dis::::-iccs, a di:'::erence. of S1505 per pupil.. When the wealt:hiest: and the. pooresc a=e disregarded, c~e variation is from $1576 in Lierle. Roe~ ac c!ie. 95th pe=e..'1ci.le to $937 in Cedarville ac:. c..'1e 5c::i percentile. The. state average =evenues per ADA in 1978-79 1,;as $1158. 48. 27. :he range in revenues ai:,ong school dis.:=ic:s in Arkansas a::::ects a large number of children and is not Limited to c..~e ~ccremes of the disc=ibu:ion. Over 7~ of the pupils resided in school disaiccs with over $1500 per pupil in the state--ocal revenues while over 2ll resided in districts with less than $1000 in s cace-local revenues. fa 1978- 79, 2U dis::ricts with 239,725 students were below the state mean. This represented 557. of the districts and 567. of the students in the state. 28. \\Jhen school districts are classified by size it is sho= that wealth disparities in revenues are prevalent among both large and small districts. Among small districts with less than 350 s~Jdents, the highest wealth disc-ices =aise  a~out $583 more in local revenue pe= pupil than the lowest wealth dist=ic:s, buc receive only abouc $100 less in minimum foundation aid and in total stat?. aid , and a di~ference of some $481 in total sca:e-Local revenues occurs bet~een high and low wealth small districts. T~e sa  e pat:ern exists Eor large districts. The highest wealth districts raised $768 more per pupil than the lowest wealth districts. Eowever, minimum foundation program aid was only $203 less in high wealth districts, and other st.ace aid was r.early equa_ in the high and low wealth groups. As a result, high weal:h districts had about $563 more in scace-local revenues per pupil chan low wealth disc:iccs. 29. In che rare instances where some school districts in Arkansas do not need st.ace aid, they yec continue co receive ic. 30. '.1oney is a necP.ssicy :er achieving qu.ali:-:J education. There is a wide range in ~'\u003c?endicures per pupi~ among Arkansas school disc:iccs, and the variation in e::qiendicures is st::::-ongl:, related co c!isc:icc ;,ropercy ,;ealc.h and. st.ace and local revenues. 31. Disparic.ies in ~~pendi~~res per pupil among school disc-ices, co the ~~tent chat. they are , caused by variations in local distticc fiscal abili~,. a=e w-it.hout legitimate educational justi..:icacion and result in unequal education opportunities being made availalbe co chilc!re.n by Arknasas School disc=icts, including the eleven plaint.if: distticts. Students in lo_w-wealc.h districts receive inadequac.e and inferior educational opportunities compared to the high quality educational opporcunicie.s offered to students at.tending schools in high wealth districts, and there is a subscantial range a=ng school discricts in educational expendic-ures in the state, In 1970-79 the Ross Van tless e.i;penditures per pupil for the current operating expense amounted to $1859, -. while Ca.bot' s aounte.d to $693, or a difference of $1166 per pupil. The range. bet:1-1een Little Rock's $1466 ac the 95th percentile to plaintiff district Sheridan's $807 ac the Sch   percentile shows a difference of $659. The scace average for cu=ent: ~--q,endicures in 1978-79 was $1031.98. 32. Oiscriccs in che  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1635","title":"Court filings: District Court, the districts' reply to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to their motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-12-23"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Employee rights","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, the districts' reply to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to their motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching"],"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/1635"],"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":["70 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 DISTRIC'): COUR'r EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-86 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL r..: (' ~ 0 1996 L, I  J ... DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INT ERVEN ORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office 01 Deseg:ag:rc.on M.:in,iCfiilJ THE DISTRICTS' REPLY TO ADE'S RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF TEACHER RETIREMENT MATCHING INTRODUCTION INTERVENORS As one of the cornerstones to its defense, the State continues to pervert the literal language of the Settlement Agreement just as it previously did when the worker compensation and loss funding issues were on appeal. At page 1 of its brief served December 13, 1996 the State maintains that: [T]he language of the settlement agreement ... expressly permits the State to make fair and rational changes of general applicability to its school funding scheme. The Settlement Agreement authorizes such changes only as respects funds distributed through the \"funding formula\". As Robert Shaver clearly explained in his recent deposition attached as Exhibit \"A\": Q Back when we were operating under Act 34, if someone would mention the funding formula to you, what did that mean to you? A The distribution of minimum foundation program aid. 1 Q okay. And that did not include workers' compensation, for instance, did it? A No. Q Did not include teacher retirement matching? A No. Q Did not include health insurance? A No. Q They were never part of the funding formula? A Well, now, I think the funding formula is the way -- they were part of the total funding system. Q But they weren't part of the minimum foundation program aid distributed by the formula? A That's right. Thus, the teacher retirement issue clearly falls within the category of a \"program\" for which the State provided funding at the time of the- Settlement Agreement. Thus, the State should continue to fund these programs for these three districts so as to comply with the Settlement Agreement. THE SALARY ISSUE For the State to contend that the salary levels which prevail in these three districts are simply a matter of \"local choice\" is at best a naive assertion. The history of teacher strikes in all three districts, strikes bottomed on salary demands, is enough to belie this notion. Further, the very state standards mandated by the Arkansas state Board of Education in large measure dictate the 2 student teacher ratios that must be met by these and other districts. Further, and a factor unique to these three districts, is the presence of staffing requirements and ratios contained in the Desegregation Plan which further, and sometimes dramatically, dictate the level and intensity of staffing in these districts. With the exception of the Fort Smith School District, these three districts are the only districts in the State which must contend with powerful and aggressive teacher unions. Thus, the rationale which initially impressed this Court concerning workers' compensation becoming a responsibility of the school districts does not exist here. It was not contested that the shift of workers' compensation claim paying responsibility to the districts would prompt them to take measures to reduce their - workers' compensation costs. This rationale, under these unique facts, however, does not transfer to the issue of teacher retirement. The factors outlined above by and large dictate the necessary number of employees and the State law prohibition on reduction in teacher salaries creates a perpetual floor resulting in a level of employer matching that will never be reduced. Further, in the same session in which the State decided to shift teacher retirement costs to the districts, it further mandated a minimum salary law which will raise the perpetual floor even higher. Accordingly, it is disingenuous at best for the State to contend under the circumstances which prevail here, that these districts are in any position to significantly control either the number of their employees or their compensation. The State's argument loses all force and persuasion when one examines what the State did as regards ADE employees, Educational Cooperative employees, employees of the Department of Corrections School, employees of the Math \u0026 Science School in Hot Springs, Vocational Center employees, and the employees in Adult Education. It is undisputed that the State continues to pay 100% of the teacher retirement costs generated by those employees {See, ADE's response to Item #23 of the Districts' Statement of Undisputed Facts dated December 13, 1996). Not only does the State pay 100% of those costs, but it has requested, as a matter of \"priority\" additional sums for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to provide: \"For a six percent increase to provide for growth in staff and salaries.\" - See, Arkansas Budget System at pp. 14 and 31 attached as Exhibit B (hereafter \"ABS\") Thus, for the State to argue that the districts could eliminate unnecessary employees or reduce excessive salaries {State Brief at page 11) seems hypocritical when the State itself is seeking increases in its own appropriations to cover increases in the number of its employees and increases in their salaries. THE APPROPRIATION ISSUE There are at least two ways to discredit the State's current contention that no funds are contained in Act 1194 that were \"specifically earmarked or intended to satisfy school districts' teacher retirement contributions\" {State Brief at p. 15), and, by extension, for other matters such as health insurance, special 4 education, transportation aid, and certain former grants. One is to present testimony from knowledgeable witnesses such as Dr. Benny Gooden and the other is to simply look at what the State has in fact done or proposes to do. For fiscal year 1994-95, $1,233,546,155 was spent from the public school fund (See Imber, Finding of Fact No. 23). During that year, $123,000,000 was budgeted by ADE for teacher retirement matching, (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 24), a matter undisputed by the state. For fiscal year 1997, the public school fund appropriation is $1,456,697,089. (See Act 1194 at Sec. 1, p. 5625). As a matter of pure logic, and with the increases in the fund described above, the only conclusion that can be reached is that for obligations which continue today that were extant in 1994-95, the sums that were previously either paid directly by the state or appropriated as line items for distribution to the districts must be components of a fund that is forecast to be over $200,000,000 more than it was at the time of the Lake View decision. This logical outcome is amply supported by the State's own witnesses and documents. The most telling testimony comes from Dr. Bobbie Davis, Assistant Director for Finance and Administration, who testified: Q Under Act 34, there was set-aside funds for transportation costs. I believe districts received the funds based on the linear mileage rate or something to that effect; is that correct? A There was a formula you went by, yes. Q Is there such a formula for administration of 5 transportation funds now? A No, sir. Q How are those funds administered? A There are no identifiable transportation funds in Act 917. Q And why not? A Those dollars, or the total dollars, that were part of the previous funds, that went to public schools, were all consolidated into equalization funding. Q So that means all of the add-ons and weighted average factors that were distributed to districts, such as Brinkley, were, then, consolidated for approximately $300 million? A Into equalization, so they were no longer identifiable as those weighted things, yes. (Emphasis supplied.] (Davis deposition, pp. 6-7, attached as Exhibit \"B\") While the Arkansas Budget System attached as Exhibit \"C\" has - been reasonably well sanitized on this issue, certain significant concessions remain. ADE tells us at page 32 of the ABS that: Transportation Aid was eliminated under Act 1194 as a separate line item and incorporated into the new school funding formula. (Emphasis supplied.) 1 The ABS at page 23 informs us that: Act 917 of 1995 (the Equitable School Finance Act of 1995) and Act 1194 of 1995 (Appropriation Act for the Public School Fund) eliminated at-risk funding as a separate line item and combined approximately $30,000,000 into the State Equalization Funding Formula. 1Tellingly, for the next biennium, ADE has requested a line item appropriation of $10,000,000 each fiscal year \"to assist districts with high cost transportation.\" This is a \"priority request\" of ADE. See, Arkansas Budget System at p. 14. Apparently ADE is willing to consider \"needs\" issues when it suits it. 6 Similarly, at p. 11, the ABS states: \"Act 917 and 1194 for 1995 eliminated all at-risk tunding from the Department of Education's budget and shifted approximately $30.0 million into state Equalization Aid. [Emphasis added.] Act 1194, appended to the State's brief as an exhibit, at Item 28, reflects a $30,000,000 appropriation for at-risk grants and training for 1995-96, the last year that Act 34 operated. Accordingly, it is clear that in this category, the State recognizes that what used to be funded as a line item was folded into the 1996-97 appropriation for state equalization funding, the new near equivalency of MFPA under Act 34. The ABS also informs us at p. 34 as respect to grants to school districts: These payments are made to Missouri for educating students in North Arkansas who cannot get to their assigned district because Bull Shoals Lake separates them from their district and it would require a round trip of more than 35 miles. This program was incorporated into the school funding formula, but the Department is requesting a separate line item of $27,000 for the 1997- 99 biennium. [Emphasis added.] Again, in examining Act 1194 at Item 11, \"grants to school districts\", the identical figure, $27,000, was appropriated for 1995-96, the last year of operation of Act 34. In addition to this, the districts' assertion is supported by the deposition testimony of Dr. Charles Dyer, Superintendent of the Alma School District, the district that was the lead plaintiff in Alma v. Dupree, the original funding case. When asked what became of these items previously paid directly by the state, including teacher retirement and health insurance, Dr. Dyer explained his 7 understanding that: Q I always say that wrong. A billion, three hundred million, I'm sorry. A Okay, that's somewhere in the neighborhood, yes. Q All right. Do you know how that figure was built or gotten at, where it came from? A Only in general terms. Q Okay. I'll take that. A I can't remember exactly what the MFPA was. We had a substantial amount of money that was already targeted for MFPA, had about fifty billion [million) in transportation funds that was put over there. I say put over there. It was put together with the MFPA. Around a hundred and thirty-one, two or three million dollars of teacher retirement payments that was also put in. Somewhere in the mid-forty millions, forty-three, four or five million of payment for health insurance. Q Sure. A It was my thoughts that they were taking X number of dollars from the Department of Education that they had originally put out in all these other categories and put into one large pool. Q Yeah. A I think that's the same thing that you're saying. And then, in addition to that, they were putting in somewhere around $60,000,000.00 of additional money to come up to this 1.3 billion or one billion, two hundred and eighty-eight million or whatever that figure, somewhere in that neighborhood. These deposition pages are attached as Exhibit \"D\". Additionally, the expert witness engaged by the state in the Lake View case, Dr. Robert Rossmiller was asked these same questions and testified that: Q Can we agree, though, that by transferring that obligation to the school districts, both for paying teacher retirement and paying health insurance, that if the state put that money in the appropriation, it freed 8 up more money to flow through the equalization formula? A Yes. Q But do you know whether or not that happened? A Whether what happened? Q Do you know what became of the money that the state used to use to pay the teacher retirement and the health insurance? A I can only assume that it was put into this pool. I don't know specifically. I believe I heard yesterday that there is no appropriation for it. Q Yes. A So in that regard, it has disappeared. Now, where did it go? I assume it went into the equalization pool, but I don't know for sure. (Rossmiller Deposition, p. 115) These testimony abstracts are attached as Exhibit \"E\". The ABS explains the aid distribution changes as follows: Act 917 of 1995 changed the method the State uses to distribute aid to school districts. Prior to 1996-97 the Department of Education distributed the majority of state aid as Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA) . In addition, the state funded other programs such as Transportation Aid and At-Risk Grants by formulas or based on need. The State also paid Teacher Retirement Matching and Health Insurance Matching on behalf of school districts. The calculation for MFPA included addon weights for various categories such as Special Education, Isolated School Districts, Consolidation Incentives, Vocational Education and Centers, Gifted and Talented Students, and growth and loss funding. 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. (ABS at p. 29). The structure of this explanation by ADE strongly suggests the recognition that the sums previously paid through MFPA, as teacher 9 retirement matching and health insurance matching, and as transportation aid and at-risk grants are simply now distributed as state equalization funds. Finally, the State complains that the districts are isolating certain funding programs and not considering the new formula outcomes as a whole. First, the Settlement Agreement specifically provides for the districts' approach when it sets forth the State's obligation to continue funding \"programs\" for these three districts when it has historically funded them. Second, the calculations of Mr. Green offered for the proposition that the PCSSD does better under the new formula than the old are unadjusted for the increases in teacher retirement and health insurance costs that the PCSSD is experiencing this year and instead rely upon data from the previous school year. Exhibit \"F\" demonstrates that even in utilizing Mr. Green's analysis, the district loses over $100,000 as compared to last year. When that same analysis is further adjusted for the current effects of M-to-M transfers, the PCSSD is shown to be losing almost $1,000,000 as compared to last year. Further, the state makes no response whatever to PCSSD's analysis which accompanied this motion initially in which it compared Act 34 funding outcomes as if Act 34 were still in place and funded at current funding levels. That comparison demonstrates that the PCSSD is losing millions of dollars under the current scheme as compared to the previous 10 program. 2 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the districts' pray that their motion respecting teacher retirement be granted, for their costs, attorneys' fees, and all proper relief. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2000 Boatmen's Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-0808} NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-1122 Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501} 376-2011) By: II 2Given the holiday seasons, counsel for the PCSSD was not able to obtain similar analyses for the NLRSD and the LRSD but on their behalf would request permission to present those analyses as soon as reasonably possible. 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE on December 2.:i_, 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 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. o. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 J:jhsl050.030 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 Ms. Elizabeth Turner Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 ___,.\u003e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF - PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS SIXTH DIVISION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT * NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, * ARKANSAS, ET AL, Plaintiffs * 1 VERSUS * NO: 9 2 - 5 318 MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF * THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, ET AL, * Defendants * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VOLUME II DEPOSITION OF ROBERT E. SHAVER TAKEN BEFORE Vanessa C. Aucoin, Certified Court Reporter, LS Certificate No. 503, Bushman Court Reporting, 620 West Third Street, Suite 101, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 on Thursday, October 10, 1996 at the offices of the Attorney General, 200 Tower Building, 323 Center Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, commencing at 9:30 a.m. VANESSA C. AUCOIN, RPR, CCR BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 372-5115 I EXHIBIT A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 l. . Q. Back when we were operating under Act 34, if someone would mention the funding formula to you, what did that mean to you? A. The distribution of minimum foundation program aid. Q. Okay. And that did not include workers' compensation, for instance, did it? A. No. Q. Did not include teacher retirement matching? A. No. Q. Did not include health insurance? A. No. ... .. -- ~ Q. They were never part of any funding formula? A. Well, now, I think the funding formula is the way -- they were part of the total funding system. Q. But they weren't part of the minimum foundation program aid distributed by the formula? A. That's right. Q. Bob, I'm trying to -- I wrote this down. What did you have to say about the treatment of carry-over balances? Was that in the context of that's not necessarily tied to a particular appropriation? A. With respect to the comments a few minutes ago about whether or not there was a 60-million or VANESSA C. AUCOIN, RPR, CCR BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 372-5115  IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS SIXTH DIVISION LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS,; MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, IRMA MOREHOUSE, PRESIDENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE SCHOOL BOARD; GENORA FRAZIER, INDIVIDUALLY, IN HER CAPACITY AS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE ON BEHALF OF HER CUSTODIAL GRANDCHILDREN, LOUIS LONG, JR. AND CHRISTOPHER FRAZIER; HENRIETTA J. WILSON AND IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY; SIDNEY FITZHUGH, SR., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A MEMBER; VELMA LARKIN, AND ON BEHALF OF HER CHILDREN, TAWANNA LARKIN SUPERINTENDENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF THE LAKE VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25. PLAINTIFFS vs. No. 92-5318 MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; JIMMIE LOU FISHER LUMPKIN, TRASURER OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; REP. BOBBY HOGUE, SPEAKER OF THE ARKANSAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; STANLEY RUSS, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE ARKANSAS SENATE; ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; GENE WILHOIT, DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JAMES McCLARTY, CHAIRMAN; EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., MEMBER; CARLE. BAGGETT, MEMBER; GARY BEASLEY, MEMBER; MARTHA DIXON, MEMBER; WILLIAM B. FISHER, MEMBER; JAMES WHITMORE, MEMBER; LUKE GORDY, MEMBER; BETTY PICKETT, MEMBER; ELAINE SCOTT, MEMBER; RICHARD SMITH, MEMBER; SHERRY WALKER, MEMBER DEFENDANTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DISCOVERY DEPOSITION of Dr. Bobbie A. Davis Friday, October 11, 1996 2:45p.m. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * REPORTED BY: GRIGGS REPORTING SERVICE Alvah M. Griggs, CCR 1-501-633-2124 I EXHIBIT (3  6 1 Q We would meet, periodically, throughout the session, durin 2 days, you know, while our other jobs were going on. Sometimes 3 those meetings would go over into the evenings. We were asked to 4 respond to legislative proposals . We were asked to respond to 5 proposals by the Governor's Office. We were asked to, I guess, 6 be a \"think tank\" more than anything else. 7 Q Are you currently, fairly, familiar with t he 8 Administration's Act 917? 9 A I am familiar with it in kind of a general sense. I am not 10 the technician that Dr. Shaver or Tristan are -- certainly not. 11 Q 12 A Were you familiar with Act 34, in any way? Not in any -- when that was in place, I was an administrator 13 at school, certainly not at the day to day work that we are 14 now. 15 Q But, you as Superintendent of Brinkley Schools, you were 16 somewhat familiar with the plan -- 17 A 18 Q 19 A 20 Q Somewhat. Is that correct? Yes. Under Act 34, there was set-aside funds for transportation 21 costs. I believe districts received the funds based on the 22 linear millage rate or something to that effect; is that correct? 23 A There was a formula that you went by, yes. 24 Q Is there such a formula for administration of transportation 25 funds now? ALVAH M. GRIGGS, CCR 1-501-633-2124  1 A 2 Q 3 A 4 Q 5 A 7 No, sir. How are those funds administered? There are no identifiable transportation funds in Act 9-17. And why not? Those dollars, or the total dollars, that were part of the 6 previous funds, that went to public schools, were all 7 consolidated into equalization funding. 8 Q So that means all of the add-ons and weighted average 9 factors that were distributed to districts, such as Brinkley, 10 were, then, consolidated for approxomately $300 million? 11 A Into equalization, so they were no longer identifiabie as 12 those weighted things, yes. 13 Q '-14 A 15 Q Are there any weighted factors under 9-17? No. Under equalization the money is distributed by ADM. And, I believe, that you heard Mr. Green's testimony, I 16 believe that basically said that all of those funds were 17 considered under Category One for the purposes of meeting the 18 19 20 Federal Range Ratio; is that correct? A Right. Q Do you agree with that assessment? 21 A 22 Q I agree with that assessment, yes, sir. Now, in teacher -- under Act 34, Teacher Retirement was 23 distributed or paid by the State their portion. 24 25 Q MS. TURNER: Object to the form of the question. (Mr. Lewellen continuing) : Do you agree with Teacher ALVAH M. GRIGGS, CCR 1-501-633-2124 - -------- - ---------- l - . ,iilKANSAS BUDGET SYSTEM - AGENCI' l'ROGRAIH COMMENTARI' -- ---------------- _ _ __ 1_9_9_7_-_1_99_9 ________________ _ runuc SCIIOOL FllNll PRIORITY BlillllliSIS /\\l-lUSK GRANTS - Acl 917 and 1194 for 1995 diminalcd all al-risk funding fr11111 Ilic I h:par1n1cn1 of hl11ca1io11. s b11Jgcl anJ shiflcd approximalely $30.0 million inlo Slale Eq11aliza1ion t\\id. The fkparlmcnl is reqm:slillf! 1hat 1he follo\\\\ ing at-risk programs he conlinucd in 1he biennium. The priorily requesls lotaling S 17.1 million each liscal year can he sepa1 alcd inlo two parls. 1-'irsl. is a request for $7. 1 \u003e million to continue programs the agency plans to li111d in FY1\u003e7 with 1'11hlic School Fund balances. Second. is n rcq11csl fiir $9.2 million each fiscal year to conlinue funding for K-5 summer s1.:hool prog1ams. The re411est for $7 .9 million each fiscal year lo conlinue e:--.isling programs rnusis1i11g 111 l 'ollcge l'rcparalory Emichmcnl l'rngram ll 'l'l:1') (SI ,800,000). Early Childhood Training ($3,000.000). Limited English l'rolicicnc~ I I I I')($::!. I 00.000) and Training. Monitoring and Technical Assistance for Academic and Fiscal Dis1rcss ($1.000.000). CPL:1'-Dming the 191)5-96 school year lhe depa11111enl lumlcd -D scho11I disll ids and 1\u003e cooperali\\es 111 provide ACT training lo 3.41111 students. EARi. Y Cl IILDI 1000 lRAININ(i- In 1he I 1l1JS -% school year Al )I: dis11 ihu1cd $IA 111illiu11 to pro\\'iJe slilff ,.kvclopmenl 1rai11i111! for 5,555 K-5 teachers anJ ad111i11istrah1rs. t\\ddi1i1111ally. Al\u003eE pwvi1bl $1 .h 111illi1111 1'11r 1he K-4 crusade 10 1rain 2,319 leachcrs 1 he deparlment anticipates similar pnrticipatio11 in FY1J7 I l:P-Du1i11g the 1995-96 school year. the /\\UL dis11ihu1cJ $3,972.8 Ill dirc1.:ll) 1t1 schnul Jistiids In provide runJing for 1.1-:1' s1ude11ls for a two-year period. 1 his money sci vcd I . 'iK s111de11l in I 31 districls. /\\ I \u003eI : also p1 ovides $1110.0110 in 1.-ai11ing lo schoul dist, icls for these progrnms. The $2 .1 million priorily n:t111est each fiscal year ,..,ill rn111i1111e 10 liind the program at previous k\\'cls I RAININ(i, MONITORING AND IH.:I INH.'AI . ASSIS f/\\NCE- I his is a new rcq11ire111e111 i11 FY%. Act 915 of 1995. requires the department to identify school districls in academic and fiscal dis1ress. As a pail of 1hc process. 1he dcparlmenl is 1eq11i1ed tn provide !raining, 1111111i1oring. and technical assistann: 1111h11se school dislricts \\\\'ho a,e ide111ilicd as dis1resscd. 'I he p1iority runding is 1eq11i1c\u003cl l111.:nntinue 1his process -------------------- unrncron AGENCY PAGE A\u003c;ENCY PROGRAM AHKANSAS DEl'ARUIENI' OF Ellt.lCATIOO EXHIBIT GENE \\.lllJKHT C:OMMENTARV , 11 ~lt21 '---______ . __ __.___., C - - --------------------- AGENCY PROGRAM COMMENTARY L - 1\\RKANSAS BUDGET SYS1'EM _- ------------- ____19_ 9_7_-_1_99_9_ ________________ _J The n:quesl for $9.2 million each liscal year for s111nn1e1 sdlllol will allow 1he Alli: 111 rnntinue lo fund K-5 di1ec1 services for approximately 1S.000 sludents. This priority will provide runding 10 school disll ids 111 pay sun11ner sd1nol teacher salaries .-ind purchase instructional materials. ISOI.All:D FUNDING - The priority request of $272 .1100 in FY98 and $283 ,1100 in I Y11 \"ill provide $80.000 euch Ii seal year liir additional districts that may qualify for isolated status and $1 ')2 .0110 in FY9H and $111 , . 'i '.:! 11 in FYI)) li,r M:, grmvth in 11ase l.ocal lkve 1111 e Per Student. S Ill DEN r liROWTII - The priority request of $1110.lltltl em:h liscal year is neelkd In p11,, ide for 6'1~ growth in the Base l.ocal Re,ernie l'er Student and a growlh of approximately 7.400 students in growing di sll icts l\"hc lkp;11 t11ll.:111 Base I eve! li1r Student \u003c irnwth is $21 .\u003c, million. AODITIONAL BASE FlJNDINCi - The appropriation 1e4uest for Additional Base lu11di11g f11r the hiennium emling June 30, 1999, is based upon worst case sccmuio projections. The main concern of the flcpa,1mcnt is the \"I''\"\"' Inca! rc,wuc iucocascs in the Polaski ('unnly school dislricts of 1en pci-cenl. If that is in fact the situation beginning in FYl)H_ and all 111her c1111ditions rem;1in the same (1111mbcr of sludenls, assessment. and stale funding), then increases in Additional Base lullllill~ 111 $ I (1 -I million in FY98 and $20.4 million in FY 1 J') ,.,,ill he necessary for lhe state 10 meet the court test and abide by thc intent of The Fquitahlc School Finance S) stem Acl of I 995 . l\u003eEI' AIU MEN I\" OF COIWEC I ION - I he Al\u003eI: p1 i11rily rel1uesl uf $128..11111 i11 I Y1'8 and $16-l.Stl-l prm i1ks liir a \u003ci% inc1ease in the l\\asc I .ocal Revenue l'er Student. After the hudgct suh111issi11n, the Department uf ( 11rrecti1111 Sch11ol District (I)( 'SI\u003e) requested the A ni: suh111i1 .i request for additional funding for new schools they plan to open in the hiennirnn . The I\u003e( 'SD plans to establish schools al two (2) new prisons in FY97-98 . They anticipate an ADM gnm th or 400 students in l-'Y98 a111I I Oil in I Y99. The I)( 'SI) has requested the Department of Correction to fund the FY98 growth of $447.S0II and therealier thc ADI: 111 continue funding for FYIJ\u003c\u003e . n,c $447.S00 for FY99 nectls he considered as a priority rcquesl of the ADE. AGENCY DIRECTOR AHKANSAS DEl'AR'ltlENl' Of EllUCATIOO GENE \\.l[IJk)IT AGENCY PROGRAM COMMENTARY Hlt21 PAGE 12 ----------- ,ill KANSAS BUDGET S1'S1'EM AGENCY PROGRAM COMMENTARY 1997 - 1999 Pl JUI.IC SCIIOOI. EMPLOYEE INSlmANCI: - prll\\ ides for health insurance c11n11 ib111i11ns li,r emph\u003e) ees or 1he l'ouperalive b.l11ca1i1111 Service Areas. Vocational Centers and the school opcralcd hy the l)cpa1t111cnt of('tirreclilln 1'11e prioi-ity request of $36.030 in FY 1 18 a11d $74,222 in FY99 allows for a 6% t;rowlh in rates or employees. SPEClAl. EDUCATION SERVICES - The priority request of $747,630 each r1scal ) c,11 \"ill provide apprnpriatinn anJ hmJing ahove Base Level for the anticipated program needs of $3,747.630. The program ind mks $2.725 .llllll Ill n.:imbmscment to school districts for Special hlucation Supcrvisms. $402,630 for extended school year services. $50.0011 li,r ~L'I, i1:cs 111 foster children. $270.000 lor Regional Transitional Specialists. and $300.000 for consultants rm students \"\"i1h se,c1e disahili1ics COOl'ERATIVE 1:l\u003el lCA l'IONAL SERVICl~S Alff AS - I he priority request 111' $1.5211.IIIHI in FY98 and $116.000 i11 l-'Y9 1 \u003e will p10\\'i1k a Jistance learning classroom in each educational cooperative and one to he lncatcd in l'ulas~i ( ounty. The cost of each dassrnnm is '\\; 1 \u003e5 .0110 Continuing lim: charges arc projected at $7,250 per focility each year. rhe dis1a11cc ka111ing dassroon1s will he useJ li1r staff dcvdllpmcnl. student instruction, and to provide a statewide conununication netwrn k. DEBT SERVICE FUNDING SUPPLEMENT - 1 he Base l.evd appropriation or $21111 million is for olJ Jeht\", which is Jdincd as Jehl voted prior to fcbruary 22. J9()5. The priority request of$l0 0 million each r1sc.1l ~ca1 \\\\1111ld limd new clcht voted alier 1hat date. DIS'l RICT FISCAL CRISIS RELi L:.F - I he p1 iorit} 1eq11est ol a uegati\\'e $ I ll.11111illiu11 ..:ach year is tu eliminate the base kvcl appropriation. It is the understanding that the appropriation was l'nr one fiscal year lo p1m ide transition 1'11nJs hcca11sc of the changes in the method school fumling is distrihutetl. SI All: 1:QlJAI.IZA rlON AIIJ - the priority reL111csl or $71).255 .2 18 in i:'1'98 and $15 7. 7511 .338 in l Y 1\u003e1 \u003e prnvides ror a (1'1/o, increase each fiscal year and for the continuation of $5.203,218 h11dgc1cd from FY1)7 fund balances tin potential tleseg1egation cost. A(;J~NCY l\u003etnECTOlt AGENCY PAGE AHl\u003cANSAS DEl'AHUIENI' OF EJXJCATIOO GF.NE WllJK\u003eIT PROGRAM COMMENTARY Billi 13 I I [ 1\\RKANSAS BUDGE1' S1'S1'EM AGENCY PROGRAM COMMENTARI' ... ------------ 1997 - 1999 TEACIIER RETIREMENT MAlCI IINU - provides 1cad1cr rc1i1c111cn1 111a1chi11g 1111 e111pl11) ccs lllTllnpcralive l:duca1io11 Service 1\\reas, Vocalional Centers, and the school operated by the Ocpa11mc11t of Corn.:clion. 111 lhi!\u003e line i1c111. 1hc deparlmcnl has a base level budget of $2.1 million. The dcparlment was-required 10 increase 1hc FY97 hudgcl from lhc app111p1 i.1lill11 level of $1 .5 million Ill 1hc $2 .1 111 fully fund 1his program. The priority request of $126,000 in fYC)K anti $2S9.S60 in FY()\u003c) p1m idc!\u003e li11 a 6'!1, increase 111 provide for growth in stall and salaries. 11lANSPORTATION AID-The priority request of $10.8 million each liscal consist 111 ll\\11 prngra111s. First. is $8011.000 each liscal year Ill cunlinue 10 fund safely training for school hus drivers and mechanics. In FY1 Jl1 lhc .\\1)1 : 11.1i11cd 7.:wo d1ivcrs and 2411111ccha11ics. I he department plans to utilize Public School Fund balances 111 rnn1in11e lhc p1ogra111 in FY1J7 111 addililln. $10.11 is req11es1ctl each tiscal year 111 assist dislricts with high cost transportation. RESIDENTIAL CENTERS - 1 he priorily re4uest of $85b.22 I in FY98 and $9111Ul(1::! 1111 I Y1J 1 J is to provide adtli1ional funding for anticipated growth in student placeme.nt at approved rcsidcnlial treat1nent fadli1ics a11d 1 111 j11n:nik dclention facililics. D111ing the 199S-IJ6 school year there was an increase of approximately I Oil new heds in lhe rcsi1lc111ial farililics. Sludenls a1e lhc responsih "}],"pages":{"current_page":17,"next_page":18,"prev_page":16,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":192,"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}}]}}