{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1643","title":"District Court, affidavit of Sam Jones","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":["Jones, Sam"],"dc_date":["1996-12-02"],"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","United States. District Court (Arkansas : Eastern District)","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, affidavit of Sam Jones"],"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/1643"],"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":["44 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-~. 1 ~ l-'f (:1 ~en n PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL ':::..~~f ~/~ti, DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. r;;;_,~_;. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. AFFIDAVIT OF SAM JONES 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS 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 State beginning April 28, 1994 and continuing through November 27, 1996. I have supervised the process of removing time entries which did not relate to these claims and have reviewed the resultant narratives for accuracy. It is my professional belief that the narratives submitted as Exhibit A reasonably reflect time actually spent and devoted toward the prosecution of these claims against the State. Exhibit B represents the total hours expended during this timeframe by each timekeeper. The individual totals are derived from adding the time spent each month as reflected at the end of each individual statement. Because of the financial circumstances of the PCSSD, we have represented thea in this matter at reduced hourly rates. My standard rate for clients during 1996 was $175. 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 $145.00 an hour. She too has represented the PCSSD in this matter at the reduced hourly rate of $110.00 an hour. Angell Jones is 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. 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 $55.00 an hour and that is what she was paid by the PCSSD during 1996. However, prior to that her hourly rate for the PCSSD was $40.00 an hour. Denise Compton was a paralegal in the Litigation Support Department. She was replaced by Valerie Bryant and her duties were similar. Ms. Compton's hourly rate was $55. 00. Similarly, 2 Jennifer Thompson was the precursor to Ms. Compton. Ms. Thompson's hourly rate was $55.00. The remaining timekeepers are document clerks within the Litigation Support Department. Their principal function is to update the database and to chronicle and organize the documents and pleadings as they are received. They have been paid their normal. hourly rates which are: Leta Hudson $25.00; Joanne Sorn $25.00; M.A. Gocke $25.00; and A. Haguewood $25.00. I respectfully submit that a total fee award of hours multiplied by standard 1996 rates would be appropriate in this matter. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a notary public, this ~l day ofDe\u003c..r..,rtlJ.k-:, 199,. ~ / / \u003c)G-z-~ r11- Ki?::'\"'--~ My Commission Expires: ~ ? :i :;:c 00 C:-- 1 Notary Public  U 3 Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By _ _fL.~~~'.'.::::::::;/::::.!-;._=-----M. Att Spe I (76060) Pulaski County District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December ,)._' 1996, 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 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 II Dr. Don Stewart WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 June 16, 1994 Pulaski County Special School Distri Invoice I 93261 Post Office Box 8601 Client Number 005406 Little Rock, AR 72216 Matter Number 035919 Re: Little Rock School District v. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED THROUGH 02/28/95: Date Timekeeper Hours 04/28/94 04/28/94 ~/28/94 -/28/94 05/09/94 05/10/94 05/11/94 05/24/96 05/24/94 05/24/94 05/25/94 A. Jones A. Jones S. Jones s. Jones s. Jones S. Jones S. Jones s. Jones S. Jones s. Jones s. Jones TIMEKEEPER TIME SUMMARY: Timekeeper MS Jones, III .Jones Confer with Dr. Stewart regarding hearing Confer with Mr. Jones regarding hearing Telephone conference with Chris Heller Monitor hearing in Chancery Court regarding school funding Review correspondence from Robbie Keopple, President of Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers Review order scheduling July hearings Review Gene Wilhoit deposition Telephone conference with Chris Heller and Elizabeth Boyter Telephone conference with Don Stewart regarding workers' compensation issue Telephone conference with Don Stewart and Chris Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Lester 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total For Services TOTAL THIS STATEMENT $352.00 $352.00 Hours 3.0 at .4 at Rate $110 = $55 = Value 330.00 22.00 I EXHIBIT Mr. Don Stewart WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Pulaski County Special School Distri Post Office Box 8601 Invoice Number Invoice Date Client Number North Little Rock, AR 72216 Matter Number Re: Little Rock School District v. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED THROUGH 10/31/94: 1378 12/06/94 005406 014007 Date Timekeeper Hours 07/06/94 07/07/94 07/07/94 07/07/94 07/15/94 - /15/94 07/18/94 07/21/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 07/25/94 e, /25/94 MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant Telephone conference with Steve Jones regarding workers' compensation and MFPA Telephone conference with Mr. Lester Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Lester Review joint motion to enforce settlement agreement Telephone conference with Barry in Judge Wright's office. Review Brief in Support of Joint Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement regarding Joshua/Knight Review correspondence from Mr. Walker Rescheduling settlement agreement meeting to 8/4/94. Telephone conference with Mr. Heller and Dr. Stewart. Prepare Special language for subpoena duces tecum. Telephone conference with Elizabeth Boyter Telephone conference with Don Stewart Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart regarding various issues. Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart Telephone conference with Chris Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Heller and Mr. Humphries Telephone conference with Mr. Heller and Ms. B'oyter Prepare memorandum to Angell Jones regarding review of PCSSD materials Prepare motion and brief regarding 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 ./26/94 07/26/94 07/26/94 07/26/94 07/26/94 07/26/94 07/26/94 07/26/94 07/27/94 07/27/94 07/27/94 07/27/94 07/27/94 07/27/94 07/27/94 07/27/94 M/28/94 -/28/94 07/28/94 07/28/94 07/28/94 07/28/94 07/29/94 07/29/94 07/29/94 07/29/94 08/19/94 08/19/94 08/19/94 08/19/94 08/19/94 08/22/94 08/22/94 08/22/94 ./23/94 MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III A Jones A Jones A Jones MS Jones, III V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant A Jones MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant A Jones A Jones MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III A Jones MS Jones, III MS Jones, III A Jones A Jones MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III A Jones settlement agreement for attorney review Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart and Mr. Heller to prepare for hearing Prepare response to joint motion Telephone conference with Chris Heller regarding reply to state position Telephone conference with Charlotte at PCSSD Confer with Valerie Bryant regarding hearing preparation Prepare for hearing Review correspondence from ADE with response to the LRSD and Joshua intervenors joint motion to enforce settlement agreement Confer with Angell Jones regarding hearing preparation Telephone conference with Don Stewart and Bobby Lester Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Prepare for hearing Hearing preparation Organize materials for hearing Telephone conference with Don Stewart Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Review Invoice from PST\u0026T for special service on Gene Wilhoit Hearing in federal court Review ADE amended response to the LRSD and the Jushua intervenors' joint motion to enforce settlement agreement Update docket via Pacer Prepare documents for hearing Attend hearing in Federal Court Prepare for hearing Hearing in federal court Confer with Mr. Miller, Mr. Lester and Dr. Stewart Telephone conference with Mr. Lester Telephone conference with Jerry Malone and Dr. Don Stewart Organize materials for Sam Jones for developing brief on loss funding formula Telephone conference with Don Stewart Work on motion for loss funding Confer with Sam Jones regarding Brief Confer with Sam Jones regarding Exhibits to Brief Work on motion and brief regarding loss funding Telephone Telephone Telephone regarding conference with Don Stewart conference with Dr. Stewart conference with Sam Jones depositions 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.2 1.3 2.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 6.8 0.1 0.5 0.4 1.9 0.5 2.2 1.0 0.4 0.2 1.9 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.2 1.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 08/23/94 - /23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/23/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 - /24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/24/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 - /25/94 A Jones A Jones A Jones A Jones A Jones MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant B Benjamin MS Jones, III  MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III A Jones A Jones A Jones A Jones V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant Confer with Valerie Bryant regarding service copies of brief Telephone conference with Chris Heller with Sam Jones regarding brief and motions Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart with Sam Jones regarding loss funding Telephone conference with Valerie Bryant regarding brief Review correspondence regarding depositions of ADE Employees Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Heller and Jay Charles Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Sam Jones and Mr. Heller regarding preparation for hearing and depositions Telephone conference with Sam Jones and Dr. Stewart regarding preparation for hearing and depositions Confer with Angell Jones regarding preparation for hearing Preparation for deposition of Robert Shaver Attend deposition of of Robert Shaver Preparation for depositions to be continued on August 26 and for September 12 hearing Confer with Angell Jones regarding cancellation of depositions Westlaw Computer Act Telephone conference with Mr. Heller and Valarie Bryant to prepare for hearing Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart and Valarie Bryant regarding exhibits for hearing Prepare for Shaver deposition Deposition of Robert Shaver Confer with Valerie Bryant Confer with Valerie Bryant Assist Valerie Bryant regarding subpoenas for hearing, FOI request, legislation Telephone conference with Berniece Benjamin regarding Act 1034 and Act 668 - twice Work on FOI request to Impac Learning Services Prepare project outline for hearing Prepare for September 12 hearing Telephone conference with Berniece Benjamin regarding Worker's Compensation 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.8 3.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 1. 3 1.3 1.8 0.2 -/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/25/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 -/26/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 08/26/94 08/29/94 08/29/94 08/29/94 08/29/94 08/29/94 08/29/94 08/30/94 08/30/94 - /30/94 V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant A Haguewood MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III A Jones A Jones A Jones A Jones L Hudson B Benjamin B Benjamin V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III Legislation Telephone conference with John Walker's office confirming depositions Confer with Angell Jones regarding depositions scheduled for August 26th Prepare for depositions scheduled for August 26th RFP document production Prepare for deposition Deposition of Weiss and Shaver Telephone conference with Mr. Walker regarding COE Telephone conference with Mr. Lester Confer with Valerie Bryant Prepare for depositions Work on FOI Request for Impac Learning Center Confer hearing Prepare labels with Valerie Bryant preparation computer-generated regarding subfile Research Lexis re: Workers' Compensation coverage Research Westlaw re: Workers' Compensation coverage Attend deposition of Richard Weiss Prepare for depositions of Richard Weiss and Robert Shaver Confer with Angell Jones regarding depositions Organize exhibits to Richard Weiss' depositions Telephone conference with Ann Brown Telephone conference with Mr. Lester Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart continue work on Loss Findings motion Telephone conference with Chris Heller Telephone conference with John Walker Telephone conference with Ray Scott Confer with Valerie Bryant Telephone conference with John Walker's office verifying schedule for depositions Confer with Sam Jones regarding issuance of subpoenas for hearing Telephone conference with Sam Jones and Ray Scott of Impac Learning Systems regarding FOI request Telephone conference with Chris Heller and Steve Jones Telephone conference with Mr. Walker settlement conference at John Walker's office 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.5 3.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 1.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 3.2 08/30/94 -/30/94 08/30/94 08/31/94 08/31/94 08/31/94 08/31/94 08/31/94 08/31/94 08/31/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/01/94 09/02/94 09/05/94 -/05/94 ~/06/94 09/06/94 09/06/94 09/06/94 09/06/94 09/06/94 09/06/94 09/07/94 09/09/94 09/09/94 09/09/94 09/09/94 09/10/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 -/12/94 V Bryant V Bryant JD Thompson V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III A Jones V Bryant MA Gocke MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III L Hudson A Jones V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III Prepare fax transmittal to Mr. Bowles regarding settlement conference Work on issuance of subpoenas and witness check for September 12 hearing Assist with preparation of subpoenas Preparation for hearing scheduled for September 12 Telephone conference with Ray Scott Telephone conference with Tim Humphries Telephone conference with John Walker Review records at computer center Work on stipulation for friday hearing Telephone conference with Mr. Walker Prepare documents from APSCN office for attorney review Update docket via Pacer Work on filing of subpoenas with Court Telephone conference with clerk regarding exhibits to July budget hearing Review correspondence and pleadings and transmit copies to the school district Review correspondence and pleadings and prepare for attorney review and for transmittal to district Work on exhibits for September 12 hearings Assist with hearing preparation Prepare witness list and exhibits for submission to parties Prepare Exhibits for Hearing Telephone conference with Mr. Lester regarding hearing Telephone conference with Don Telephone conference with Don Telephone conference with Don Generate document production address label,s Stewart Stewart Stewart labels and Review and organize file materials Telephone conference with Sam Jones regarding notification of hearing date to subpoenaed witnesses Notify subpoenaed witnesses of scheduled hearing date Confer with Susan Franks regarding Robert Shaver's deposition Telephone conference with Chris Heller and Dale Hanson Notify subpoenaed witnesses of scheduled hearing date Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart and Mr. Bryant Confer with Ms. Bryant 0.2 3.5 1.3 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 3.4 0.7 0.2 1.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.8 3.5 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 09/12/94 -/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 -/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 09/15/94 09/15/94 09/15/94  /15/94 /15/94 MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant v Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant Confer with Ms. Bryant regarding ASCPN documents Telephone conference with APSCN office regarding additional information to FOI request Telephone conference with Sam Jones regarding follow-up to FOI request to APSCN Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart and Sam Jones regarding witness and exhibit lists for hearing Telephone conference with Walter Smiley's office regarding hearing Prepare exhibits for attorney review Transmit ADE's response to joint motion to Dr. Stewart Preparation for hearing Telephone conference with Stephanie Branton, court reporter regarding depositions of Weiss and Shaver Telephone conference with Ms. Horner from Walter Smiley's office regarding hearing Telephone conference with subpoenaed witnesses regarding hearing Telephone conference with Don Stewart Telephone conference with Mr. Heller and Dr. Stewart Telephone conference with John Walker and Chris Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Walker, Chris Heller, and Ann Brown Confer with Valerie Bryant Telephone conference with Mr. Humphries regarding computer issues Preparations for hearing Telephone conference with Sharon Street Telephone conference with Don Stewart continue preparation for hearing Confer with Mr. Heller, Ms. STreet, and Mr. Walker continue hearing preparations at home Preparation for hearing Attend hearing on Motions to Enforce Settlement Agreement Telephone conference with Sam Jones regarding IMPAC Learning Systems correspondence from John Walker Hearing in Federal Court Hearing in Federal court Prepare for third day of hearings correspondence from John Walker correspondence from John Walker Prepare memorandum to Sam Jones 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 3.8 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 1.3 0.2 0.2 1.6 1.2 2.7 0.8 6.5 0.2 0.1 6.9 7.9 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.3 - /15/94 09/15/94 09/15/94 09/15/94 09/16/94 09/16/94 09/20/94 09/20/94 09/20/94 09/21/94 09/21/94 09/21/94 09/21/94 09/22/94 09/28/94 09/28/94 - /28/94 09/29/94 09/29/94 09/29/94 09/30/94 09/30/94 09/30/94 09/30/94 10/03/94 10/03/94 10/03/94 10/03/94 10/03/94 10/03/94 10/03/94 10/04/94 10/04/94 10/04/94 - /04/94 V Bryant V Bryant V Bryant A Haguewood MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III regarding Impac Learning Systems and Walter Smiley Telephone conference with Walter Smiley's office regarding hearing Telephone conference with Berniece Benjamin regarding computer research on Impac Learning Systems Telephone conference with Secretary of State's office regarding Impac Learning systems Preparation for hearing Prepare for third day of hearings Hearing in Federal Court Review Charts regarding wee for Stewart Preparation for hearing on September 21st Telephone conference with Court regarding time for hearing Final preparation of resumption of hearing hearing in Federal Court Confer with Mr. Allen and Dr. Stewart Preparation for hearing Correspondence from USDC Clerk with Certificates Prepare memo to Ms. Bryant. Confer with Sam Jones regarding witness checks Confer with Sam Jones regarding brief deadlines Confer with Ms. Bryant. Preparation for loss funding and computer brief Prepare letters to Julie Rhodes, Gene Wilhoit and Richard Nagel Work on post hearing brief regarding funding issue. Telephone conference with Don Stewart. Telephone conference with Steve Jones. Review correspondence from Gene Wilhoit. Review correspondence from Sheila Freeman. Telephone conference with Chris Heller. Telephone conference with Mark Burnett. Work on post hearing brief. Telephone conference with Chris Heller. Telephone conference with Chris Heller. Confer with Sam Jones regarding brief Review State and ADE's Post-Hearing Brief. Review LRSD, PCSSD and Joshua Intervenors Joint Post-Hearing Brief. Review final brief. Telephone conference with Mr. Heller. 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.0 1.3 5.3 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.5 6.5 0.5 1. 3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 4.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 10/04/94 MS Jones, III ~ /04/94 MS Jones, III /05/94 MS Jones, III /07/94 MS Jones, III 10/07/94 MS Jones, III 10/10/94 MS Jones, III 10/10/94 MS Jones, III 10/11/94 MS Jones, III 10/28/94 MS Jones, III TIMEKEEPER TIME SUMMARY: Timekeeper ------------------------- MS Jones, III B Benjamin V Bryant A Jones  Thompson Gocke A Haguewood L Hudson Review ADE brief. Telephone conference with Chris Heller. Telephone conference with Steve Jones. Telephone conference with Mr. Lester. Telephone conference with Don Stewart. Telephone conference with Steve Jones. Review correspondence from John Walker. Telephone conference with Chris Heller. Review post-hearing memorandum of NLR District regarding ADE funding issues. Review correspondence from Rick regarding witness check. Hours Rate -------------------- 96.6 at $110 0.7 at $40 50.2 at $45 11.8 at $55 1.3 at $45 1.2 at $25 1.3 at $25 1.0 at $20 = = = = = = = = TOTAL HOURS Value 10,626.00 28.00 2,259.00 649.00 58.50 30.00 32.50 20.00 Nagel CURRENT FEES $ 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 ----- 164.1 13,703.00 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Dr. Don Stewart Pulaski County Special School Distri Post Office Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Re: Little Rock School District V. Invoice Number Invoice Date Client Number Matter Number FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED THROUGH 02/28/95: 4474 03/27/95 005406 014007 Date Timekeeper Hours 01/12/95 01/13/95 01/13/95 01/17/95 ~ /17/95 Wi11a/95 01/19/95 01/19/95 01/25/95 01/25/95 01/25/95 01/25/95 01/25/95 01/25/95 01/25/95 01/26/95 01/27/95 01/27/95 01/30/95 01/31/95 01/31/95 02/13/95 02/15/95 .;. /15/95 . /17/95 MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III JD Thompson Telephone conference with Mr. Palnick Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding Order Telephone conference with Don Stewart Telephone conference with Mr. Bowles Confer with Mr. Spivey regarding majority to minority issues Telephone conference with Mr. Lester Review Minority to Majority stipulation Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Chris Heller and Steve Jones Telephone conference with Chris Heller Telephone conference with Chris Heller and Tim Humphries Telephone conference with Don Stewart Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Heller and Mr. Walker Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Lester Telephone conference with Mr. Heller and Mr. Jones Telephone conference with Chris Heller Telephone conference with Don Stewart Review motion to extend time and notice of filing by LRSD Review ADE notice of appeal Telephone conference with Chris Heller Review USDC notice of appeal Confer with Valerie Bryant regarding 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 -/17 /95 JD Thompson 02/17/95 V Bryant 02/17/95 V Bryant 02/17/95 V Bryant 02/17/95 L Hudson 02/17/95 MS Jones, III 02/17/95 MS Jones, III 02/17/95 MS Jones, III 02/20/95 MS Jones, III 02/20/95 MS Jones, III 02/20/95 MS Jones, III 02/21/95 MS Jones, III 02/21/95 MS Jones, III TIMEKEEPER TIME SUMMARY: Timekeeper MS Jones, III V Bryant JD Thompson L Hudson computer search for documents pertaining to state Aid Computer search of documents regarding State Aid to PCSSD Telephone conference with Sam Jones regarding documents needed for preparation of brief Confer with Jennifer Thompson regarding documentation regarding state aid Organize documents in preparation for brief for attorney review Organize pleadings for attorney review Work on response to State's motion for stay Telephone conference with Chris Heller Telephone conference with Valerie Bryant regarding documents needed for preparation of brief Review State of Arkansas' letter regarding appendix for appeal Review and revise response to stay Telephone conference with Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Mark Pryor school funding Telephone conference Hours Rate -------------------- 10.5 at $135 1.2 at $45 3.2 at $55 2.6 at $25 with Mr. Heller TOTAL HOURS = = = = Value 1,417.50 54.00 176.00 65.00 -re CURRENT FEES $ 2 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.8 2.6 2.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 ----- 17.5 1,712.50 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Dr. Don Stewart Pulaski County Special School Distri Post Office Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Re: Claim for attorney's fees Invoice Number Invoice Date Client Number Matter Number FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED THROUGH 02/28/95: 4476 03/27/95 005406 035919 Date Timekeeper Hours 01/25/95 01/26/95 . /26/95 01/27/95 01/30/95 01/30/95 02/01/95 02/06/95 02/07/95 02/08/95 02/08/95 02/09/95 02/13/95 02/15/95 MS Jones, III JD Thompson JD Thompson JD Thompson JD Thompson JD Thompson JD Thompson MS Jones, III JD Thompson JD Thompson JD Thompson JD Thompson JD Thompson JD Thompson Confer with Jennifer Thompson re fee petition Confer with Sam Jones regarding fee petition Organize accounting records regarding time spent on loss funding, computers, and workers compensation Work on calculations for fee petition Prepare accounting of all time spent on loss funding, APSCN and workers' comp. Prepare accounting narrative for fee petition Work on narrative Review order regarding extension to file for attorney fees Work on narrative for fee petition Work on narrative for fee petition Prepare memorandum to file regarding status of narrative Review and revise narrative Review and revise narrative Finalize narrative for fee petition 0.2 0.3 4.4 3.9 1.2 1.7 2.4 0.1 2.1 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.6  5406 35919 /27/95 Pulaski County Special School District Claim for attorney's fees TIMEKEEPER TIME SUMMARY: Timekeeper MS Jones, III JD Thompson Hours 0.3 18.8 CURRENT FEES at at Rate $135 = $55 = Invoice Number Page 2 TOTAL HOURS Value 40.50 1,034.00 $ 4476 19.1 1,074.50 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Mr. Don Stewart Invoice Number Invoice Date Client Number Matter Number 5451 04/26/95 005406 014007 Pulaski County Special School Distri Post Office Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Re: Little Rock School District V. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED THROUGH 03/31/95: Date Timekeeper -------- ---------- 03/01/95 MS Jones, III 03/03/95 MS Jones, III 03/06/95 - /10/95 JD Thompson MS Jones, III /10/95 MS Jones, III 03/13/95 MS Jones, III 03/20/95 MS Jones, III 03/22/95 MS Jones, III TIMEKEEPER TIME SUMMARY: Timekeeper MS Jones, III JD Thompson Hours Review reply brief on motion for stay 0.1 Review Court of Appeals docketing 0.1 Docket ADE Appeal 0.4 Telephone conference with Chris Heller 0.6 Review ADE's appeals filings 0.1 Telephone conference with Chris Heller 0.6 Review Joshua's Eighth Circuit filings 0.1 Confer with Mr. Spivey regarding M-to-M 0.2 issues Hours 1.8  4 at at Rate $135 = $55 = TOTAL HOURS Value 243.00 22.00 2.2 CURRENT FEES $ 265.00 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Mr. Don Stewart Pulaski County Special School Distri Post Office Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Re: Little Rock School District v. Invoice Number Invoice Date Client Number Matter Number FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED THROUGH 05/31/95: 6743 06/14/95 005406 014007 Date Timekeeper Hours 04/03/95 04/05/95 .4/10/95 04/12/95 04/12/95 04/12/95 04/13/95 04/13/95 04/13/95 04/13/95 04/13/95 04/17/95 04/19/95 04/19/95 04/20/95 04/26/95 04/26/95 JIM/26/95 W4/26/95 MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III JD Thompson MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III Review Dr. Stewart's letter regarding payment by ADE pursuant to court order Review State and ADE's motion for stay pending appeal Telephone conference with Clerk, Court of Appeals Telephone conference with Mr. Gauger Confer with Steve Jones Work on response to State stay request to court of appeals Review and revise response to stay motion Telephone conference with Chris Heller Telephone conference with John Walker Review State's request for extension to file brief Legal research regarding 1991 Appeal in preparation for Response to Motion to Stay Pending Appeal Review ADE's calculations pursuant to Court's 1/13/95 ruling Review court's order granting appellant extension to file brief Telephone conference with Steve Jones Prepare correspondence to Mr. Heller Telephone conference with Mr. Lester and Dr. Stewart regarding State calculations Telephone conference with Ms. Boyter Telephone conference with Mr. Lester Telephone conference with Dr. Stewart 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.9 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 04/26/95 . /28/95 05/08/95 05/08/95 05/08/95 05/09/95 MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III TIMEKEEPER TIME SUMMARY: Timekeeper MS Jones, III JD Thompson Prepare correspondence to Mr. Gauger Telephone conference with Bobby Lester and Dr. Stewart Preliminary review of state's opening brief Work on response to State's brief Telephone conference with Billy Bowles Telephone conference with Sandi in Judge Wright's office Hours 8.2 .9 at at Rate $135 = $55 = TOTAL HOURS Value 1,107.00 49.50 CURRENT FEES $ 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.2 9.1 1,156.50 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkans~s 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Mr. Don Stewart Pulaski County Special School Distri Post Office Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Re: Claim for attorney's fees Invoice Number Invoice Date Client Number Matter Number FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED THROUGH 05/31/95: 6748 06/14 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1656","title":"Court filings concerning 1996-97 budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, LRSD 1998 program planning and budgeting tool, Amicus Curaie's response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment of the Little Rock School District, and PCSSD's statement of material and undisputed facts 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"],"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","Knight Intervenors","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Arkansas. Department of Education","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning 1996-97 budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, LRSD 1998 program planning and budgeting tool, Amicus Curaie's response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment of the Little Rock School District, and PCSSD's statement of material and undisputed facts 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/1656"],"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, order; District Court, motion for approval of plan development period; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for approval of plan development period; District Court, order; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, motion; District Court, brief in support of motion; District Court, order; District Court, response to Knight et al.'s motion; District Court, objections of the Joshua intervenors to the proposed 1996-97 budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring; District Court, motion to withdraw pleading; District Court, response of the Joshua intervenors to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for the approval of a plan development period; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua motion to request Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1998 program planning and budgeting tool; District Court,Amicus Curaie's response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); District Court,Amicus Curiae's response to 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 on the issue of teacher retirement matching; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  12 D: 1996 16 : 51 FROM JOHN W. WAL~ ER P . A. TO :::;- 10100 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEL U 2. 1996 EAST~E~~~I~vi!I~SAM~ES 'r'v. 1v1t.vvn111nvr., \\;LERK By: -------- LI TTL E 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 W. KNIGHT, ET AL. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIMB OEP CLERK The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court for an order extending to them the same time as requested by the Arkansas Department of Education in which to file a response to the Office of Desegregation proposed 1996-97 budget. For its motion, Joshua states: 1. Due to trial in Texarkana, Arkansas before the Honorable Judge Harry Barnes and absence from the city on Thanksgiving, plaintiff did not formally meet the response deadline herein. 2. The Joshua Intervenors have previously advised the ODM that ODM's budget was too low and asked the ODM to bring their position to the attention of the Court. 3. There is no prejudice to any party by granting the motion to extend the time or to file our of time. WBBRBPORB, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the Court enter an order allowing them until Oecelllber 13, 1996 in p . 0.:: 12 02, 1995 16 : 52 FROM JOHN W. WALI EP P . A. TO 3 71 0100 - which to respond to the ODM budget request. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 certificate of Service I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was sent via facsimile to all counsel of record on this 2nd day of December, 1996. P . 03 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., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRDER r~~~ :;-~~\\ 11~ . ;:~~  ; 1.~~ ,; .,; J; ... 7;-,.,:7 :_: :_::J~T [i,~T~~~i G.$--;-:r_:-: 1 ,\\r~:A,~SAS Before the Court are the motions of the Arkansas Department of Education (\" ADE\") for _ extensions of time to file objections to the 1996-97 ODM budget (see docket entry 2852) and to respond to the motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching (see docket entry 2862). The motions (docket entries 2871 \u0026 2873) are granted. The ADE has until and including December 13, 1996, within which to file its objections and response to the motion for summary judgment No further extensions will be granted. SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December 1996. 1/ l/, )ii:'~i;\\ r ~-HS Q~)C~J~/:f:i!T t:i\\JT~1EQ r:~~ ~(::..:i-\u003cET Sr.E:=- 1i -: -~.t~,1?LL\\~~C~ \\~  ,TH :7U:..'.= :.; ;\\;O/OR 79{c.} rsc:=- 'JN ~/3 /f 0 BY _kt~~-- ~-- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 RE: ~ a ~. l! \"\"'\"' -. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL _;1::. y -  .. DEC ~ 1996 DEFENDANTS Office of Dese~rsgat1011 :.ion1tonnfINTERVENORS  -- I'NTERVENORS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERIOD The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion states: 1. This court has repeatedly expressed the view that LRSD - could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan mod if ica tions. The court has noted, however, that any proposed modifications must be developed by the parties and not the court. 2. LRSD can improve its educational program for all students and can enhance the prospects for the long term desegregation of the district if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task. LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ( \"ODM\") in order to develop and present to the court plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within - the district. 3. The Knight Intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for education and desegregation within LRSD. They are willing to work cooperatively with the other parties to develop such a plan. 4. PCSSD and NLRSD do not intend to become directly involved in the process of developing a modified education and desegregation plan for LRSD, except to the extent that the development of such a plan might impact interdistrict desegregation issues, but they support the effort described in this Motion. 5. LRSD expects that they can work cooperatively with all parties to present to the court within the next six to nine months a plan for improving education and desegregation in LRSD. This - plan will necessarily modify or replace certain components of the present LRSD Desegregation Plan. 6. LRSD and Joshua have met with the desegregation monitor to discuss ways in which LRSD, Joshua and ODM can work together toward improving education and desegregation in LRSD. ODM moni taring reports have shown the need for changes in LRSD' s approach to desegregation. ODM could, with this court's approval, support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD; by redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline r:-~.,,..... 2 issues; and by withholding any further monitoring of the current - LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this court authorize ODM to consult with the parties and participate in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD; to redeploy monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues; and, to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-_2_0_1_1 __ _ BY: 3 Christopher Hell John c. Fendley, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peop~y depos~a copy of same in the United States mail on this day of~~ , 1996. Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 1.stopher Helle John C. Fendley, Jr. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEC (, DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS 1996 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Moni!oririiJ INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERIOD The Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), outlined the standard for modification of a consent decree: (A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving party meets this standard, the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id., at 393, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. The Eighth Circuit applied the Rufo standard in affirming this Court's decision granting LRSD's request to close Ish incentive school and to assign the former Ish attendance zone students to the new King interdistrict school. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). The Eighth Circuit stated, \"We are convinced that the closing of Ish advances [the goal of desegregation] by offering a desegregated setting for students within the Ish attendance zone alongside children from the 1:-\\fmdlcyllnd~ PCSSD. 11 Therefore, the Eighth Circuit has approved - modifications of the LRSD Desegregation Plan where the modifications further the goal of desegregation. Moreover, the LRSD Desegregation Plan was drafted with the expectation that modifications would be made as necessary to further the purposes of the plan. A six to nine month plan development period for the purpose of developing plan modifications would further the goal of desegregating LRSD. Improving education in LRSD is essential to maintaining current levels of desegregation and improving desegregation in the future. Modifications are also needed in other areas including budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues. ODM could, with this court's approval, support LRSD's efforts - by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD; by redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as 1The Eighth Circuit's reasoning is consistent with the rule of equity which allows a court to modify an equitable decree to further the purpose of the decree. See, e.g., Larken Minnesota, Inc. v. Wray, 881 F.Supp. 14i3, 1419 (D.Minn. 1995). It is also consistent with decisions from other jurisdictions which have identified a myriad of changed circumstances which justify modification. See, e.g., Jacksonville Branch, NAACP v. Duval County School Board, 978 F.2d 1574, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992) (\"Modification [of a consent decree) may be considered when (1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met, (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has a legitimate interest to be considered.\"). f:lhomolfclldloyllndlbri-1JWUlov 2 budget development, staff development, student assignment and - resolution of discipline issues; and by withholding any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. LRSD prays that ODM be authorized to support LRSD in this manner so that modifications of the LRSD Desegregation can be developed and so LRSD can take a step closer to its goal of providing all LRSD students a quality desegregated education. f:lbomolbdloy\\lodlbri-plaLdcv Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-~2~01=1.,___ BY: C. Fen 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peo(5\"7}PY depos~g~ of same in the United States mail on this day of~ , 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 f:lbomolfeadlcyllndll,rl.plan.dcv 4 - - 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., * * Intervenor. * * KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRDER F~lED U.S. OISTi:ICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEC O G 1996 JA~~ES ! ~C{lRMACK, CLER!( By. \\L \\~\\..{AA .. QA DEP CLERK \" DEC ~ 1996 Offics of Desegregation Monrrori~ Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in , which to file objections to the 1996-97 ODM budget (see docket entry 2852). The motion is granted. The Joshua Intervenors have until and including December 13, 1996, within which to file their objections. SO ORDERED this rf1''-- day of December 1996. ,7 'u 2 8 7 7 RECE DEC 1 1 1996 Office of Desegregation Monitormg 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., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FILED US DISTRICi COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEC 1 0 1996 JAME$ ~CORMACK, CLERK By:\\/. ~\\,V\\~ OEP CL.fRI( Before the Court are the motions of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") and the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") seeking attorney's fees and costs in connection with their efforts to enforce the Settlement Agreement with the State of Arkansas. Having carefully considered the motions, affidavits, responses, and briefs, the Court finds that the motions should be granted. I. In the summer of 1994, the moving parties challenged actions by the State of Arkansas which had the effect of reducing the amount of state funds the three Pulaski County school districts receive for funding workers' compensation claims and for \"loss funding,\" claiming the State was in violation of the Settlement Agreement. The parties also challenged the State's establishment of a statewide computer network which they claimed would not facilitate desegregation in the three Pulaski County school districts. The Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court's finding that funding of workers' compensation by the State is a \"program\" for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and that the State must J disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Counry Special School Distria, # 1, 83 F. 3d - 1013, 1918 (8th Cir. 1996). The circuit court also held the district court correctly ordered the State to exclude M-to-M transfer students from ADM in the loss-funding formula. Id. With respect to the statewide computer network, the Eighth Circuit reversed this Court's order which directed the State to pay the three Pulaski County districts an amount equivalent to what the State would spend on any other educational cooperative. Id. The PCSSD and the LRSD seek fees pursuant to Ark.Code Ann.  16-22-308, 28 U.S.C.  1920 as well as 42 U.S.C.  1988. The ADE urges that the districts are not entitled to fees under either state or federal law. The Court finds that the districts are entitled to fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988. 2 II. Title 42 United States Code Section 1988 provides that the Court may allow the prevailing party in a civil rights action a reasonable attorney's fee as a part of the costs, and the Eighth Circuit has directed the award of attorney's fees pursuant to  1988 in connection with the compliance phase of this case. See Liule Rock School Disrrict v. Pulaski County Special School District, No. 1, 17 F.3d 260 (8th Cir. 1994). In addition, the Court has directed the State to pay attorney's fees to the Joshua Intervenors in connection with their efforts to reinstate the Arkansas State Department of Education as a party defendant in this case. See docket entry 2045. The Court has broad discretion in determining the amount of attorney's fees awarded under 1988. Winter v. Cerro Gordo County Conservation Board, 925 F.2d 1069 (8th Cir. - 1991). \"The number of hours to be awarded to a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C.  1988 is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. 'The trial judge should weigh the hours claimed against [her] own knowledge, experience, and expertise of the time required to complete similar activities.\"' Gilbert v. Little Rock, 867 F.2d 1063, 1066 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 812 (1989) (citations omitted). The usual procedure used in calculating attorney's fees is to compute the base 'lodestar' figure by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended times the lawyer's regularly hourly rate. Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982). After careful review of the pleadings, the Court finds that PCSSD should be awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $28,854.50. 1 The LRSD 1This figure represents an hourly rate for M. Samuel Jones of $110.00 during 1994 and $135.00 during 1995-1996; an hourly rate for Angell Jones of $55 .00 during 1994 and $75 .00 during 1995-96; and an 3 should be awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $42,520.002 and costs in the amount of $563.32. III. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the PCSSD's motion for attorney's fees and costs [docket entry 2757] and supplemental motion for attorney's fees and costs [docket entry 2819] are granted. The PCSSD is awarded $28,854.50 in attorney's fees. The LRSD's motion for attorney's fees and costs [docket entry 2797] is granted. The LRSD is awarded $43,083.32 in attorney's fees and costs. A DATED this _LfL day of December 1996. ~-~~~ UTED STA ESDISTRicT DGE hourly rate for Valerie Bryant of $40.00 during 1994 and $55.00 during 1995-96. The total hours for both M. Samuel Jones and Valerie Bryant were reduced by .8 and 5.6, respectively, because of lack of success on the APSCN issue. 2This represents an hourly rate of$ 160.00 for Christopher Heller and an hourly rate of $100.00 for Clay Fendley. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC!f~J?~~.::.:: EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARNANSAS-;:;1l, ,\\ ... I\\\\, , - ~ WESTERN DIVISION DEC 1 0 1996 JAMES W McCOR~,lACK. CL::.;-,K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COU TY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. DEC f : 1996 KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. MOTION DEFENDAi TS INTERVENORS Il''TERVEI\\'ORS Katherine Knight. et al., by and through their attorneys. ROA.CHELL LAW FIR.\\1. for their i:{otion, state: 1. Effective September 3, 1996, the Court ordered striking teachers of PCS SD back to work as a result of a motion filed by PCSSD. The Court also ordered the parties to mediate and appointed a mediator for that purpose. Since the appointment of the mediator, the main issue in dispute between the teachers and the district, salaries, has not been resolved. In fact, there has been almost no movement by PCSSD with regard to salaries. 2. The PCSSD approved and submitted to the Court its tentative 1996-97 budget in August of 1996. 3. Since the submission of the PCS SD tentative 1996-97 budget to the Court, PCS SD has created new line items in its budget and increased tentative budget line items without C authorization by the Court expending monies that could have been used for negotiations for teachers' salaries. The district. however, continues to maintain that it does not have the necessary funds for an increase in teachers' salaries. At each monthly board meeting, the board re\\iews a monthly financial report of the district prepared by administrators. The budgeted amounts on the monthly financial reports change each month from the proposed 1996-97 budget submitted to the Court. The board votes to adopt the financial report which amends the budget without approval of the Court and authorizes expending monies that could be used for salary negotiations with PACT. 4. The reconfiguration of Jacksonville Junior High North and Jacksomille Junior High South was not a line item in the tentative 1996-97 budget PCSSD submitted to the Court. In November, 1996, the board voted to retain architects which item was not budgeted and there are likely other expenditures from the 1996-97 budget that will be related to the reconfiguration to be - paid for from the 1996-97 budget which could be used for salary negotiations. Although it is the infonnation and belief of PACT that these budgeted expenditures for the Jacksonville reconfiguration come primarily from capital outlay, such funds have consistently been off limits to the district in negotiating salary increases. Other costs for the reconfiguration from the 1996-97 PCSSD budget will not be paid from capital outlay funds which could be used to negotiate an increase in teacher salaries. 5. The actions of the PCS SD stated herein and more fully in the brief accompanying show that PCSSD has been negotiating with PACT in bad faith. WHEREFORE, Knight et al Intervenors prays that the Court order the PCSSD Board of Directors to refrain from taking action on any matter that would increase a budgeted line item or add 2 new line items to that budget for budget expenditures except upon orders of the Court and until a contract settlement with PACT has been reached. ~~b~Q_j_ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roache!!, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on December 10, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 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 Us DISTRICT C1..,URT EASTEciN DISTRIC_T ARl\\-\"IN$AS DEC 1 0 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CK Cl \u003e=\"K EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANS,~ \\\\I McCOm.\\A   __ n WESTERN DIVISION 8r ~=::,_ c!..c::::K LlTTLEROCKSCHOOLDIBTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOO1FJ r;,:z DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. d, r'J ' /.~ \":~:= :\".: \",\\, .,. -:- ~ ~ ,:::;.. ....:,;,z ~ ~I ~  MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. -,. DEC 1 @ 1996 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION~ - PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS I TERVE oRS After a full day of court proceedings. the Court ordered striking PCSSD teachers back to work effective September 3, 1996 upon Motion filed by PCSSD. The Court ordered the parties to mediate and appointed a federal mediator for that purpose. To this date, there has been no settlement with regard to salaries, the main dispute between the parties. PCSSD has consistently led the Court and the public to believe that it does not have sufficient funds to settle its labor dispute with regard with PACT. In August 1996, PCSSD submitted to the Court its tentative budget for the 1996-97 school year. Recently, the district has posted to hire personnel to fill nine (9) coaching positions which were not reflected in the budget or approved by the Court. Although the addition of some of these coaches was ostensibly for the purpose of complying with Title VII requirements, the district did not seek permission from the Court and has not shown PACT that such expenditures of monies not in the budget were absolutely necessary. See attached Exhibit \"A.\" Further, the district prepares a monthly financial report which is presented by the administration to the board at each regular monthly meeting to show where the district is in its financial condition. The board then adopts the monthly financial report which in effect amends the budget. The budgeted amounts in many budget categories change from month to month and are different than the proposed budget submitted to the Coun. In general, each month the budget figures increase. In as much as the district is spending far more money than it budgeted and the proposed budget figures were used in contract settlement negotiations, it appears that the district is spending money from sources which could be used to settle its labor dispute. See attached Exhibit \"B\" which is a recapitulation of the monthly financial repons from July 31, 1996, through September 12, 1996. - It should be noted that the total budget of the district as well as the funds themselves continue to mcrease. The Court approved earlier in 1996 the reconfiguration of Jacksonville Junior High North and Jacksonville Junior High South. It should be noted that the cost of such reconfiguration is not reflected in the tentative budget submitted to the Court. However, monies from the 1996-97 budget will be used to partially fund the reconfiguration. See attached Exhibit \"C.\" Certainly, some expenditures will come from the district's capital outlay. For instance, in November 1996, the board voted to retain architects which was not in the budget. Also, it is reasonable to assume that the 1996- 97 budget will require the expenditure of monies for supplies and materials and other costs in connection with the reconfiguration. In addition, the potential additional allocation of personnel for training; substitute costs, and overtime will be paid from the 1996-97 budget which will create 2 increases in expenditures from the salary fund and the general fund not reflected in the budget presented to the Court. These monies could be used to fund a settlement of the labor dispute within the PCSSD. In contract negotiations, for example, one of PACT's submitted proposals was for a modest $100,000 of the amount required to settle the labor dispute to come from interest on the building fund which the district has steadfastly refused since the Court ordered the teachers to return to work. See PACT Fact Sheet attached as Exhibit \"D.\" Such monies could be used to settle the labor dispute between PCSSD and PACT. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Coun should order the district not to take action on any matter that would increase any budgeted line item in its tentative budget as submitted to the Court or add new line items to that budget except upon orders of the Court and until a contract settlement has been reached with PACT. 3 ~tfully submitted, \"-~4~ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar o. 78132 ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roache!!, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on December I 0, I 996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. I 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 I 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 4 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, .A..R 7220 I Richard W. Roache!! TO: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT MEMORANDUM Board of Directors 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216-8601 (501) 490-2000 THOROUGH: Bobby G. Lester, Superintendent of Schools FROM: QrJ\"'Ronnie Higgins, Director of Athletics RE: DATE: ~...l_ry Miller, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel /_j~~ly Bowles, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Assistant Coach Allocations November 12, 1996 Renresentative senior high principals, girls basketball coaches, and boys basketball coaches met with us on October 27, 1996 to discuss perceived inequities in the allocation of assistant coaches. After reviewing the District's current regulations on the number of coaches assigned to each sport and Title IX guidelines, we make the following recommendation. In an effort to provide for equitable allocation of assistant coaching staff, we recommend that the Board approve an allocation formula which requires an assistant coach in boys basketball, girls basketball, baseball, softball, volleyball, boys track, and girls track when there are twenty (20) student participants. If a team has twenty (20) participants at the end of a athletic season, the assistant coach allocation will be implemented for the following school year. Teams with less than twenty (20) participants will lose the assistant coach allocation until such time as the number of participants reaches twenty (20) participants. The determination of twenty (20) participants will be made by the coach of that particular sport and approved by the secondary principal who will submit recommendations for coaching allocations to the Director of Athletics and Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Services. When it is determined that the number of participants has fallen below twenty (20) participants, it shall be the responsibility of each principal to notify the Director of Athletics and the Director of Certified Personnel by April 20. If approved by the Board, this allocation is projected to increase the budget by approximately $9,000 for the 1996-97 school year and an additional $30,000 for the 1997-98 school year. - - i ! !/ i i I I ,J I :/ I ' I i I i ' ' I ! !I I/ ! I ,! ' ;I 1996 - 1997 PCSSD FINANCIAL REPORT \"BUDGET AMOUNTS\" T ; =--=-\"= =- -=.,=-= ==-=---c ~-==- __ ;---- --- -- -- DATE UY\"\"Fiti~fltt Rfrv~I I I I I I FUND I I . Fund 1000 j Fund I ~ Fund 2000 2900 1 GRANO TOT AL .J ,j ~ I I .l j I 7/31/96 :1 8/31 /96 ,, I 9/12/96 I 51051512 51710451 51253200 ;/ 95852533 ~1400885~ 1035185 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1630","title":"Court filings concerning PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South junior high schools, cross-district teacher retirement and employee health insurance issues, PCSSD strike issue, LRSD fourth quarter status report, and ODM budget concerns","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":["1996-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Jacksonville South Junior High School (Jacksonville, Ark.)","Jacksonville North Junior High School (Jacksonville, Ark.)","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Joshua Intervenors","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education, Secondary","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School employees","School districts","Teachers","Employee rights","Retirement","Insurance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South junior high schools, cross-district teacher retirement and employee health insurance issues, PCSSD strike issue, LRSD fourth quarter status report, and ODM budget concerns"],"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/1630"],"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":["124 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Court of Appeals, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South (junior high schools),District Court, two orders; District Court, pre-trial brief of Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) on teacher retirement and employee health insurance issues; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) prehearing brief; District Court, three orders; District Court, response of Joshua intervenors to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South (junior high schools); Court of Appeals, amended certificate of service; District Court, order; District Court, response to the motion of the Joshua intervenors for reconsideration regarding the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, brief in response to the motion of the Joshua intervenors for reconsideration regarding the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) fourth quarter status report addendum program planning and budgeting document for desegregation progress; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1996-97 first quarter status report program planning and budgeting document for desegregation programs; District Court, motion for summary judgment by the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); District Court, brief in support of Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching; District Court, statement of material and undisputed facts with respect to the LRSD, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching; District Court, affidavit of Donald M. Stewart; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua motion to request Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, notice of filing, LRSD November program planning and budgeting tool; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) objection to proposed Office of Desegregation Monitoring budget; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to response of Joshua intervenors to PCSSD's motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South (junior high schools)  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT  HAEL E. GANS lerk of Court U.S. COURT \u0026 CUSTOM HOUSE 1114 MARKET STREET ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63101 VOICE (314) 539-3600 AB!S (B00I 652-B671 http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/8th.cir November 6, 1996 Mr. Christopher John Heller FRIDAY \u0026 ELDREDGE 2000 First Commercial Building 400 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEVE NOV 8 ,996 t Desegregation Monl\\on,1~ O!Me o ~- ~ ---- Re: 96-2047EALR L.R. School Dist. vs. Servicemaster Manag. Dear Counsel: Enclosed is a copy of an order entered today in the above case. jmh Enclosures cc: Joseph Steven Mowery John C. Everett Samuel Arnold Perroni William Henry Trice III Richard Wilson Roachell John W. Walker Norman J. Chachkin Philip K. Lyon M. Samuel Jones III Nelwyn L. Davis Tim C. Humphries Office of Deseg. Monitor Horace A. Walker Perlestra Hollingsworth Kenne~h G. Torrence Otis Henry Storey Petre's Stenograph Jim McCormack District Court Case Number: 82-CV-866 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2047EALR L. R. School District, Appellant, v. Servicemaster Management, et al., Appellees.          Appeal from the United States District Com:t for the Eastern District of Arkansas Upon review of the notice of appeal and appellant's opening brief, this Court has determined that this appeal was mistakenly captioned. The Clerk is directed to correct the case caption and provide the parties with a new service list. Appellant's counsel is directed to serve his opening brief upon those parties not previously served within seven days of the date of this order and provide the com:t with proof of service. Those appellees who have not previously filed responsive briefs may have to and including December 11, 1996 to file their briefs. Appellant's supplemental reply brief shall be due on or before December 27, 1996. November 6, 1996 Ordev:tc:r:J\"~~ Rule 27;)  Clerk, U.S. Court of~s, Eighth Circuit Novembez 5, 1996 Case Numbez: 96-2047 Distzict Couzt/Agency Case Numbez(s): 82-CV-866 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIS'TRICT; Plaintiff - Appellant LORENE JOSHUA; Intezvenoz Plaintiff - Appellee SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES; Intezvenoz below - Appellee ANNE MITCHELL ; BOB MOORE; PAT GEE; PAT RAYBURN; MARY J . GAGE; NORTH LITTLE ROCK CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION; PULASKI ASSOCIATION OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS; LITTLE ROCK CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION; ALEXA ARMS'TRONG; KARLOS ARMS'TRONG; 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 Intezvenoz Plaintiffs - Appellees V. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT; LEON BARNES; SHERYL DUNN; MAC FAULKNER; RICHARD A. GIDDINGS; MARIANNE GOSSER; DON HINDMAN; SHIRLEY LOWERY; BOB LYON; GEORGE A. MCCRARY; BOB MOORE; STEVE MORLEY; BUDDY RAINES; DAVID SAIN; BOB STENDER; DALE WARD; JOHN WARD; JUDY WEAR; GRAINGER WILLIAMS; PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DIS'TRICT; STATE OF ARKANSAS; Defendants - Appellees OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR; Claimant - Appellee HORACE A. WALKER; P.A. HOLLINGSWORTH; KENNETH G. TORRENCE; PHILIP E. KAPLAN; JANET PULLIAM; JOHN BILHEIMER Movant - Appellees DALE CHARLES ; ROBERT L . BROWN, SR. ; GWEN HEVEY .J:ACKSON; DIANE DAVIS; RAYMOND FRAZIER Plaintiffs - Appellees - V. PULASKI COUNfY BOARD OF EDUCATION; 0. G. JACOYELLI, Individually and as President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District; PATRICIA GEE, Individually and in her official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock Schood District, A Public Body; DR. GEORGE CANNON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; JOHN f-OORE, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; DORSEY JACKSON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; W. D. HAMILTON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; CECIL BAILEY, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a Public Corporate; 11-IOMAS BROUGJITON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a Public Corporate; DR. MARTIN ZDLDESSY, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a Public Corporate Defendants - Appellees November 5, 1996 jmh 96-2047 L.R. School Dist. v. Servicemaster Manag. Mr. Christopher John Heller FRIDAY \u0026 ELDREDGE 2000 First Commercial Building 400 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Joseph Steven Mowery GIROIR \u0026 GREGORY Suite 1900 111 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Everett EVERETT \u0026 STILLS P.O. Box 1646 3822 N. Parkview Drive Fayetteville, AR 72702 Mr. Samuel Arnold Perroni THE PERRONI LAW FIRM, P.A. 801 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201-2103 Mr. William Henry Trice III HOWELL \u0026 PRICE 211 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Wilson Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREETT Suite 504 401 w. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.C. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Norman J. Chachkin NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 16th Floor 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013 Mr. Philip K. Lyon JACK \u0026 LYON 3400 TCBY Building 425 w. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT \u0026 LINDSEY 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Mr. Nelwyn Leone Davis PULASKI COUN1Y ATTORNEY Suite 400 201 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim C. Humphries ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 Office 0 Desegregation Monitor 510 Heritage West Building 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72204 Mr. Horace A. Walker Second \u0026 Center Streets 518 Pyramid Place Little Rock, AR 72203-1448 Mr. Perlesta Arthur Hollingsworth HOLLINGSWORIB LAW FIRM 415 Main Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Kenneth G. Torrence 1721 Abigail Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Mr. Otis Henry Storey HOOVER \u0026 STOREY Suite 1100 111 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Petre's Stenograph Court Reporter PETRE S1ENOGRAPH SERVICE 207 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Jim McCormack Clerk U.S. DIS'IRICT COURT, EASTERN ARKANSAS Room 402 600 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 . . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. NOV 1 :5 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS Office 01 Deseg;s9aton Monilcrina IJ\\iTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION TO ENLARGE JACKSONVILLE NORTH AND SOUTH The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. The PCSSD presently operates Jacksonville North Junior High School and Jacksonville South Junior High School. By order dated March 27, 1996, this Court approved the conversion of one of these junior high schools to be operated as a middle school housing grades six and seven and the other as a junior high school housing grades eight and nine. 2. After having gone through the appropriate public forum process, the PCSSD has determined to operate Jacksonville North as the middle school and Jacksonville South as the junior high school. 3. This reorganization adds grade six to the middle school and therefore necessarily substantially increases the number of seats necessary to house all of the students in the t wo reconfigured schools. Because of this, the PCS SD seeks the permission of this Court to add eight ,classrooms at Jacksonville South and three classrooms to what is presently Jacksonville North. 4. Any impacts upon the residual racial balance in the two reconfigured schools will be positive. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for a further order of this Court authorizing the construction of these classrooms for the 1997-1998 school year. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By_-\u003e\u003c------'-\"\"?\"'\"\"9-..=-:.------'--\"-~=---J,,c=-\u003e------- M. A 76060) a ski County ict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On November / 2--, 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 - IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPEC1AL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * NOV 1 i 1996 Office of Desegregalion Monuormg FilcD U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN Di STRICT ARKANSAS ;mv 1 21996 * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET.AL., * JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK Bv:Q'.7.w~ '- ~EPCLERK * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRDER Pending before the Court are several motions filed by the parties concerning the effect of the State's new funding formula on the Settlement Agreement. See docket entries 2668, 2685, 2690, 2695, 2715, and 2737. Also before the Court are the State's Motions to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Abstention [docket entries 2713 \u0026 2771] and a Motion to Intervene by a number of school districts in the state [docket entry 2715]. The Court has determined that a conference with the parties and movants would be useful in determining the status of the issues involved and the Court's alternatives in dealing with the matter. For example, the Court believes it might be helpful to determine whether the issues of teacher retirement and employee insurance can be addressed without awaiting resolution of the Lakeview case. This will not be an evidentiary hearing. Therefore, the Court will hold a conference on Tuesday, November 19, 1996, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 3C (#305) of the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse Building. SO ORDERED this 12th day of November 1996. 2 NOV 1 5 1996 iWV 1 4 1996 Office of Desegregation M9nitormg IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEP CLERK , C, .....,_ :;,..-, . - - ..., . --~- -~---~ ..... ....... 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 The Court has received the proposed 1996-97 budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. See attached letter and budget document. The parties may file any objections to the proposed budget within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of en try of this Order. Af7\\ DATED this _11__ day of November 1996. --uNITErfST A TES DIST rH!S cocu:\u003c:F ,:: ;- :- - -J c; J '.),.::-.. : :\u003cET SHEET IN CC.,MPLIANCE w, l h nULE S8 Ai-JC/OR 79 (a) FRCP ~ ON II ( I 1 ( 9 fp 8Y 1C - ._ Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor November 13, 1996 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax {501) 371-0100 The 1996-97 budget for ODM is attached for the parties' review and your approval. . TI1e format of our 1996-97 budget follows that of previous years, including annotation to explain revenue calculations, budget category definitions, 1995-96 budgeted and actual expenses by category, and the amount budgeted for each area in 1996-97. Most of the ODM expenditure categories for this year are budgeted comparably to last year. Any salary increases for ODM staff are 3.29%, which is the prevailing annual experience step increase on the three districts' salary scales. Again this year, I have chosen not to accept an increase in salary. You will note a marked increase in the Benefits category, due to the changes in the State's method of handling health insurance premiums and teacher retirement. These changes have similarly effected all three Pulaski County school districts, constituting a significant growth in this budget area. We have contained 1995-96 expenditures such that they were below the projected budget; once again, we have credited that difference proportionately to each of the school districts' pro rated contribution to our 1996-97 budget. If you or the parties should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: All Counsel OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION 1996-97 BUDGET REVENUE 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET State of Arkansas 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 LASO 154,276.00 154,276.00 223,889.00 Credit (see note below) 44,455.00 44,455 .00 19,197.00 NLRSD 55,510.00 55 ,510.00 80,121.00 Credi1 (see note below) 15,995.00 15,995.00 6,870.00 PCSSD 125,014.00 125,014.00 184,831 .00 Credit (see note below) 36,023.00 36,023.00 15,848.00 Interest 6,123.96 Total Revenue 631 273.00 637,396.96 730756.00 Note: Every budget cycle, ODM credits each distnct a pro rata proportion of the unspent amount of the previous year's budget. We apply this amount toward the current budget allocation. See Annotated 1996-97 Budget. EXPENDITURES 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET Communications 7,870.00 7,641 .69 7,870.00 Dues and Fees 2,700.00 3,205.00 3,300.00 Eouipment 10,614.00 10,444.08 14,159.00 Food Services 250.00 204.98 250.00 Manaoement Services 3,000.00 292.50 3,000.00 Periodicals 500.00 453.84 500.00 Printino and Bindino 10,340.00 5,077.59 6,000.00 Prof. and Tech. Services 28,497.00 22,614.15 28,497.00 Rent 46,204.00 46,204.00 48,417.00 Repairs and Maintenance 1,231 .00 1,414.93 1,500.00 Resource Library 1,000.00 372.11 500.00 Salaries 444,854.00 425,981.98 468,904.00 Benefits 49 ,613.00 44,770.84 120,109.00 Staff Development 1,000.00 1,007.00 1,000.00 Supplies 7,750 .00 7,552.84 7,750 .00 Travel 15,850.00 18,244.12 19,000.00 Total Expenditures 631,273.00 595,481 .65 730,756.00 ANNOTATED ODM 1996-97 BUDGET REYE UE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Coop) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis ... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ... 10/1/95 % of Total 1996-97 Budget 1995-96 Credit 1996-97 Budget Enrollment Enrollment Allocation /Budget not spent) Payment LRSD 24.876 45.80 243,086.00 19.197.00 223.889.00 NLRSD 8.901 16.39 86,991 .00 6,870.00 80,121 .00 PCSSO 20.534 37.81 200.679.00 15,848.00 184,831.00 State of AR -0- -0- 200.000.00 -0- 200,000.00 Total 54,311 100.00 730,756.00 41 ,915.00 688,841.00 Step-by-step process used to determine districts' contributions to ODM 1995-96 budget: I. The State of Arkansas' contribution is subtracted from OD M's total budget: 730,756.00 200,000.00 530,756.00 2. Based on the previous year's October I enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the State's contribution): LRSD 530,756.00 X 45.80 243,086.25 NLRSD 530,756.00 X 16.39 86,990.91 PCSSD 530,756.00 X 37.81 200,678.84 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share of OD M's unspent 1995-96 budget: LRSD 243,086.25 -19,197.21 223,889.04 NLRSD 86,990.91 -6,869.92 . 80,120 .99 PCSSD 200,678.84 -15,848.18 184,830.66 4. Each district will contribute these amounts to ODM's 1996-97 budget: LRSD 223,889.00 NLRSD 80,121 .00 PCSSD 184,831 .00 Page 2 - EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or information. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. 1995-96 Budget 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Expenditures Amount 7.870.00 7,641 .69 7,870.00 Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided, such as conference registration fees. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budqet Expenditures Amount 2,700.00 3,205.00 3,300.00 The bulk of the 1995-96 expenditures were for seminar and conference registration fees; membership renewals were for $510.00, including membership fees of $250.00 for joining the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budqet Expenditures Amount 10.614.00 10,444.08 14,159.00 We will upgrade our computer hardware by replacing six computers which are out-dated, overloaded, and repeatedly breaking down, resulting in extensive down time, lost data, and repair expense. We will also replace a thermo-paper fax with a plain paper fax. We will add a color copier to help trim out-of-office copying expenses. Page 3 Food Services: Expenditures for food or preparation and serving of food, which may include catering. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Expenditures Amount 250.00 204.98 250.00 Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Expenditures Amount 3.000.00 292.50 3,000.00 Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals of less than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budget Expenditures Amount 500.00 453.84 500.00 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job pnntmg and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Expenditures Amount 10,340.00 5,077.59 6,000 .00 With last year's purchase of the Duplicating Management Program (DMP) and this year's purchase of a color copier, we will be able to do most printing in-house. The above budget is the annual cost of the DMP ($4,994.36) plus $1,000.00 for printing we cannot do in-house, such as letterhead and - envelopes. Page 4 Professional and Technical Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 1995-96 1995-96 Budoet Exoenditures 28,497.00 22,614.15 Arkansas Financial Services Temporary help/specialized services 1996-97 Budgeted Amount 28,497.00 23,497.00 5 000.00 28,497.00 The 1995-96 expenditures covered the services of three expert witnesses, a computer technologist, and additional office and administrative help. To date, ODM has not needed Arkansas Financial Services (AFS) to complete the terms of a previous agreement. However, because services ultimately may be required, we are electing to maintain the AFS agreement and, thus, have budgeted an allotment for AFS. Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Exoenditures Amount 46,204 00 46 204.00 48 .417.00 According to the lease agreement negotiated in 1995, the 1996-97 rent will increase 4.7%. Repairs and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budget Expendilures Amounl 1,231 00 141493 1.500 00 Page 5 Resource Library: Expenditures for regular or incidental purchases of library books available for general use. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budqet Expenditures Amount 1.00000 372.11 500.00 Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budqet Expenditures Amount 444 854 .00 425 .981 98 468,904 00 Most of the salary changes between 1995-96 and 1996-97 reflect a 3.29% increase, which is comparable to the annual step increase in the three Pulaski County school districts. Exceptions are noted below: Salaries: I Name of Emeloyee I 1995-96 Salary I 1996-97 Sala!}'. Ann Brown 1 104,1 64.00 Melissa Guldin 2 44.042.00 Gene Jones 3 33,031 .00 Norman Marshall 55,052.00 Marcie Powell 55,052.00 Horace Smith 55,052.00 Research Associate 4 26,000.00 Pollv Ramer 41,323.00 Linda Brvant 22,915.00 Jackie Banks 5 8,223.00 Total 444,854.00 1 Ann Brown declined to accept a salary increase for 1996-97. 2Melissa Guldin works 4/5 time. 104.1 64.00 45.490.00 47.815.00 56.863.00 56,863.00 56,863.00 26.000.00 42.683.00 23.669.00 8,494.00 468.904.00 I 3During 1995-96, Gene Jones increased his work time from 3/5 to 4/5 time. Therefore, his annual salary increased to $45,925.60, which included Gene's election to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits. 4Position not filled. 5Jackie Banks works 25 hours per week. Page 6 Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid in behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but arc over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Expenditures Amount 49.613.00 44.770 84 120,1 09.00 Below is a breakdown by category of each employee's budgeted fringe benefits: Name Travel Social Hospital- Lile Dental Hospital Short Retire- Total Allowance Securitv ization Ins. lndemnitv Term ment Benefits Brown 1,800.00 5.423.88 1,968.00 44.1 6 188.64 60.96 62.88 12.715.68 22.264.20 Guldin 1.200.00 3,571 .79 1,968.00 44.1 6 188.64 60.96 62.88 5,602.80 12.699.23 Jones 960.00 3.731 .29 5,853.00 10.544.29 Marshall 1.200.00 4.441 .82 1,968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 6,967.56 14,934.02 Powell 1,200.00 4 441 .82 1,968.00 44 16 188.64 60.96 62.88 6,967.56 14,934.02 Smith 1.200.00 4.441 .82 1,968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 6.967.56 14,934.02 Research 600.00 2.034.90 1,968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 3,192.00 8,1 51 .54 Ramer 3.265.25 1.968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 5,121 .96 10.n1.85 Brvant 1.810.68 1,968.00 27.60 188.64 60.96 62.88 2.840.28 6.959.04 Banks 649.79 1,968.00 27.60 188.64 60.96 62.88 1.019.28 3.977 15 Total 8.1 60.00 33.813.04 17,712.00 364.32 1.697 76 548.64 565.92 57,247.68 120.109.36 The following changes have occurred since the 1995-96 budget year, and are reflected above in the 1996-97 budget figures:  The State of Arkansas shifted the burden of the expense for health insurance from state funds to the employer, causing hospitalization to increase 227% per employee, from $50. l 0 per month in 1995-96 to $164.00 per month in 1996-97.  Long-term disability (workman's comp) is no longer available as an employee benefit.  Short-term disability increased 7%, from $4.90 per month in 1995-96 to $5.24 per month in 1996-97.  The State of Arkansas shifted the total expense of teacher retirement from state funds to the employer. causing an additional 12% expenditure.  Jackie Banks increased her working hours to 25 per week and, therefore, is now eligible to receive benefits.  Gene Jones again elected to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits. Page 7 Staff Development: Services performed by persons qualified to assist in enhancing the quality of the operation. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Exoenditures Amount 1 00000 1,00700 1 000.00 Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out. or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Exoenditures Amount 7,750.00 7,552.84 7,750.00 Travel: Expenditure for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Exoenditures Amount 15,850.00 18.244.12 19,000.00 The 1995-96 expenditures exceeded the budget as a result of the travel expenses for the three expert witnesses called by Judge Susan Webber Wright. The 1996-97 budget reflects the potential for additional expert witnesses to be called on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors. Page 8 ~ . J l . .:-: i~) us c,~rr;r ~T ~._11,.'.iT ~A~--: i  r . ~7 ...._,~;,.J,''f1.S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOV 1 8 1996 fL'-11) - Dffice of Dosegrega!Jon ;'w.in:il'Jiin~ DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS r. PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DY~TRICT, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AND NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ON TEACHER RETIREMENT AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE ISSUES Introduction In its most recent decision concerning the responsibilities of State of Arkansas pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, this court said: \"The state of Arkansas needs to focus on its obligation in the settlement to give the Pulaski County school districts special consideration to enable these districts to meet their numerous and burdensome obligations under the settlement. The court reminds the state of the Eighth Circuit's specific findings about the state's complicated and lengthy history of promotion of unconstitutional racial segregation which has led to this interminable litigation.\" Memorandum and Order, January 13, 1995, p. 16. Following a ~ulaski County chancery court determination that the Arkansas school finance system was unconstitutional, the state adopted the \"Equitable School Finance System Act of 1995.\" Ark. Code Ann. 6-20- 301 rt seq. Under the new finance system, Arkansas school districts are required to fund certain programs which were previously funded by the state, including teacher retirement and health insurance. The state funds which were previously used to pay the full cost of each Arkansas school district's teacher retirement and employee health insurance obligations are now distributed through the new formula which pays districts according to their average daily membership. As a result, there exists a huge gap between the Pulaski County districts and the rest of the state with respect to the proportion of state funding for teacher retirement and employee heal th insurance. As with the recently decided workers' compensation issue, \"[t]his disparity arose because the state's formula used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d. 1013, 1018 (8th Cir. 1996). The Pulaski County districts' claims for fair treatment with respect to state funding of teacher retirement and employee health insurance are no different than their recent successful claims for a proportional share of workers' compensation funding. The state must distribute funds \"to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" Id. 2 II. Teacher Retirement contribution The state budgeted $134,500,000 to fund teacher retirement for the 1996-97 school year. This money was distributed through the new funding formula according to average daily membership, which bears no rational relationship to a particular district's costs for teacher retirement. As a result, the percentage of actual teacher retirement contributions funded statewide excluding Pulaski County is 102. 89 percent. See Exhibit 1. The average funding in the Pulaski County school districts is 74.66 percent. LRSD receives only 68.57 percent of the cost of its teacher retirement contributions. PCSSD and NLRSD receive only 78.89 percent and 82.94 percent respectively of their cost of teacher retirement contributions. In a recent case squarely on point concerning state distribution of funding for workers' compensation insurance, this court refused to allow the Pulas "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1665","title":"Court filings concerning Joshua intervenor's fee petition of November 1995, LRSD's motion to terminate the court's jurisdiction, PCSSD teacher strike issue, and LRSD program and budget tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-10"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Arkansas. Department of Education","School management and organization","School employees","School districts","Education and state","Lawyers","Teachers","Employee rights","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Joshua intervenor's fee petition of November 1995, LRSD's motion to terminate the court's jurisdiction, PCSSD teacher strike issue, and LRSD program and budget tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1665"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["13 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) witness list; District Court, order; Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, substituted motion to intervene by the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, substituted claim in intervention of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); District Court, motion for reconsideration; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for reconsideration; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, motion of the Joshua intervenors for reconsideration concerning their fee petition of November 1995; District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors in support of their motion for reconsideration regarding their fee petition; District Court, motion for an extension of time to respond to Joshua's September 1996 motion for an award of attorneys' fees; District Court, opposition of the Joshua intervenors to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for reconsideration of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to terminate the court's jurisdiction; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply and memorandum brief in support of its reply to motion of the Joshua intervenors for reconsideration concerning their fee petition of November 1995; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for reconsideration regarding the teacher strike issue; District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of their motion for reconsideration regarding the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, order; District Court, response of the Joshua intervenors to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) extension request regarding Joshua intervenors' fee petition of October 1996; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) October program planning and budgeting tool FY 1998; District Court, motion to request Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, C:CT O 11996 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 OCi J 1996 Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee for approval of the interdistrict magnet school budget for the 1996-97 school year. The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court in a letter dated September 12, 1996 [attached]. Any objections to this request must be filed on or before October 15, 1996. 5t IT IS SO ORDERED this / day of October 1996. \u003e n1~~~ \\~ TSDIRICJUDGE rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 56 ANO/OR 79(a)FRCP ON I0/1196 BY vs:: \\ i 282 9 Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Direcior September 12, 1996 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Dear Judge Wright: RECEIVED sus.~ER.s OF B=RWRrGrrr SEP 1 7 1996 U. S. DISTRICT Jl.JDGE (501) 758-0156 In a letter dated June 24, 1996, the Magnet Review Comfnittee submitted the 1996-97 interdistrict magnet schools' budget (labeled Draft 4) in the amount of $16,961,535 for your approval. The total amount budgeted was based on a per-pupil expenditure of $4,660 per student and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,639.7 students. This budget submittal also showed an increase of $597 .00 per student over the 1995-96 budget, with the first year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. Draft 4 of the interdistrict magnet schools' budget, however, did not reflect any results of salary negotiations which were in progress. Salary negotiations have now been completed, and Draft 5 of the interdistrict magnet schools' budget is attached herewith. Draft 5 includes the revised salary figures and fringe benefits, as well as the first year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan. These factors have resulted in an upward adjustment for tne 1996-97 budget from $4,660 per-pupil expenditure to $4,782, an increase of $122.00 per student from Draft 4 submitted to you on June 24, 1996, and a resulting overall increase of $719 .00 per student over the 199 5-96 budget. The total revised budget amount for the 1996-97 interdistrict magnet schools' budget is now $17,361,466. The Magnet Review Committee approved this revised budget (Draft 5) during its regular meeting on September l 0, 1996. The MRC now respectfully requests your approval. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. One of our primary goals is to ensure efficient and effective cost containment while continuing to deliver attractive instructional programs. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise prudent oversight of the magnet schools' budget. !. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- September 12, 1996 Thank you for your consideration and response to this important matter. Sincerely, l~~ Magnet Review Committee ATTACHMENT: CC: 1996-97 lnterdistrict Magnet Schools' Budget (Approved Draft 5) Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM , 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6 0 S337,925 6 0 S352 057 60 S3625'2 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10 0 S498.372 10 0 S475 200 10 0 S464 55i 03 Spec1alIsts 39 2 S1 262,967 39.2 $1 ,261 .287 39 2 S1 .327 018 04 Counselors 12.4 $418.344 12.4 S476,775 12 4 S485.416 05 Media Spec. 6.5 S232.294 6 5 $237 .118 65 S246 812 06 Art-Pert/Prod. 00 $0 0.0 so 1 0 S33 000 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 08 Foreign Lano. 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 09 Vocat ional 12.6 S408. 793 12.6 $410,775 12 6 S410 213 10 Special Education 7.7 $303,215 8 2 $291 732 82 S277 703 11 Gifted 54 S197.313 54 $193,626 54 $199 281 12 Classroom 175 9 S5 544 709 176 9 S5. 770 069 177 9 S5 929 2;-5 13 Substitutes 0.0 S141 .654 co S162 174 00 S154 99C 14 Other-K1nderqarten 14.0 S430.419 14 0 S470.419 14 0 S493 279 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 289 7 S9 776.005 291 2 S10 101 232 293 2 S10 384 452 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 19 0 S331 .216 20 0 S360 466 20 0 S345 , ~ STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 S153,060 54 $159 275 54 S167 347 17 Custodians 28.5 S351 .307 29 0 S361 256 29 0 S394 758 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 SC 00 so 00 SC 19 Para professionals-Other 60 S130.786 60 S126 778 60 S147 035 20 Other-Aides 37 0 S269 245 37 0 S294 451 37 0 S305 326 21 Fringe 8enef1ts (20) xxxxxxxx S1 221 .133 S1 261 .!44 xxxxxxxx S3 207 241 TOT AL SUPPORT SAL.ARY 95 9 S2.456.748. 97 4 S2 563 571 97 4 S4 567 425 TOTAL (10-20) XXXXJO()O( S12 232.753 S12.664 903 xxxxxxxx S1.! 951 a:-s PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es x:xxxxxxx S529.201 $583 967 xxxxxxxx S5.91 944 SERVICES 23 Travel lOOOOOOO( S28.648 S44 557 xxxx:xxxx S33 .600 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOOO( so so xxxxxxxx SB 15J 25 Other lOOOOOOO( S125.316 S63 614 xxxx:xxxx S75 97  TOTAL (30) lOOOOOOO( S683.165 $692,137 S710 265 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office xxxxxxxx so so S3 600 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxxx S353.697 y S336 537 S373 203 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxxx $38,223 S47 864 S29 65J 29 Other $17,581 S21 , 103 $28 476 TOTAL (40) S409 501 y S405 .503 S434.929 CAPITAL 30 Equipment )()()00000( S122.540 S98 368 xxxxxx:xx S351 816 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair etc. xxxxxxxx so so xxxx:xxxx S5.500 (50) 32 Other lOOOOOOO( $0 y yy so S35C TOTAL (50) $122.540 y S98 368 xxxxxxxx S357 566 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )()()00000( $13,975 S15994 xxxxxxxx s~ .. 54.; (60) 34 other )()()00000( so so xxxxxxxx S~ I TOTAL (60) lOOOOOOO( S13.975 S16 994 xxxx:xxxx S11 64.! I TOTAL (30-601 )()()00000( S1 ,229, 181 $1 213 802 xxxx:xxxx S1 514 5:;.; I TOTAL (10-60 ) 385 6 S 13.461 ,934 388 6 $13 877 905 390 6 S16.466 382 TOTAL LINE ITEMS {SECOND PAGE) $816,096 S874 401 S895 064 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $14,278,030 xxxxxx $14,752,306 xxxxxx $17,361.466 Line Item Costs  Actual Actual Budaet 1994-95 1995-96 1996 -97 Stipends S 18 594 S20 833 S68 323 Other Ob1ects $0 so so Indirect Costs St35.687 S769 926 s-11 251 Vocational $15 065 $31 996 S32.000 Athletics $25 586 S30 952 S32 .000 Gifted Proqrams $498 S377 S500 Plant Services $17,460 $15 000 S 15.000 Read1nq S188 S417 $500 Science $0 so so Enol1sh $500 S900 S1 500 Special Education S2.518 S3 999 S4 000 xxxxxx $0 so so xxxxxx so so so xxxxxx so so so Total Line Items S816.096 $874 401 S895 064 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 3,522.80 3,630.89 3 630.89 Total r::osts $14.278,030 $14,752.306 $17 361 ,466 Per Pupil Cost $4,053 $4,063 $4,782 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94.95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Booker Magnet School . F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 $56,095 1 0 $57 ,267 1 0 S59 663 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $52,333 1 0 S41 ,994 1 0 S40,672 03 Specialists 7.0 $217,496 7.0 $254,408 7 0 S261 ,827 04 Counselors 2.0 S67,432 20 $70,167 2.0 S,3 553 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,190 1.0 S39 000 1 0 S39.960 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 00 so 1.0 S33 000 07 MUSIC 00 $0 0.0 so 00 so 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 00 so 00 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 10 Special Education 1.3 $51,870 1.3 $52,948 1 3 S34 ,055 11 Gifted 1.0 $37,221 1.0 $38,031 1.0 S38,946 12 Cla ssroom 30.2 $965,196 30 2 S1 ,016,033 30.2 S1 031 ,056 13 Substitutes 0.0 $25,235 0.0 $16,708 00 S20 COO 14 Other-Kindergarten 40 $126,536 4 0 $127935 4 0 S134 40C TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1 .637,604 48.5 S1,714 .490 49 5 S1 767 31 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31 ,932 20 $32 915 20 S33 -23 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $28.104 1 0 S30. 747 1 0 S30 :'25 17 Custodians 40 $50 716 4.0 S45.217 4 0 S53 110 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 so 00 so 00 so 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 00 so 00 so 00 so 20 Other-Aides 70 S55,860 70 $64 468 7 0 S62.894 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx:x S199,799 $209,864 S528.136 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14 0 $366.411 14 0 -$383,212 14.0 $708 596 TOTAL (10-20) . S2,004 016 $2.097 701 $2,475 727 .I PURCHASED 22 Ut!l1t1es $66.393  $77,731 $78 070 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxx:x S3.817 $6 721 S5 000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aoreements xxxxxxxx 25 Other xxxxxxxx $10.475 S4 657 S2 780 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx:x S80 685 S89 108 S85 35C MATERIALS, 26 Princ1pa l's Office XlOOCOOO( xxxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Reaular Classroom XlOOCOOO( $48 677 $19 417 xxxxxxxx 342 J,9 (40) 28 Media XlOOCOOO( so S5 922 S6 sc 29 Other xxx:xxxxx S3 218 xxxxxxxx S3 518 S4 205 TOTAL (40) xxx:xxxxx $51 ,895 - S28 35- xxxxxxxx ~52 ~3! CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxx:xxxxx $15 651 S5.581 S4t Q\" I OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1nq Repair, etc. S2 500 (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $15.651 $5.581 S46 .921 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $0 $245 $250 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $0 $245 S250 TOTAL (30-60) $148,231 $123.791 $185455 TOTAL (10-60) 62.5 $2,152,247 62.5 $2,221 492 63 5 $2,661 182 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) S130,151 $134 187 S142998 GRAND TOTAL XlOCXXX $2,282,398 xxxxxx $2,355,680 xxxxxx $2,804,180 Line Item Costs  Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Stipends $2,550 $7,428 S20.733 Other Objects Indirect Costs $117.710 $123,189 S118,602 Vocational $2,410 so so Athletics $4,094 50 so Gifted Programs $80 5117 $155 Plant Services $2,794 S2.550 S2.505 Reading $30 571 $84 Science 50 so so English $80 S153 $251 Special Education S403 S680 S668 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $130 151 5134 187 s~2 998 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 19%-97 3rd Qtr ADM or Pro1 559 60 594 05 594 05 Total Costs S2 282.398 $2 355 680 $2804,180 Per Pupil Cost $4,079 $3,965 $4,720 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Carver Magnet School . F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budoet CERTIFIED 01 Pr1nc1pal 1.0 $49,673 1.0 S53,423 1 0 S55 761 STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 1 0 $39,816 1.0 $41,602 1.0 S43 871 03 Specialists 8 0 S287,352 8.0 $238,979 80 S262.515 04 Counselors 20 $63,337 20 S65,001 20 S68.259 05 Media Spec 1 5 $48,897 1 5 $50 145 1 5 S52 230 06 Art-Pert /Prod 00 $0 00 $0 00 so 07 Music 00 so 00 so 00 so 08 Fore1qn Lano 00 $0 0.0 so 00 so 09 Vocational 00 $0 00 so 00 so 10 Special Education 1 0 $45,076 1 5 S46.511 1 5 S48 9G1 11 Gifted 1.4 $52,136 1 4 $45.188 1 4 S57 800 12 Classroom 24 3 S630 244 24 3 S683,406 24 3 S707 479 13 Substitutes 0.0 $23,223 0.0 S36.998 00 S17.150 14 Other-K1nderQarten 4 0 S88 ,097 4 0 S121 858 40 S131 099 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44 2 S1,327 849 44 7 S1 383 111 .!4 7 S1445C64 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 S47,887 3 0 S47.543 30 ss 1 ce2 STAFF 16 Nurses 1 0 S31,806 1 0 S30,330 1 0 S34 275 17 Custodians 4 0 S41 ,564 40 S43,474 4 0 S45 328 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 0.0 so 00 so 00 SC 19 Pa raprofess1onals-Other 0.0 so 00 so 00 S:J 20 Other-Aides 11 0 $89,247 11 0 S91 .044 11.0 S94 342 21 Fnnqe Benefits(20) XXXX)O()O( S177,960 S185 651 S4 75.080 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $388,465 19.0 S398,042 19 0 S700 945 TOTAL (10-20) S1,716,314 S1.,781 ,153 S2, 146,009 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es $67,508 S65,064 S7.1.899 SERVICES 23 Travel $7,524 S18,594 $9 000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $14,292 $7.181 S8 591 TOTAL (30) $89.324 S90.839 S89 490 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office XXXX)O()O( SUPPLIES 27 ReQular Classroom XXXX)O()O( S66 .365 S60 846 S68 OCO (40) 28 Media XXXX)O()O( $1 ,039 S11 530 S2 000 29 Other S3, 113 S3 942 xxxxxxxx S3 .500 TOTAL (40) XXXX)O()O( S?0,517 S76 318 xxxxxxxx S73,500 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXXX)O()O( $14,917 $6,070 xxxxxxxx S56.240 OUTLAY 31 Bulld1nq Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other XXXX)O()O( TOTAL (50) $14,917 S6 070 S56.240 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $6,495 S6,863 S3,000 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $6,495 $6 ,863 S3 .000 TOTAL (30-60 ) S181 .253 S180,090 S222.230 TOTAL (10-60 ) 63 2 S1 ,897 567 63 .7 S1 961 243 63 7 S2 368.239 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) S145 549 S123.660 S143 566 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $2,043,116 xxxxxx $2,084,903 xxxxxx $2,511 ,905 Line Item Co5ts - Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Stipends S9,973 S4 811 S28 990 Other Ob1ects Ind irect Costs $125,067 S115 -189 s111 189 Vocational S2.561 so so Athletics S4,350 so so Gifted Proqrams $85 S109 S145 Plant Services S2. 968 $2 400 S2 385 Reading S32 $67 S82 Science so so so English S85 S144 :5239 Special Education $428 S640 S636 xxxxxx XXJOOO( XXJOOO( Total Line Items $145549 S123 660 S143 666 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3rd Otr ADM or ProJ. 582.50 595.67 595 67 Total Costs $2,043.116 S2.084 903 S2 511 905 Per Pupil Cost $3,507 $3,500 $4,217 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94-95 94.95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Gibbs Magnet School - F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 $40,467 1.0 $46.100 1 0 $45 602 STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 1.0 $65,021 1 0 S44,974 1 0 S47 .653 03 Spec1al1sts 58 $164 ,180 5 8 $169808 5 8 $182 294 04 Counselors 1 0 $41 ,051 1.0 $41 ,861 1 0 $42,870 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $39,625 1.0 S39 140 1 0 $42,303 06 Art-Perf /Prod. 00 so 00 $0 00 so 07 Music 0.0 $0 00 $0 00 so 08 Fore1qn Lang. 0.0 $0 00 $0 00 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 00 so 10 Special Education 1 5 $71,708 1.5 $58 950 1 5 $56.132 11 Gifted 1 0 $34,567 1 0 S35 377 1.0 S24 850 12 Classroom 15 0 $423,335 15 0 S442 440 15 0 s~co 12a 13 Substitutes 00 $14 ,238 00 S9 030 00 S14.CCC 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $60,096 2 0 S6 1. ~17 2 0 S6~ ~37 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 29 3 $954 288 29 3 S949 396 29 3 s s8o -5a SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1 4 S12, 127 1 4 S19 010 1 4 S20 060 STAFF 16 Nurses 08 $10,787 0 8 S 12 958 08 S 13 702 17 Custodians 3 0 S40.155 30 $37 ,641 30 S38 323 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 so 00 so 00 SC 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 00 so 00 so 00 so 20 Other-Aides 5 6 S26,814 56 $33 864 5.6 $45 637 21 Fringe Benef1ts(20) xxxxxxxx S119,391 S119 320 S31Q,946 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 S209,274 10.8 S222.793 10.8 S428.668 TOTAL (10-20) $1 ,163,560 $1 ,172.187 XlOOOOOO( S1 ,409 436 PURCHASED 22 Util1t1es xxxxxxxx S31 .890 S35 . 783 S38 ,577 SERVICES 23 Travel $1,479 $2 527 XlOOOOOO( S2.000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aareements XlOOOOOO( S25C 25 Other $7,117 S4 255 XlOOOOOO( $2,100 TOTAL (30) $40.486 S42.565 S42.927 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office xxxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxxx S25.601 II $19 527 )0000000( $35 000 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxxx $2,305 S5 291 S3 500 29 Other $1 ,542 $1 821 $1 860 TOTAL (40) xxxxx:xxx S29,449 S26.638 S40 360 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $12,842 S11 287 $49 035 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair. etc. (50) 32 Other T )0000000( TOTAL (50) )000()()()0( S12,842 S11 287 .xxxxxxxx S49.035 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees S1 321 S1 567 )0000000( S994 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $1 ,321 S1 567 S994 TOTAL (30-60) )000()()()0( S84,098 S82 057 $133 3'6 TOTAL (10-60) 40 1 S1247658 40.1 S1 254 245 40 .1 S1 542.752 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) S55 825 $71 178 S685\" 7 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $1,303,4')3 xxxxxx $1,325,419 xxxxxx $1,611,369 Line Item Costs - Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Stipends so so so Other ObIects Indirect Costs S51 ,498 S69 :94 Sc6 -, 3 Vocational S1 055 so so Athletics S1 .791 so so Gifted Proqrams S35 S60 580 Plant Services S1 222 S' ~50 S' 3C5 Read1na S13 S33 S42 Science so so so Enql1sh S35 S81 s2s Spec1ul Education $176 S360 S348 xxxxxx )()()()00( )()()()00( Total Line Items S55 825 S71 178 S661 - Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3rd Qtr ADM or ProJ. 289 10 290 60 290 60 Total Costs S1 .303.483 $1 ,325.419 $1611 ,369 Per Pupil Cost $4,509 $4,561 $5 ,545 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT 5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96 -97 Williams Magnet School - F.T.E. Actual f .T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budciet CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 S60.896 1 0 S62. 128 1 0 $64 55 - STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 1 0 $40,205 1 0 S41 ,246 1 0 $43 238 03 Speciali sts 5 0 $184 522 5 0 S188.658 5 0 S 195 7J8 04 Coun selors 1 4 S41 ,395 1 4 S50.648 1 4 S43 362 05 Media Spec. 1 0 S29.1 17 1.0 S30, 706 1.0 $32.313 06 Art-Peri /Prod. 0.0 so 0 0 $0 00 so 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 08 Fore1Qn Lanq 00 $0 0.0 so 0 0 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 10 Special Education 1.1 $29,147 1.1 $29,957 1. 1 S42,724 11 Gifted 2.0 $73,389 2.0 $75,030 2 0 $77.685 12 Classroom 20.0 S666 653 20 0 $704 799 20 0 S711 283 13 Substitutes 0.0 S11 467 0.0 $12.190 00 S16 CCO 14 0th er-Kinderciarten 3.0 S114,639 3.0 S117,049 3 0 s;19 _9-3 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.5 S1 .251 ,430 35 5 S1 .312 .612 35 5 S1 346 993 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 26 $37,966 2 6 S41 219 26 SJ2 227 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 S35.551 1 0 S36.694 1.0 S38 t.27 17 Custodians 3 5 S46,384 4 0 S48 426 40 S54,336 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 so 00 so 0.0 so 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 00 so 0.0 so 20 Other-Aides 90 S38 036 90 S42.437 9.0 S4 7 -;-5 21 Frinae Benefits(20' xxxxxxxx S 156.998 S163,340 $422.312 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.1 $314,935 16.6 S332.115 16 6 S605.078 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxxx $1 566,365 S1 644 726 S1 ,952.071 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es xxxxxxxx S39.636 S51 988 S52, 119 SERVICES 23 Travel xxx:xxxxx $558 )()000000( $1 573 $3 -oc (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other xxxxxxxx S13 .763 S3.-66 S4 65C TOTAL (30 ) xxx:xxxxx S53 957 )()C.()()()00( S5 7. 327 S60 .:es MATERIALS, 25 Princ1pal 's Office xxx:xxxxx )()C.()()()00( SUPPLIES 27 Reaular Classroom xxx:xxxxx S54 558 S40 466 x:xxxxxxx S59 35t. (40) 28 Media xxx:xxxxx S4 034 )()00()()00( S5 163 S5,000 29 Other xxxxxxxx S1 713 S2 096 S1 366 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxxx S60,306  S47, 726 S65 750 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxxx S15,921 )()000000( S28 553 S38 6J0 OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1ng Repair etc. XXXXXlOO( (50) 32 Other S350 TOTAL /50) S15,921 $28.553 S38 950 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees XXXXXlOO( $1 ,544 S3 304 S200 (60) 34 Other XXXXXlOO( TOTAL (60) $1 ,544 $3,304 S800 TOTAL (30-60) $131 ,729 S136 910 $165 969 TOTAL (1 0-60) 51 .6 $1 ,698,094 52.1 S1 781 ,636 52.1 $2.118 040 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) $106,906 $106,894 $109,192 GRANO TOTAL xxxxxx $1,805,000 xxxxxx $1,888,530 xxxxxx $2,227,232 Line Item Costs - Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Stipends S3.232 S4 Oi2 S10.000 Other Objects Indirect Costs S95,639 $100 091 S96 364 Vocation al S1 ,958 so so Athletics S3 326 :50 so Gifted Proorams S65 $90 $120 Plant Services $2,270 $1 ,950 $1 935 Reading $24 $54 $63 Science $0 so so Enolls~ $65 $117 $194 Special Education S327 S520 ssc xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items S106 906 S106694 S109 192 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 . 1996-97 3rd Qtr ADM or ProJ. 449.80 496 17 496 17 Total Costs S1 805,000 $1 ,888 530 S2 227 232 Per Pupil Cost $4,013 $3,806 $4,489 1996-87 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Mann Magnet School . F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. BudQet CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 $64 646 1 0 S65 818 1 0 S67 16C STAFF 02 Asst Pr1n 3 0 5146 643 3 0 5147 909 3 0 s31 J,2 03 Spec1al1sts 3.6 S102.932 3.6 S103 631 3 6 so3 o:o 04 Counselors 3 0 574 142 3 0 5114 903 3 0 Sl 19 49;- 05 Media Spec. 1 0 S42.120 1 0 S42 951 1 J S43 98 06 Art-Pert /Prod. 00 so 00 SC 00 so 07 Music 00 so 00 so 0 0 so 08 Fore1qn Lang 0.0 so 00 so 0 0 so 09 Vocational 5 6 5192 183 5 6 $198 :\"36 5 6 S'91 956 10 Special Education 1 3 S50.553 1 3 550 898 1 3 540 94;- 11 Gifted 00 so 00 so 00 so 12 Classroom 46 8 S 1 464,542 46 8 S1 ,524 966 4, 8 Si 5.!6 :-73 13 Substitutes 0.0 S36,319 00 S37,832 0 0 S36.200 14 Other-Kinderqarten 0.0 so 00 so 00 so TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 65 3 S2.174.080 65 3 S2.287 643 66 3 S2 281 232 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 40 568,815 5.0 S82.502 5 0 sa5 41 ~ STAFF 16 Nurses 1 0 S32,359 1 0 S33 4 72 1 0 $34 275 17 Custodians 6.0 $66,778 6.0 S73 986 60 S74 94, 18 Paraorofess1onals-Chptr 1 0.0 so 0.0 so 00 SC 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1 0 $33,357 1.0 S31 ,444 1 0 S31 937 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $33,285 2.4 $33,901 2 4 S29445 21 Fringe Benef1ts(20) xxxxxxxx S263.037 $275 972 S682 54c TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14 4 $497,631. 15.4 $531 ,276 15.4 S938 .558 TOTAL (10-20) $2,671.701 $2,818 921 $3 219 791 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es xxxxxxxx $155,343 $160,645 S169 940 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxxx $10,011 $6,563 xx:xxxxxx $6,900 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements $4 500 25 Other xxxxxxxx $45,210 $35,376 $36 980 TOTAL (30) )000()000( $210,564 S202.583 xx:xxxxxx S218320 MATERIALS, 26 Princ1pal's Office xxxxxxxx S2 750 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XXXXlOOO( $81 026 S98 .129 S76 2r (40) 28 Media lOOOOOOO( S9.486 XXX)OOO()( 59 981 xx:xxxxxx S7 COC 29 Other xxxxxxxx $2,421 . S3. 929 xx:xxxxxx S5 90C TOTAL (40) xxxxxxxx S92.933 S112.039 S91 927 CAPITAL 30 Equipment )000()000( $37 285 $21 987 xxxxxxxx S80 520 OUTLAY 31 Bu1ld1nq Repair. etc. )000()()00( S3 OOC (50) 32 Other xxxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $37 285 $21 987 S83 520 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )000()000( $1 ,104 $1 277 S2 400 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $1 ,104 $1 ,277 S2.400 TOTAL (30-60) $341 ,886 S337 886 S396 167 TOTAL (10-60) 79 7 $3013,587 80 7 $3,156.807 81 7 S3 615 958 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $191 880 $205 681 S203 007 GRANO TOTAL xxxxxx $3,205,467 xxxxxx $3 ,362,488 xxxxxx $3,818,965 Line Item Costs - Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 St1oends $480 $1 698 $4 600 Other Ob1ects Indirect Costs $176,565 $169 384 $163 077 Vocational $3,616 $15 998 $16 000 Athletics $6,140 $13 928 $14 500 Gifted Programs $118 so $0 Plant Services $4 190 $3 450 $3 450 Reading $46 $96 S115 Science $0 so so English $120 S207 S345 Special Education $605 S920 S92C XX)()()()( xxxxxx xxxxxx Tota l Line Items S191 880 $205 681 S203 007 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3ro Otr ADM or Pro1 842 80 82 1 75 s2 1 ,5 Total Costs S3 205,467 $3,362 488 S3818965 Per Pupil Cost $3,803 $4,092 $4,647 1996-97 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT 5) 94-95 94-95 95-96 95-96 96-97 96-97 Parkview Magnet School - F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1 0 S66 148 1 0 $67 ,321 1 0 S69 939 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin 30 S 154,354 30 $157 ,476 3 0 S158. 145 03 Spec1alIsts 9 8 $306 ,485 98 $305 ,803 98 $321 014 04 Counselors 30 S130 987 3.0 $133,995 3.0 $137,875 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,345 1.0 S35, 176 1.0 S36.020 06 Art-P erf./P rod. 0.0 $0 00 so 0.0 so 07 Music 0.0 $0 00 $0 0.0 so 08 Fore1qn Lanq. 00 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 so 09 Vocatio nal 7 0 $216,610 7 0 $212,039 7.0 $218,257 10 Special Education 1 5 $54 861 1 5 $52,468 1 5 $54 946 11 Gifted 0 0 $0 0.0 so 00 so 12 Classroom 39 6 $1 394 739 40 6 $1,398.425 40 6 S1 472.557 13 Substitutes 0.0 S31 172 00 $49,417 00 S51 640 14 Other-Kind erg art en 1 0 S41 051 1 0 S41 .861 1 0 S42 e-c TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66 9 S2.430 752 67 9 S2 453 979 67 9 S2 563 :252 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 6.0 S132 489 60 S137 277 60 s1 1 2.:39 STAFF 16 Nurses 06 S14 453 0.6 S15 075 06 S15 9.;,: 17 Custodians 80 S105.710 80 $112.513 8 0 s12e e48 18 Paraprofess1onals-Chptr 1 00 so 00 so 00 so 19 Paraorofess1ona ls-Other 5 0 S97.429 so S95 334 so S1i5C98 20 Other-Aides 20 S26,003 2.0 S28 739 2.0 S25. 231 21 Fringe Benefits(20} lOOOOOOOC $303.948 $307 297 $788 222 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21 .6 $680,032  21 .6 $696,234 21 6 $1 ,185581 TOTAL (10-20) $3,110,784 $3,150,214 $3.748844 PURCHASED 22 Ut1l1t1es lOOOOOOOC $168,431 $192,757 S181 ,339 SERVICES 23 Travel SS,259 $8.580 S7 000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements lOOOOOOOC S4 COO 25 Other lOOOOOOOC S34 459 S8,379 S20 :::-D TOTAL (30) S208.149 S209,715 s2132:;9 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc1pal's Office Sc::O SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom S77 470 S98, 152 XlOOOOO\u003cX S92 .:s3 (40) 28 Media S21,359 $9.976 S6 COO 29 Other $5 574 $5,796 S11 625 TOTAL (40) $104 403 $113,924 $110 958 CAPITAL 30 Equipment S25.924 S24,889 S83 000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. vvvvvvvv (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $25,924 S24,889 . S83.000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees S3 511 S3. 738 S4 200 (60) 34 Other xx:xxxxxx )()0()()000( TOTAL (60) xx:xxxxxx S3 511 S3. 738 XlOOOOO\u003cX S4 2CJO TOTAL (30-60) )()()0()()00( S341 987 S352 267 XlOOOOO\u003cX S41 1 367 TOTAL (10-60) 88 5 S3452,771 89 5 $3 502,481 89 5 S4160211 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) $185 785 $232 801 S227 ::'.l4 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx $3,638,556 xxxxxx $3 ,735,282 xxxxxx $4,387,815 Line Item Costs  Actual Actual Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 St1oends $2 359 S2 824 $4 000 Other Ob1ects Indirect Costs S,69 208 5192 482 S'.85 316 Vocationa l SJ 465 S15 998 S16 000 Ath let ics S5 885 517023 S 17 500 Gifted Proorams $115 so so Plant Services $4 016 SJ 300 S3 420 Read1nq $43 596 S 114 Science so so SC Enolish $115 S198 5342 Special Eaucat1on 5579 S880 :591: XXXXX:\u003c XX)()()()( XX)()()()( Total Line Items S185,785 5232 801 S227 604 Per Pupil Cost 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 3rd Otr. ADM or ProJ. 799.00 832.65 832 65 Total Costs S3.638.556 $3.735 282 S4387815 Per Pupil Cost $4,554 $4,486 $5 ,270 IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF Pllli A!Kfe'duNTY, ARKANSAS ~ 4~ o'3 R LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 Ot) oc1 -, r EC Er .r\"F?~ OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS; ME.KiBER~ ~- ,' '-. ts~.Y, OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, J.L. WILS~ffQ~~~,b,.R\\\\~~sP-S OCT i PRESIDENT; ODELL DA VIS, JR., VICE PRES'ID'ENT; 1996 SIDNEY FITZHUGH, SR., MEMBER; IRMA MOREHOUSE, SECRETARY; WILLIAM WARD, Office of Desegregat;or, IAOOi!011fl MEMBER; VELMA LARKIN, MEMBER; GENORA ......, FRAZIER, MEMBER; AND LEON PHILLIPS, JR., SUPERINTENDENT PLAINTIFFS vs. NO. 92-5318 MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; JIMMIE LOU FISHER LUMPKIN, TREASURER OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; REP. BOBBY HOGUE, SPEAKER OF THE ARKANSAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; STANLEY RUSS, PRESIDENT PROTEMPORE 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; CARL E. 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 WITNESS LIST DEFENDANTS Comes now the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") by and through its attorneys, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A., pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order, and for its Witness List, states as follows: James Smith, Superintendent orth Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street, Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-8000 Barry K.incl North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street, Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-8000 and Danny Reed Director of Special Education North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street, Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 771-8000 These witnesses will testify generally concerning the impact of the state funding formula on the North Little Rock School District. Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (50n1) 375-1122 d-;p ;f{ \u0026J :- /J ! vU-~Y STEPHEN W. JONES # ZJS083 ALLEN CARNEY #94122 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 1st day of October, 1996 sent via U.S. Mail one copy of the foregoing to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 William P. Thompson James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Avenue, Ste. 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jimmy Lee Wilson 801 Perry Street Helena, Arkansas 72342 Bill Llewellyn P.O. Box 287 M~=g;;;;;: u]~ Stephen W. Jones 3 - 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., * * * FiL~D ~ US OISTi\":ICT COU~T EA.:, TERIJ DISTRICT I\\R;-ANSAS OCT O 2 1996 JAMi:Sr~~ORivlACK, CLERK By: \\_~JUb\u0026QT\\ / DEP CLER!( OCT 3 1996 Intervenor. * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Office of Desegregation Mornionng * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRQER Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors asking the Court to issue a written order setting forth its ruling on the Pulaski County Special School District's motion for equitable relief [doc. # 2780]. In that motion, the PCSSD asked the Court to order striking teachers back to work. The Court grants the Joshua Intervenors' motion [doc. # 2822]. At the conclusion of the August 29, 1996 hearing on the motion, which the Court treated as a motion for preliminary injunction, the Court directed the court reporter to transcribe the Court's findings and file them as the Court's Order. See doc. # 2786. On August 30, 1996, the findings were filed as a transcript. See doc. # 2801. (sc.t.- .fr.1,1rosa-,f\u003e+ .f.ld ,..,. /i'b,4 .--y) The Court, therefore, pursuant to the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the transcript filed on August 30, 1996, hereby grants the motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District on August 27, 1996. 11\u0026 SO ORDERED this 2-_ day of October 1996. ; fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 5\" AN,A 79(1!}.FRCf' IN ON dJ,fd,/96 BY 17  \\~  2 IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS; MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, J.L. WILSON, PRESIDENT; ODELL DA VIS, JR., VICE PRESIDENT; SIDNEY FITZHUGH, SR., MEMBER; IRMA MOREHOUSE, SECRET ARY; WILLIAM WARD, MEMBER; VELMA LARKIN, MEMBER; GENORA FRAZIER, MEMBER; AND LEON PHILLIPS, JR., SUPERINTENDENT vs. NO. 92-5318 MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; JIMMIE LOU FISHER LUMPKIN, TREASURER OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; REP. BOBBY HOGUE, SPEAKER OF THE ARKANSAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; STANLEY RUSS, PRESIDENT PROTEMPORE OF THE ARKANSAS SENATE; ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; GENE WILHOIT, DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JAl'1ES McCLARTY, CHAIRMAN; EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., MEMBER; CARLE. BAGGETT, MEMBER; GARY BEASLEY, MEMBER "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1628","title":"Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of their motion for an award of 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":["1996-09-30"],"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","Lawyers","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of their motion for an award of 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/1628"],"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.  .  : .. ... FILEO US. DISTRICT COURT ' EASTFRN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SfP 27 1996 ~;~ES W, Mcl.iUHMA~K, CLERK SEP ~ 0 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANSAS Otfice ot Desegregation Monitorm9 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. OEP ClfRI( PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for An Award of Attorneys' Fees (September 1996) The LRSD defendants sought as to LRSD an end to the requirement that the plans be implemented. The district sought an end to the court's jurisdiction, and, thereby, any role for ODM. The Joshua Intervenors filed a comprehensive response. The Joshua Intervenors prevailed on this matter when the court on September 23, 1996 denied LRSD's motion. The Joshua Intervenors are, at minimum, entitled to an award of attorneys' fees for their work on this matter as prevailing parties . .E..,__g_,_, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988; Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 17 F.3d 260 (8th Cir. 1994); Hatfield v. Hayes, 877 F.2d 717, 719-20 (8th Cir. 1989). 1 1 By making this motion and this argument, the Joshua Intervenors do not waive their contention that they are entitled to fee awards at this stage of the case based upon their engaging in reasonable post-judgment monitoring, irrespective of their \"prevailing\" with regard to each separate element of their work. 1 The time claimed for the efforts of Joshua counsel -- 50.16 hours is reasonable. See Declaration of Bob Pressman, para. (12.} and Attachment One. It has been described on a daily basis, based upon contemporaneous records. Id. Time is claimed for one person (lead counsel, John W. Walker's and Ms. Springer's time has been waived}. The intervenors had to take seriously an effort to end, as to LRSD, the requirement that the plans be implemented and the court's jurisdiction. The LRSD memorandum cited 40 court decisions. Preparation of a response required consideration of not only many of these decisions and others, but also, among other things: the LRSD's exhibits (numbering 17}, the text of the various plans and other documents, the testimony of witnesses Armor, Orfield, and Walberg, and the court's various findings about the quality of \"compliance\" by the officials and agents of the LRSD. The rate sought for an attorney with more than 30 years of relevant experience, much in the areas of school desegregation and racial discrimination generally, is proper. First. The rate is supported by rulings of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 2 Second. The rate is shown to be reasonable by reference 2 See McDonald v. Armentrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1460, 1461 (8th Cir. 1988} (in 1988, the court noted its approval in 1986 in this case of the rate of$ 200\\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 (8th Cir. 1995} (rates of from$ 200 to $ 260 per hour for the work of four attorneys in an appeal}; see also Joshua Intervenors' final submission in support of our earlier comprehensive fee petition documenting that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit made an award recently to lead counsel for work on the Harvell appeal at the rate of$ 250 per hour}. 2 to the ruling in Morgan y. Gittens. see Pressman Dec., para. ( 13. ) ( d) and enclosed copy of the opinion. Third. The rate is supported by the Declaration of Thomas I. Atkins and the affidavits of Geraldine Hines and Jeffrey Kabrick (attached to the motion). Fourth. The rate is supported by the survey conducted by the publication Arkansas Business. See Pressman Dec., para. (13.) (e) and survey attached thereto. Conclusion The motion should be granted, promptly. # 6404 Walker, P.A. 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 ..E,\u003c,~6'~ Bob Pressman MA# 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS TALLULAH MORGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, ( v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 72-911-WAG ROBERT GITTENS, ET AL,, Defendants. JUDGMENT AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES This action came on for hearing before the Court, Honorable w. Arthur Garrity, Jr., District Judge presiding, on plaintiffs' applications for attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1988, and the issues having been duly heard and a - decision having been duly rendered on the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated in the Memorandum of Decision filed contemporaneously herewith, It is Ordered and Adjudged that the plaintiffs Tallulah Morgan et al. recover of the defendants Robert Gittens et al. the sum of $228,162.69, of which $128,162.69 shall be paid to Thomas I. Atkins, Esq., and $100,000 to the Law and Education Center, Inc., for the services of Robert Pressman, Esq. Dated at Boston, Massachusetts, this 3_L day of January, 1996. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS TALLULAH MORGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 72-911-WAG ROBERT GITTENS1 , ET AL., Defendants. GARRITY, D.J. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AS TO ATTORNEYS' FEES January 31, 1996 As noted in the Final Judgment and the Final Judgment as Amended, 2 the Court has under advisement plaintiffs' In keeping with practice, the named defendant is the Chairman of the Boston School Committee. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) (1), defendant Gittens is substituted as the named defendant; and Mayor Thomas M. Menino and other successor municipal officers are automatically substituted as parties defendant. 2 Between May 1990 and July 1994, judgment was amended thrice by this Court, on September 19, 1990, June 21, 1991, and July 30, 1993, and once on February 21, 1991 by the Court of 1 I applications for awards of attorneys fees and expenses pursuant to 42 u.s.c.  1988. In November 1988 Attorneys Atkins and Pressman were awarded compensation for services and expenses through December 14, 1988 and October 5, 1988 respectively, Atkins by court order and Pressman by agreement with defendant. Since then plaintiffs have filed a series of applications, initially in December 1989, followed by several supplements3 covering services and expenses of Atkins and services of Pressman through the summer of 1993. They have not sought compensation for time spent thereafter on miscellaneous matters and preparing further memoranda. 4 Defendant City of Boston has responded to each of plaintiffs' applications, contesting their right to any awards at all and raising several particular objections. The Court heard oral argument on April 18, 1990 and has received voluminous supporting materials, including comprehensive, detailed and contemporaneous records of time spent and expenditures incurred; affidavits of the applicants stating their general qualifications and describing particular services in the instant case; affidavits of members of the bar of this court attesting to the reasonableness of the hourly rates Appeals. Precise dates are omitted partly because unnecessary since they appear on related exhibits and because there are small differences in the filing dates and periods covered by plaintiffs' separate applications and supplements for services. Plaintiffs' last memorandum was filed on June 1, 1995 to which defendants replied on June 16, 1995. 2 charged; reports in legal publications as to fees customarily charged in 1989 by lawyers in law firms in Boston and elsewhere; and transcripts of prior proceedings in this case. 5 In ruling upon the pending applications, the Court has analyzed a small mountain of filings which might in other contexts be overkill but not here because the events to which the services of counsel relate are long past and had to be reconstructed. OVERVIEW OF APPLICATIONS Thomas I. Atkins, Esquire, is in private practice specializing in civil rights litigation, particularly school desegregation cases, with offices in Brooklyn, New York. Due to his scholarship and long specialized experience, Mr. Atkins is in a class by himself representing plaintiffs in this type of litigation. Before moving to the national scene, he was active in Boston civic affairs since his days at Harvard Law School. For example, he was elected as a city councillor for two terms, and learned of the City's racial tensions first hand. Robert Pressman, Esquire, has comparable credentials, outlined in his affidavit filed with plaintiffs' application dated January 24, 1990. Following five years with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, he came in 1970 to the Center for Law and Education in Cambridge, a national support center for the entire legal services program on education issues. Mr. Pressman has tried school desegregation cases in a dozen 5 Especially relevant is the Court's appraisal at a November 15, 1988 hearing of Attorney Atkins' extraordinary qualifications as counsel for plaintiff class. 3 federal district courts, argued appeals in several federal circuits and been a principal contributor for two years to the Education Law Bulletin. Of all the attorneys who have filed appearances for various parties to these proceedings, who probably number in the thirties, he is the only one who was with the case since its inception, attending more hearings and submitting more briefs than any other lawyer. Being an employee of the Center, the Court's award to plaintiffs for his services will go to the Law and Education Center, Inc. Total compensation sought by plaintiffs for Atkins' services is $129,123 plus reimbursement of expenses amounting to $3,162.69, and for Pressman $109,311 for services with no claim for expenses. The application for Atkins is predicated on an hourly rate of $300, and for Pressman a rate of $200. Both applications are approximately $18,000 greater than those submitted on August 27, 1993 for such services and expenses. At that time, as shown in the following tables of applications filed on the dates and covering the time periods specified, hourly rates charged by Atkins increased from $240 in 1988 to $300 in 1991; and by Pressman from $140 in 1988 to $200 in 1991. 6 Plaintiffs are now seeking awards for the first three years, 6 A third set of periodic applications was received from plaintiff intervenors El Comite de Padres Pro Defensa de la Educacion Bilinque, capably represented in these proceedings for two decades by Attorney Caroline B. Playter of Boston. Ms. Playter's hourly charges increased from $125 to $140 in 1990, and her reapplication filed in 1995 was based upon a current hourly rate of $175. As occurred with all previous applications by El Comite de Padres, its final one was settled. 4 - 1988-91, at rates which their attorneys began charging in 1991. ATKINS' P~RIOOIC APP~ICATIOII~ P~RIOO C~R~Q HClJRS ~ !.ill Qill TOTALS SUBMITTED 12/15/88-12/16/89 239 240/hr 57,360.00 2,134.41 59,494.41 1/24/90 1/3/90-4/30/90 4.5 265/hr 12,852.50 192.70 13,045.20 4/30/90 5/1/90-5/18/90 23.25 265/hr 6, 161.25 n.a. 6,161.25 5/18/90 5/19/90-5/21/90 2l .OO 265/hr 5,565.00 308.70 5,873.70 6/6/90 5/30/90-4/2/91 17.75 265/hr 4,703.75 n.a. 2,928.75 4/8/91 9/26/90-12/4/90 7.50 265/hr l,987.50 n.a. l,987.50 4/8/91 4/15/91-8/24/93 73.41 300/hr 22,023.00 526.88 22,549.88 8/24/93 TOTALS: 430.41 110,653.00 3,162.69 113,815.69 PRESSMAN'S PERIOOIC APPLICATIONS AFFIDAVIT DATE OATES OF \\IORK HClJRS RATE TOTAL 12/29/89 l0/6/88-12/29/88 12.40 $140 S 1,736.00 4/9/90 1/13/89-12/28/89 211.TT $160 $33,883.20 5/18/90 1/2/90-5/18/90 114.23 S160\" $18,276.80 4/3/91 7/3/90-4/1/91 83.15 $160 $13,304.00 10/28/93 4/11/91-6/28/93 50% of hours 62.50 $180 S11,250.00 SOX of hours 62.50 $200 $12,500.00 TOTAL HClJRS: 546.55 AMOJNT: $90,950.00 Fees claimed in these periodic filings totalled $201,603; fees now sought total $238,434, an increase of $36,831. Expenses of $3,162.69, 1 all incurred by Atkins, remain the same. Without waiving explicitly a general objection to the Court's continuing jurisdiction to award fees under 1988, defendants have modified their position regarding reasonable hourly rates for services of plaintiffs' attorneys. In two oppositions filed in April, 1990, they first contended that Defendants' initial objection to this item was waived at page 10 of their memorandum filed December 13, 1993-. 5 maximum hourly rates for Atkins' services should be $140 and $90 for Pressman. The second opposition increased these figures to $200 and $140 respectively; but argued that roughly two-thirds of the applicants' services should be classified as \"non-core\" and compensated at the lower hourly rates of $160 and $100 respectively. A later defendants' memorandum in opposition filed in December 1993, applicable to services after April 11, 1991, agrees to increased hourly rates of $300 and $190 for core work8 but suggests $190 and $120 for non-core, respectively. Total fees proposed by defendants in their December 13, 1993 memorandum in opposition, without waiving substantive objections, are $56,674.15 for Atkins and $50,372.20 for Pressman, a total of $107,046.35. Costs of $3,162.69 incurred by Atkins have not been reduced by defendants in relation to fee reductions. Historical Background Consideration of the merits of plaintiffs' pending applications requires an understanding of the relevant history of these proceedings. It is recounted in detail in Morgan v. Nucci, 620 F. Supp. 214, 217-218 (D. Mass. 1985), and Morgan v. Nucci, 831 F.2d 313, 315-17 (1st Cir. 1987), and shows how the Court's remedial orders were lifted incrementally, a procedure later endorsed in Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 489 (1992). The case was closed, except for the pending applications, in similar 8 These were merely token concessions, however, since they pertained to only 4.5 hours of 96 hours claimed by Atkins during a period of more than two years; and to only 24 hours of the 115 hours claimed by Pressman during the same period. 6 incremental fashion by so-called Final Orders dated September 3, 1985 (attached as Appendix A), Final Judgment dated May 31, 1990, Amended Final Judgments dated September 19, 1990 and June 21, 1991 and Final Judgment as Amended dated July 19, 1994. An important closing order, vacating the Court's injunctive orders which had governed the student assignment process, was also issued by the Court of Appeals on September 28, 1987. See 831 F.2d at 326. Thereupon, the Defendant Mayor hired two consultants, Michael Alves and Charles Willie9 , to develop a new student assignment plan. After several months of consultations and hearings, the consultants in December 1988 proposed a plan to the Boston School Committee (\"BSC\") which approved its general framework on December 28, 1988. Following a public hearing on February 14, 1989, the Committee, on February 27, 1989, voted to adopt the plan subject to further modification arising out of the 90-day process ordered in paragraph 8 of the Court's 1985 final orders. The State Board convened eleven negotiating sessions, in which plaintiffs' counsel participated fully, which proposed numerous changes which were eventually adopted in April 1989 by the School Committee. Called the Controlled Choice Plan (\"CCP\"), it was scheduled for implementation at entry elementary grades in September 1989 (Phase I) and systernwide in September 1990 (Phase 9 Both were closely associated with the Court's plan, Alves as Project Director for Boston Desegregation Assistance at the State Board, and Willie as one of the four Masters who designed the plan adopted by the Court in 1975. 7 II); meanwhile the Court plan would continue in effect. Dissatisfied with some aspects of the CCP, and seeking more time for further study and amendments, plaintiffs moved for an injunction against its implementation on the ground that it would tend to resegregate the schools. After hearings on May 26, 30 and 31, 1989, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion, and Phase I of the CCP went into effect in September. In December the Committee again directed its general counsel \"to initiate the 90- day process required for modification of orders in Morgan vs. O'Reilly so that the second phase of the new student Assignment' Plan adopted herewith may be implemented\"; and again plaintiffs' counsel participated actively. Roughly 55% of counsels' services covered by the pending applications (532 hours out of a total of 977) pertains either directly or indirectly to the CCP. Another segment of plaintiffs' applications to which defendants are objecting on legal grounds is hours spent counteracting the efforts of the Boston Teachers Union (\"BTU\") to eliminate and then overturn on appeal paragraph (3) of the Final Judgment dated May 31, 1990, entitled \"Faculty and Staffing.\" The legal point now alleged by the defendants is that time spent defending against an intervenor's claim, which was also resisted by the BSC, is not properly chargeable against the BSC and City defendants. Undisputed Areas Defendants have not questioned several essential 8 components of plaintiffs' overall burden of proving their entitlement to attorneys' fees and expenses during the wind-down phase of these proceedings. The first is plaintiffs' having prevailed in demonstrating pervasive~~ segregation in Boston public schools and obtaining numerous far-ranging remedial orders, nearly all affirmed by the Court of Appeals and left in place by Supreme Court denials of certiorari. Nor have defendants challenged the inter-relationship between the hours for which compensation is now sought and the several claims as to which plaintiffs gained complete success. See Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d 934, 940-41 (1st Cir. 1992). Also undisputed are the hours that plaintiffs' attorneys claimed that they worked, the adequacy of their descriptions of services performed, and the contemporaneity of their diary entries. Clearly they met the record-keeping requirements ordered in Grendel's Den, Inc. v. Larkin, 749 F.2d 945, 952 (1st cir. 1984). It is clear too that Atkins and Pressman exercised sound billing judgment. There was virtually10 no duplication of services; e.g., it is apparent from an exhibit filed with plaintiffs' first supplemental application that, of the 33 meetings and four days of hearings attended by plaintiffs' counsel pertaining to the Controlled Choice Plan, plaintiffs' attorneys attended together only two of them. It is also 10 Agreement on this point is qualified by defendants' contention, addressed post, that charges by Pressman for conferring with Atkins should be disallowed because they are \"duplicative legal services.\" 9 apparent that work on behalf of plaintiffs' interests was divided so as to avoid duplication. All hours claimed were worked by Atkins and Pressman personally; none was referred to paralegals or associate counsel, any of whom would have required timeconsuming orientation and introduction to the complex, even arcane, issues with which plaintiffs' attorneys had become intimately familiar. Since his office was out of state, Atkins did not charge for time spent traveling to and from Boston. In sum, plaintiffs have made a strong prima facie showing of entitlement to the award of fees and expenses sought in the pending applications. It behooves them to show further that the hours claimed were reasonably spent and that their claimed hourly rates of compensation are reasonable. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983}; Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). These essential elements of plaintiffs' applications are disputed by defenda' nts on grounds which we now address. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS As heretofore noted, most of counsels' services for which plaintiffs now seek compensation related to the Controlled Choice Plan. Of such CCP services, three-fourths comprised their participation in 90-day sessions concerning Phases I and II or in 90-day subcommittee work, and the balance pertained to plaintiffs' unsuccessful attempt, by motion for a preliminary injunction denied May 31, 1989, to delay implementation of the CCP until 1990. Defendants central objection to an award for 10 such services rests on the above-mentioned 1987 Court of Appeals decision vacating the Court's orders pertaining to student assignments; and our award of fees for such services reflects our understanding of the relationship of the appellate court's order to provisions of the 1985 Final Orders not appealed from. In the defendants' view, after September 25, 1987, \"plaintiffs no longer had either the status of 'prevailing' parties on the issue of student assignments or the authority to monitor or review the school defendants' actions in developing and implementing the new plan.\" On the contrary, we find that the Court of Appeals ruling did not nullify any rights of the plaintiff class or deprive it of the victory it had achieved in the area of student assignments. Rather it reaffirmed plaintiffs' entitlement to the non-discriminatory treatment that they had received under the Court plan. It was aimed not at the plaintiffs, but at the lower court, which should no longer \"continue to involve itself\" in student assignments. The appellate decision did not affect paragraphs of the Final Orders on the unified facilities plan, parent councils, and faculty and staff. Nor did it disturb provisions of the Final Orders not appealed from, including the permanent injunction in Paragraph (2) and the detailed consent mechanism contained in paragraph (8) for the gradual transfer to the defendants of general responsibility for managing its schools, a transition begun with disengagement orders in 1982 and advanced by orders in 1984 and 1985 terminating the Court's 11 jurisdiction in several areas of school administration. At every turn, starting with negotiations initiated by the State Board in June 1981 aimed at fashioning a comprehensive consent decree, 11 never achieved, the Court relied upon the cooperation and, where obtainable, the collaboration of the defendants. Thus it came as no surprise that the school defendants, after September 25, 1987, resorted to the paragraph (8) procedures of the Final Orders to facilitate their development and implementation of the CCP, sometimes called the Alves-Willie Plan, aptly described by them as representing \"an evolution, not a counterrevolution.\" Until the opening of the 1989-90 school year, the defendants continued to comply with the Court plan and, except for entry elementary grades, did so until September 1990, three years after the Court of Appeals mandate. Plaintiffs' counsel participated fully and constructively in the development of the CCP, not as strangers or volunteers, as defense counsel has suggested in opposing an award of fees, but at the repeated request of the defendants. The details of their services in this regard are set forth in affidavits appended to plaintiffs' applications. Generally speaking, as soon as an executive summary of the proposed new Plan was available on February 9, 1989, BSC's general counsel mailed copies to parties to the paragraph (8) 90- 11 The Court's memorandum dated August 2, 1983 acknowledged the first State Board monitoring report as \"a long step toward a common ground from which the parties can discuss and confront issues of compliance and non-compliance in an intelligent and informed fashion.\" (emphasis added) 12 day process, including plaintiffs, with an assurance that they would receive complete copies when available. Promptly, on February 13, Atkins and Pressman replied with a five-page letter, copied to counsel for other 90-day process parties, raising various issues for discussion, including facilities and programs, seat allocations, transfers of students on the waiting list and opportunities for black pupiis to attend school in East Boston. All these and other issues raised in plaintiffs' letter were agenda items at several meetings moderated by the State Board. 12 Three series of 90-day process meetings were convened, all at the request of the school defendants, as follows: on February 27, 1989, the Boston School Committee approved the following order: ORDERED, That the School Committee approve the Controlled Choice Student Assignment Plan submitted on December 28, 1988 and amended by the School Committee on February 7, 1989 and February 27, 1989, and authorize the School Department to undertake the necessary preparations for implementation of the plan, subject to further modification pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraph 8 of the Final Orders in Morgan v. O'Reilly. (emphasis added) On July 26, 1989, BSC General Counsel asked state Board counsel to convene a 90-day process to consider a package of school closings and consolidations, stating in part: 12 Former Superintendent Wilson's affidavit dated May 25, 1989 stated, at paragraph 15: \"During February and March and April, my staff brought to my attention numerous additional concerns and recommendations for changes in the Plan raised during the course of the paragraph 8 proceedings. I considered them carefully and recommended to the Committee that it approve a number of amendments to the Plan based on those recommendations.\" 13 If you believe that these closings and consolidations conflict with any operative Court orders, the school defendants ask you to determine, pursuant to paragraph 8, that these closings and consolidations are emergency matters, due to the budget crisis, which the School Committee may adopt without negotiation or that these closings and consolidations effect insubstantial modifications of court orders and therefore need not be negotiated. If you determine that negotiations are required, we would appreciate your convening the parties immediately and attempting to expedite negotiations so that these closings and consolidations may be implemented in September 1989. (emphasis added) On December 12, 1989, the BSC adopted the following motion (12 affirmative, 1 absent): Resolved that the School Committee direct their Office of General Counsel to initiate the 90-day process required for modification of orders in Morgan vs. O'Reilly, so that the second phase of the new Student Assignment Plan adopted herewith may be implemented. (emphasis added) Continuing reliance by the BSC on the assistance of plaintiffs' attorneys regarding student assignments was demonstrated repeatedly during the development of the CCP. For example, in April 1989, the BSC established a three-member independent commission to review the pattern of actual assignments made for the 1989-90 school year, to be composed of one member appointed jointly by the City and the School Department, one member appointed by the plaintiffs, and one member appointed by the State Board of Education. By letter dated August 28, 1989, plaintiffs indicated that Pressman would 14 be their representative. For another, early in 1989 the BSC appointed a High School Student Assignment Subcommittee chaired by member Rosina T. (\"Kitty\") Bowman, to recommend development of a viable assignment plan for high school students. Plaintiffs designated Pressman to be their representative on the \"Bowman Subcommittee\" and, on this assignment, he spent 17.5 hours attending eight subcommittee meetings from October 30, 1989 through February 5, 1990. The collaborative relationship between plaintiffs' counsel and the BSC extended to implementation of the CCP and carried forward until the end of 1992. For example, on March 11, 1992, school committee counsel wrote to plaintiffs, in pertinent part as follows: Enclosed are several documents related to the proposed modifications to the Student Assignment Plan. The School Committee adopted the proposal (Attachment 1) conditioned upon satisfactory discussions among the parties. For another, on November 23, 1992, Pressman made a presentation to a BSC subcommittee at English High School with respect to proposed policy changes in the student assignment plan. We find that all the hours spent by Atkins and Pressman preparing and presenting proposals to other participants in the 90-day process negotiations and attending all 90-day process meetings and in related studies, consultations and presentations are compensable under 1988. Several legal theories support this award. One is quantum merrit: the defendants invited counsel's participation and benefitted substantially from it in a 15 context where it knew that plaintiffs' had received from defendants prior awards of attorneys' fees in the same litigation, that they had applied for and expected to receive further awards and that plaintiffs' counsel rendered their services in good faith. See Newfield House, Inc. v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Welfare, 651 F.2d 32, 38 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1114 (1981); see also Transnational Corp. v. Rodie \u0026 Ursillo, Ltd., 920 F.2d 1066, 1070-71 (1st Cir. 1990). Another is that the 90-day process was, from plaintiffs' standpoint and interests, the equivalent of the further hearing authorized by the Court of Appeals in its September 25, 1987 decision, see, 831 F.2d at 326, except that plaintiffs' submissions were addressed to the school defendants rather than to the District Court, and except further that plaintiffs' submissions were not limited to student assignments but pertained also to other matters such as the condition and consolidation of schools, availability of textbooks, proposals of parent groups, etc. It was also in the nature of reasonable post-judgment monitoring, see Brewster v. Dukakis, 786 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1986); Garrity v. Sununu, 752 F.2d 727, 738-39 (1st Cir. 1984), whereby plaintiffs sought and obtained assurance that the desegregation already achieved did not unravel to their disadvantage. Failure to Enjoin CCP Plaintiffs' application regarding services in connection with their unsuccessful attempt by motion filed May 16 15, 1989 to enjoin establishment of the CCP rests also on an additional basis: defendants obligation under paragraph (2) of the Final Orders and 42 u.s.c.  1983 generally to avoid resegregation of Boston's public schools. Plaintiffs contend that some of the CCP's provisions were objectionable on those grounds and that their efforts to change or eliminate objectionable provisions met with substantial if partial success. Plaintiffs point to various revisions in the new Plan made by defendants which had the effect of blunting plaintiffs' objections prior to the Court hearings on their motion. For example, the BSC modified a formula objectionable to plaintiffs for calculating relevant zone racial-ethnic percentages so as to exclude from the calculation students unavailable for assignment to zone schools. For another, the CCP as drafted would have reduced desegregation in East Boston, until the BSC approved a proposal by plaintiffs to permit black students from outside the North Zone to attend schools in East Boston on a space-available basis. On the other hand, plaintiffs' proof of likely resegregation fell short of demonstrating irreparable harm to the plaintiff class or an intent by defendants to turn back the clock to the era of de jure segregation. Quite the opposite: defendants' acceptance of changes sought by plaintiffs, together with other evidence, satisfied the Court that defendants' good faith in promoting desegregation remained strong. Hence plaintiffs' motion for an injunction was denied. Should plaintiffs nevertheless recover fees for time 17 spent by their attorneys (totalling 114.83 hours) preparing and arguing their motion for an injunction? Yes, in our opinion, principally because the claims presented in plaintiffs' motion were essentially an extension of claims they had been advocating throughout the previous decade and were interconnected with claims as to which plaintiffs prevailed. The law in this area has been well settled since first explicated in Hensley, 461 U.S. 424. It has been construed repeatedly in cases in this circuit. See,~, Lipsett, 975 F.2d at 940-41; Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School Dist. v. Pontarelli, 788 F.2d 47 (1st Cir. 1986f; Aubin v. Fudala, 782 F.2d 287 (1st Cir. 1986). Where claims presented by plaintiffs in a civil rights suit are related and plaintiffs have won substantial relief, attorneys fees under 1988 should not be reduced because of a discrete unsuccessful claim by plaintiffs. In the instant case, plaintiff "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1651","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee/appellant Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al.","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":["1996-09-05"],"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","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee/appellant Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al."],"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/1651"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["84 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Joshua, Lorene"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  SEP 5 1996 Office of Desegregation Monlicnn~ Michael E. Gans, Clerk U.S. court Of Appeals, 1114 Market Street st. Louis, MO 63101 of Court Eighth Circuit 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 September 3, 1996 Re: Little Rock School Dist. v. Servicemaster Management Services, No. 96-2047EALR Dear Mr. Gans, Enclosed for filing are the original and 9 copies of the brief o~ the Joshua Intervenors (appellees\\appellants). Sincerely, cc: all counsel 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. 96-2047EALR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLANT v. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.P. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. APPELLEE Ilic APPELLEE~ _ .. APPELLANT Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF OF APPELLEE\\APPELLANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Bob Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1, Summary and Reguest for Oral Argument Long after this court in 1990 directed the entry of a fresh order providing for the dismissal of the State (but not the local systems) from this litigation, the LRSD's appeal calls for this court to consider the meaning\\implications of the robust version of continuing jurisdiction provided for by this court in 1990. This court must also consider, with regard to the LRSD motion denied below, the implications of the district court's finding of poor implementation by LRSD, a finding amply supported by the record. The contract issues presented by LRSD involve the application of basic principles of contract interpretation. Such principles call for a different result than the one reached below. Oral argument is warranted, given LRSD's request for a directive that the litigation be dismissed with prejudice. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Appeal of Little Rock Sch. District, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991) 6, 15-16 Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) 1, 13, 15 Continental Bank and Trust Co. v. American Bonding Co., 630 F.2d 606 (8th Cir. 1980) 17 Klein v. Arkoma Production Co., 73 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 1996) 17 Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) passim Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School Dist., 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) 14, 15-16 Press Machinery Corp. v. Smith R.P.M. Corp., 727 F.2d 781 (8th Cir. 1984) 18 Raney v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 443 (1968) 13 st. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 113 s.ct. 2742 (1993) 14 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (1971) 15 Tasby v. Estes, 643 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1981) 12 Union National Bank v. Federal Nat. Mort. Assoc., 860 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988) 19 United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 395 U.S. 225 (1969) 15 Wright v. City Council of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451 (1972) Other Authorities Restatement of Contracts, Second, Sections 202(1), 203(a) 15 1, 18-19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS summary and Request for Oral Argment Table of Contents Table of Authorities Issues Presented on Appeal Statement of the Case A. LRSD's Motion for Dismissal B. The Servicemaster Contract Argument A. The District Court's Denial of LRSD's Motion Dismissal with Prejudice Should be Affirmed for 1. It is Plausible to Construe This Court's 1990 Decision as Not Applying the Provision for Dismissal of the Case as to the Local Districts i ii iii 1 1 1 11 12 12 12 2. If the District Court, in Substance, Rejected a Belated Effort to Implement a Portion of the Settlement Agreement, That Action Was Not an Abuse of Discretion in View of the Evolution of the Case Since 1990 15 B. The Court Erred in Applying Principles of Contract Conclusion Addendum Release as to State Order of Dismissal, Dec. 15, 1989 Order, Jan. 18, 1991 Statement of Judge Wright to LRSD Counsel and Board, March l9, 1993 Transcript Excerpts, March 29, 1993 Transcript Excerpts, June 7, 1994 Transcript Excerpts, June 29, 1994 Excerpts from ODM report, May 17, 1995 Law 17 19 1 5 6 8 16 22 30 40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Issues Presented on Appeal (1.) Whether, in 1990, this court in fact approved, as to LRSD, a provision for dismissal with prejudice of this civil action and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors. * Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) (2.) Whether, alternatively, the district court's denial in 1996 of the motion for dismissal with prejudice was, in view of the evolution of the case since 1990, an appropriate exercise of the court's broad discretion. * Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, supra, 921 F.2d at 1386, 1394 * Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299-301 (1955) (3.) Whether the district court erred in interpreting the contract between the LRSD and Servicemaster Management Services and in declaring the interpretation urged by the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors to be inconsistent with public policy. * Restatement of Contracts, Second, Sections 202(1), 203(a) Statement of the Case A. LRSD's Motion for Dismissal In 1988 and 1989 the parties agreed to settle this desegregation case concerning three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. They presented to the district court separate, detailed, desegregation plans for the three systems, a lengthy interdistrict plan, and a 36-page \"settlement agreement\" 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I resolving the financial liability of the State of Arkansas. 1 Four releases were attached to the settlement agreement, one pertaining to each of the three local school systems and one regarding the State and its agents. A difference in the text of the two categories of releases is noteworthy. The releases pertaining to the LRSD, the NLRSD, and the PCSSD contained the following identical provision (emphasis by use of capitalization and parenthetical explanations added). 2 It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 et al., No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including but not limited to, [identification of other cases applicable to the system] (the 'Litigation') is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the [name of local system] and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. THIS DISMISSAL IS FINAL FOR ALL PURPOSES EXCEPT THAT THE COURT MAY RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ADDRESS ISSUES REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLANS. The release regarding the State and its agents did not include the language regarding the retention of jurisdiction. It read as follows: It is further understood and agreed thast the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1. et al., No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (the 'Litigation') is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the Arkansas State Board of Education and the former and current 1 See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir. 1990). 2 See LRSD Addendum, at 13, 17, 21. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I members of that Board named in the Litigation. 3 Thereafter, the parties appealed to this court the district court's rejection of the five agreements. At the outset of its opinion, this court characterized its resolution of the parties' challenge to the district court's action, as follows. We now reverse the judgment of the District Court. In general, we direct that Court, on remand, to approve the settlement plans and settlement agreement as submitted by the parties. We also make certain other directions for the future of the case. This court discussed the standards governing its review of the parties' settlement. See 921 F.2d at 1383-85, 1388-89. On the one hand, the court emphasized the importance of the parties' agreement and the public policy in favor of settlements. Id., at 1383, 1388. The court also recognized, however, its responsibility to insure that the agreements were not \"unfair to class members ... ,\" or ones inconsistent with the \"[court's] strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in an ongoing equitable decree which is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face.\" Id., at 1383. This court's 1990 opinion emphasized the district court's important responsibilities and its considerable authority and discretion. This language, quoted below, casts doubt on whether this court in fact approved the \"dismiss[al] with prejudice\" of 3 See Joshua Add., at 2.  See Little Rock School District, supra, 921 F.2d at 1376. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I this and the related civil actions as to the LRSD (and NLRSD and PCSSD). This text is as follows: 921 F.2d at 1383 This does not mean that a court must automatically approve anything the parties set before it. In the present case, for example, any remedy will necessarily require some judicial supervision -- monitoring, at least -- for a long time. A court has a strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in an ongoing equitable decree which is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. In addition, this is a class action, and courts are not obliged (indeed they are not permitted) to approve settlements that are unfair to class members, or negotiated by inadequate class representatives. 921 F.2d at 1386 The district court was concerned about the lack of sufficient detail in the plans to guarantee successful implementation. The answer to this concern lies, we think, in the fact, upon which we place a great deal of weight, that the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring. Indeed, such monitoring by the District Court and its agents is essential. It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to -- and here we have in mind especially the kind of programs that the plan contemplates for the incentive schools -- and it will be the job of the District Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. 921 F.2d at 1388 As indicated above, this does not mean that the parties will be free of supervision or monitoring. Quite the contrary: a necessary condition of our holding that the plans are not facially unconstitutional is that the parties' compliance with them will be carefully monitored. As we shall make clear at the conclusion of the opinion, when we set out the directions to be followed by the District Court on remand, the office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, to be headed by a Monitor appointed by the District Court, with such additional personnel as the District Court shall deem appropriate. 921 F.2d at 1390 .. We accept these undertakings [of the districts], 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I again with the reminder that compliance with them will be closely monitored. If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. As the parties agree, the settlement agreement implicitly authorizes the District Court to retain jurisdiction to oversee its implementation. See 14 App. 3466. 921 F.2d at 1394. para. (8.) The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. 921 F.2d at 1394. para. (9.) .. The parties should be able to agree as to whether any such adjustments [for purposes of transition to the new plans] are necessary, and, if so, what they should be. Absent such agreement, the District Court is authorized to take such action as may be just. [explanation added] This court's \"actions\" (921 F.2d at 1394) also addressed explicitly the \"settlement plans,\" the \"settlement agreement,\" and the provision, set forth without qualification, for dismissal of the State and its agents from the litigation. The court directed the district court, on remand, \"to approve\" \"the settlement plans submitted by the parties\" and \"the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" See 921 F.2d at 1394. This court also specified [921 F.2d at 1394, para. (5.), emphasis added] that [i]n Nos. 90-1165, 90-1166, and 90-1167, the District Court's order of December 11, 1989, is reversed, and the order of December 15, 1989, is vacated, with instructions to enter a fresh order dismissing the State as a party pursuant 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement. 5 There was no comparable provision regarding LRSD, NLRSD, or PCSSD. In an order of January 18, 1991, the district court (the Honorable Susan Webber Wright) addressed certain of this court's directives. Judge Wright, inter alia, ordered that \"[t]he state of Arkansas is dismissed as a party to this action pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.\" Joshua Add., at 7. She added that \"[t]he parties' settlement agreement is hereby approved as written by them\" (id.) and paraphrased this court's description of her responsibilities and authority as the case unfolded on remand. Id. In Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991), this court addressed the contention that the district court had employed erroneous legal standards in considering the parties' agreed upon modifications of the settlement. This court concluded that the district court had erred, articulated standards to be used in considering the requested modifications, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the decision. This court added: \"We ask the District Court, to the extent practicable, to give this matter priority on its docket\" (949 F.2d at 258) phraseology seemingly inconsistent with the notion that this case had been or should have dismissed as to the 5 This court referred to the entry of \"a fresh order\" because on December 15, 1989, Judge Henry Woods had, by order, \"dismissed [the State defendants] with prejudice from this case, the cases consolidated herein and their predecessors .... 11 Joshua Addendum, at 5. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I local defendants and the Joshua Intervenors. On November 30, 1995 -- 4 years and 10 months after Judge Wright had provided for the dismissal of the State defendants, the LRSD, alone, filed a \"Motion for Order of Dismissal\" seeking an order dismissing this case with prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD as of January 18, 1991, except to the extent the court retains jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or the desegregation plans. [LRSD App., at 35-36) LRSD did not in its motion or supporting memorandum explain to the court and the parties how, if at all, the conduct of the litigation would change if the motion were granted, whether effective January 18. 1991 as requested, or upon the date of the district court's order. See LRSD App., at 34-43. 6 On March 11, 1996, the district court denied LRSD's motion, reasoning as follows (LRSD Add., at 8-9, emphasis added): Let there be no mistake that, with the entry of the settlement agreement, the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter. The Court finds, however, that no useful purpose would be served by entering an order of disnmissal at this time. The Court of Appeals has instructed this Court 'to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.' Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreements (although some improvements have been made). Therefore. the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and 6 No such explanation is offered here, despite the fact that the Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to LRSD's motion below noted LRSD's silence about its perceived effects. LRSD App., at 56-57. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years. the logistics and complexity of this case are such that this court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering an order of dismissal at this time. The court's earlier statements and reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), created by order of this court, provide ample support for the court's finding about LRSD'~ poor implementation of the settlement. We next provide examples from the record supportive of the court's finding. Judge Wright directed that LRSD's school board members appear in court on March 19, 1993, at which point she \"read the riot act\" to them, beginning as follows (Joshua Add., at 8): .... The Court does not believe that you understand those orders, or if you do understand them, you do not seek to comply. Hopefully, after this morning, you will have an understanding; but whether you do or do not, you must comply. This court has been too lenient with you. The Court has given you ample leeway and opportunity to move toward a unitary school system. Those days of Court leniency and the assumption by the Court of good faith on your part are over. The court's March 19, 1993 statement, encompassing eight pages (Joshua Add., at 8 - 15), provided considerable evidence of failings in the LRSD. The court, for example, noted that it would \"appoint a budget officer to be paid by the [LRSD], who [would] be a part of the [ODM] and who [would] operate under the direction of Ann Brown [ODM Director].\" lg., at 11. This would be done because \"it became increasingly apparent that the [LRSD] could not or would not develop a budget sufficient to identify 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I expenditure of desegregation funds.\" Id., at 10. 7 The district court also provided \"a reminder of some of the provisions of the Plan or Court orders that [LRSD had] yet to fulfill,\" citing 21 examples. Id., at 13 - 15. On March 29, 1993, Judge Wright made the following comments to the lawyers for the parties (Joshua Add., at 18, 20-21): And just letting you as the lawyer for the district work this out with Joshua and the ODM will not help me instill in your Board the importance of starting a process whereby they consider the ramifications of their own actions and whereby they focus on the plan. They must be driven by this plan. The plan has to drive their actions and that has not been happening, clearly. * * * I feel that in dealing with the district that the Court has had to to ask the district at every turn where is this, where is that. You promised this under the plan, where is it? And the district kind of says, oh, yeah, we do need to do this, un-huh. But they drag their feet, and they don't have a plan in place to focus and they don't have a process in place to focus on what needs to be done to fulfill their obligations. And I have waited long enough and I'm tired of waiting .. On June 7, 1994, the district judge alluded to the need to depend upon action by many LRSD employees, in the context of again criticizing the quality of the system's implementation efforts (Joshua Add., at 22, 23-24, 27). THE COURT: I want to inject something right now. I hope that you are right, that people are there ready to, as you 7 The court further explained (id., at 13): \"A budget officer to assist the School District is just a 'make work' situation.\" No, it is not; that is patently false. The Court cannot determine how you are spending your money to achieve desegregation. Your administrators do not know. Your lawyers do not know. And you do not know. If the LRSD were a corporation, I would put it in receivership. By the way, do not think that I have not considered that with regard to LRSD.\" 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I put it, collaborate with the LRSD. I'm willing to assume that that's correct. What I cannot assume is that the LRSD will put in motion the efforts to, in fact, collaborate. The district talks a good game, but a lot of times, doesn't have anyone accountable for putting its promises into action, and we have seen this repeatedly in this case and it's an inherent defect of the Desegregation Plan. The Plan made a lot of promises, but didn't make any one department or person or officer officially accountable, and that's the reason people like you have to be here because nothing was being done. And we are getting things a little more in motion .... * * * THE COURT: Well, that sounds good, but I need to know with some specificity who will do it, when they'll do it, where they'll do it, who the targets are, what the means will be, because so far in this case, it has been difficult to get an organization as big and cumbersome as you school district to coordinate itself to meet these visions you have. I think they're great visions. I mean, no one can say that's a poor idea. I think it's a wonderful idea .... * * * THE COURT: Well, saying that you can do this and saying that that you will do it is not going to be enough in this courtroom any more. You're going to have to say specifically in some detail what you will do, when you'll do it, whom you'll contact and what have you .... 8 This court provided for the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to gather and report facts, therby facilitating and strengthening the district court's monitoring efforts. LRSD's incentive schools, identified by this court as a pivotal part of the settlement (921 F.2d at 1386 ), have been a focus of ODM's monitoring. In its report of May 17, 1995, concerning the incentive schools, ODM concluded (Joshua Add., at 8 See also Joshua Add., at 30-39 (deficiencies in LRSD's performance described by the court at a hearing on June 29, 1994). 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40-44): This year, we found none of the programs that we monitored being fully implemented at all five schools. Beginning with the first ODM incentive schools report in 1991-92, we have pointed to the glaring inconsistencies among the schools. As the number of incentive schools has dwindled from seven to five, the inconsistencies have grown rather than diminished. With four of the five principals being newly assigned this year, and two of them being brandnew principals, it is no wonder that some programmatic offerings have been slighted as the new principals tried to deal with the challenges posed by incentive schools, while adjusting to new jobs as well. In many areas, we were disheartened to see a retreat from the prior level of program implementation .... [details re particular programs omitted] [At 34) In many ways our fourth annual visit to the incentive schools was the most discouraging review we have conducted. While we saw many positive and commendable aspects, we also saw problems and deficiencies that were entirely avoidable and correctable. The LRSD has had a sufficient amount of time to successfully implement the promised programs. These schools were designed to serve as models of instructional excellence, but that level of quality has not been realized throughout. Instead, too many aspects of these schools serve as an object lesson that promises made, but not kept, are meaningless. Successfully implementing the incentive schools programs is not an impossible task by any means. With solid leadership. competent staff, consistent support, and the will and determination to 'be the best,' all these schools can be the high-guality centers of learning they were pledged to be. [At 36; emphasis added] In summary, as of the time of the LRSD's motion, the district court had an ample basis for concluding that LRSD had not \":scrupulously and diligently carr[ied] out the [relevant portions of] the settlement plans ... \" (921 F.2d at 1394), including the provisions regarding the incentive schools. B. The Servicemaster Contract With the exception of expressing the view that the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors agreed to a settlement of intervenors' 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I motion concerning the Servicemaster contract, the intervenors accept LRSD's factual statement regarding this contract. See LRSD Brief, at 4-5. Argument A. The District Court's Denial of LRSD's Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice Should Be Affirmed 1. It Is Plausible to Construe This Court's 1990 Decision as Not Applying the Provision for Dismissal of this Case as to the Local Districts This court is, of course, the best judge of the meaning of its 1990 decision and the specific directives to the district court. 9 It is plausible, we respectfully submit, to construe this court's 1990 decision as not applying the provision for \"dismiss[al] [of this litigation] with prejudice as to the LRSD .\" and its agents. Several factors support this alternative argument. First. This court did not simply state that it approved the settlements. Rather, it cited the responsibility to insure their consistency, facially, with minimum constitutional standards (921 F.2d at 1383) and approved the agrements \"[i)n general\" and subject to \"certain other directions for the future of the case.\" See 921 F.2d at 1376. Second. This court directed the entry of an order dismissing the action agaiamst the State and its agents (921 F.2d at 1394); no similar action was required as to the local systems. 9 See Tasby v. Estes, 643 F.2d 1103, 1106 (5th Cir. 1981) (deference to district court on the standard of compliance established by its own order); Little Rock School District, supra, 921 F.2d at 1391-92 (construing earlier decision in this case). 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Third. This court's description (quoted above) of the district court's future role is hardly consistent with a dismissed case. In the light of five, detailed settlement documents, this court obviously foresaw an active role for the district court -- and, indeed, even required the creation of ODM to facilitate that effort. Fourth. This court may have viewed the key paragraph of the releases quoted above as containing contradictory concepts10 and opted for continuing jurisdiction as necessary to meet the minimum constitutionaal standards to which it alluded. 11 Fifth. This court may have construed the key paragraph of the releases - - by use of the words \"may retain jurisdiction ... \" -- to allow the courts to choose the retention of jurisdiction (i.e., a continued open status), if deemed necessary for the court to conclude that the settlement was lawful. See 921 F.2d at 1390.12 Lastly, we reiterate our point about this court's descrip~ion of the status of this case during a later appeal. See supra at 6. To be sure, our suggested approach may involve some tension with the directive that on remand the district court should \"approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" 10 That is, this case shall be dismissed, this case shall not be dismissed. 11 E.g., Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299-301 (1955); Raney v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 443, 449 (1968). ~ \"As the parties agree, the settlement agreement implicitly authorizes the District Court to retain jurisdiction to oversee its implementation. See 14 App. 3466.\" 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 921 F.2d at 1394, para. (6.). 13 It sometimes happens that all of the content of an opinion resolving a complex matter does not fit neatly together. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 113 s.ct. 2742, 2752-53 (1993). If there is tension, or inconsistency, we respectfully suggest that ours is the best reading of the totality of the 1990 opinion. 14 Intervenors' alternative approach does not leave LRSD without the benefit of its bargain. Rather, the case continues to be deemed open, as realistically it is; 15 and LRSD and the other districts are free to argue that any particular matter (or claim) raised by the Joshua Intervenors is ouside the ambit of the ongoing litigation. That is, the case remains open; its nature is somewhat changed.\" 13 There is no such issue, if the agreement \"as written by [the parties]\" is construed by reason of the phrase \"may retain jurisdiction\" to allow the courts to choose a continuing open status rather than dismissal. 14 The decision in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992), regarding the provision about millages (see LRSD Brief, at 7-9), is factually distinguishable. That issue did not involve an instance of either differing strands in this court's 1990 opinion approving the settlement, or a provision of the settlement open to multiple interpretations. 15 The docket excerpts included in the LRSD Appendix (at i to xv) include, for example, 155 entries from August 31, 1995 through April 30, 1996. 16 It is unclear to intervenors what the district judge meant by stating that \"the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter.\" LRSD Add., at 8. The court, there, did not refer to dismissal of the litigation with prejudice. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. If the District Court, in Substance, Rejected A Belated Effort to Implement a Portion of the Settlement Agreement, That Action Was Not an Abuse of Discretion in View of the Evolution of the Case Since 1990 It may be, depending upon this court's interpretation of its 1990 ruling, that the district court's denial of the motion is accurately characterized as rejecting a part of the \"settlement agreement\" -- at least temporarily.n If so, that action was not an abuse of discretion given the facts of which the district court was aware when it ruled in 1996, and the non-final nature of its ruling. The Supreme Courts's emphasis on the role of district courts in desegregation cases began with Brown v. Board of Education. supra, 349 U.S. at 299-301. This theme was often repeated thereafter by the high court, which emphasized the need to rely upon the informed discretion of the district courts, the judicial bodies most familiar with the facts of each case.~. United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 395 U.S. 225, 227, 235-36 (1969) (noting that on at least one occasion the district court had \"on its own motion, amended his outstanding order ... \"); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educ., 402 u. S. 1, 28 (1971); Wright v. City Council of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451, 470-71 (1972). 18 n The district court wrote that dismissal \"should be deferred\"; the court declined to approve dismissal \"at this time.\" LRSD Add., at 9, 10. 18 In this case, this court has followed the Supreme Court's lead, emphasizing the need for reliance on the district court, as well as that court's discretion. See Little Rock School District. supra, 921 F.2d at 1394, para. (8.); Appeal of Little Rock School 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Turning to the action giving rise to this segment of the appeal, the district court faced a motion seeking dismissal of this litigation in 1995 and 1996, at a point when it had been confronted with and commented upon LRSD's inadequate implementation of the settlement, also evidenced by the work of ODM. The situation, then, was different in a very significant sense from 1989-1990 when this court had considered the facial validity of the settlement. See 921 F.2d at 1383-84. The district court's ruling was based upon \"the facts\"; the court took \"appropriate [action] . to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement .. \"See "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1658","title":"Court filings concerning enforcement of the settlement agreement with the state, motion for asamicus curiae concerning the Servicemaster contract, PCSSD's motion seeking equitable relief, and LRSD final program and planning and budgeting tool for 1996-97 and September program","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Joshua Intervenors","Knight Intervenors","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School facilities","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning enforcement of the settlement agreement with the state, motion for asamicus curiae concerning the Servicemaster contract, PCSSD's motion seeking equitable relief, and LRSD final program and planning and budgeting tool for 1996-97 and September program"],"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/1658"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["52 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to respondent Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) ''amendment and supplement'' to its second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, motion for temporary restraining order; District Court, brief in support of motion for temporary restraining order; Court of Appeals, motion to strike certain portions of the Joshua intervenors' appellee/appellant's brief; District Court, Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, brief in suopport of Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to motion for temporary restraining order; District Court, brief in opposition to motion for temporary restraining order; District Court, motion for enlargement of time; District Court, motion of the Joshua intervenors to be heard asamicus curiae concerning the Servicemaster contract issue; District Court, motion for hearing; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) supplemental motion for costs and attorneys' fees as to the state defendants; District Court, brief in further support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) supplemental motion for costs and attorneys' fees as to the state defendants; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees; District Court, motion for order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) final program and planning and budgeting tool for 1996-97 and September program and planning and budgeting tool; Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, motion to intervene by the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRYANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; FORT SMITH SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST MEMPHIS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ALTUS-DENNING SCHOOL DISTRICT; ASHDOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT; BARTON-LEXA SCHOOL DISTRICT; BATESVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BIGGERS-REYNO SCHOOL DISTRICT; BLACK ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRIGHT STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRINKLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT; CENTERPOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CLARENDON SCHOOL DISTRICT; COTTON PLANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CUTTER MORNING STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INT ERVEN ORS SEP 5 1996 Office of Dss~regation Mcrn1Grn1~ DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOLLARWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT;  -------r FOREMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT; FOUNTAIN LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT; GILLETT SCHOOL DISTRICT; GLEN ROSE SCHOOL DISTRICT; GUY-PERKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT; HOXIE SCHOOL DISTRICT; JONESBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT; KIRBY SCHOOL DISTRICT; LAVACA SCHOOL DISTRICT; LEWISVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MAGAZINE SCHOOL DISTRICT; MALVERN SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAMMOTH SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT; MANILA SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAYNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTHEAST ARKANSAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ODEN SCHOOL DISTRICT; OZ~..RK SCHOO~ DISTRICT; PLAINVIEW-ROVER SCHOOL DISTRICT; POCAHONTAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; PRAIRIE GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT; SOUTH CONWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; SPRING HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT; STAMPS SCHOOL DISTRICT; STEPHENS SCHOOL DISTRICT; TURRELL SCHOOL DISTRICT; VAN BUREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WATSON CHAPEL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT; WHITE HALL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WINSLOW SCHOOL DISTRICT; WONDERVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT; and YELLVILLE-SUMMIT SCHOOL DISTRICT BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS PCSSD'S \"AMENDMENT INT ERVEN ORS AND SUPPLEMENT\" TO ITS SECOND MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE PCSSD adopts and incorporates by reference its brief dated August 5, 1996 which was served in support of its response to ADE's motion to dismiss or have this court abstain from considering PCSSD's second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the State. The PCSSD has no sericus quarrel with the State's description of the \"status of Lake View II\" as set forth at page 2 of the State's brief. The State's Exhaustion Argument Simply stated, the new minimum salary law, an unfunded mandate, substantially interferes with the PCSSD's ability to desegregate by requiring, absent a temporary waiver, the shifting of scarce resources away from instructional activities and desegregation related activities into a salary structure1  This law was imposed without regard, apparently, to the publicly known financial circumstances of the PCSSD and without regard to the fact that the PCSSD is one of four school districts in the state which collectively bargains with it~ certified employees. Thus, whatever policy considerations might underpin the passage of the minimum salary law elsewhere in the State, those policy reasons could not apply in the PCSSD where the District and the union have historically agreed (admittedly, often after much rancor) upon a salary schedule for all certified employees. 1The main thrust of the relief sought by the PCSSD on this issue is for the State to provide the funds for compliance with the law. This is not a case about administrative remedies. In any event, any waiver that could be obtained by the PCSSD is limited to two years. The impact of the minimum salary law will be into the next century at a minimum. That the passage of the minimum salary law substantially interferes with the PCSSD's ability to desegregate was amply demonstrated on August 19, 1996 when the teachers in the PCSSD went on strike. Simply put, to the extent that the existence of the minimum salary law was a key component of the dispute which led to the strike, it \"substantially interfered\" with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate. For a further amplification of this cause and effect scenario, the PCSSD respectfully incorporates by reference the proceedings had in this Court on August 28, 1996, the ruling which issued at the end of those proceedings, and the motion and brief filed by the PCSSD on August 27, 1996. Because the granting of a waiver would only postpone the legal issues and the effects of the minimum salary for a maximum of two years in the context of a case that has been ongoing since 1982, the PCSSD respectfully submits that the minimum salary law issue should be considered in tandem with the other issues raised by the respective PCSSD motions to enforce the settlement agreement. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the relief sought by State defendants be denied and that under the particular circumstances 3 of this case, that abstention should not lie. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ; \"11 ' M. SamELlones III (76060) Atta~ eys or Pulas i County Speci' 1 hool District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 3 , 1996, 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. o. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 4 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 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP O 6 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: --------- DEP. CLERK 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. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. REC ,V .. SEP 1996 DEFENDANTS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS Office of Desegregation Monitonn~ BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. INIERVENORS MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Knight, et al. Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL LAW FIRM, for their Motion, state on information and belief: 1. On Thursday, August 29, 1996, the court held a hearing on the Motion of PCS SD for Injunctive Relief with regard to PACT and those of its members who were then engaged in a strike against the District over pay and other related issues. This hearing was commenced upon approximately fifteen (15) hours notice to counsel for the Knight, et al. Intervenors. 2. At the conclusion of the hearing, citing desegregation obligations of the District and PACT in addition to contractual obligations of PACT to the District as contained in the Master Contract between those parties, the Court ordered the teachers back to work on Tuesday, September 3, 1996. Further, the Court ordered PACT and the District to mediate the disputes between them before Mr. Gus Taylor, Chief Conciliator of the United States Department of Justice. 3. As ordered, the teachers returned the work on September 3, 1996, and on September 4, 1996, began the mediation process with Mr. Taylor. Schools were closed by the Board August 19-23; August 26-27; August 29-30. 4. It was clearly the intent of the Court's Order requiring mediation that the parties should mediate in good faith and without retaliation by the District against those teachers engaged in the strike. 5. Despite the Order of the Court for the teachers to return to work which undercut any negotiating position they may have had, the following relevant events have taken place since the order was delivered from the bench: (a) The District has engaged in pay practices which docked three days pay for every classroom teacher regardless of their circumstances on the first regularly scheduled payday. The District has announced actions to dock each classroom teacher regardless of their circumstances for five to seven (5-7) days in the second regularly scheduled pay period which means that there is a potential for many of the District's teachers on that payday to actually owe the District money. (b) The District has docked the pay of classroom teachers who crossed the picket line and worked on the one day that the board voted to hold school open. 2 ( c) Classroom teachers on paid leave of absence were docked the same number of days as teachers who were out on strike. Teachers on paid disability leave were docked the same pay as regular classroom teachers in spite of the fact that they did not participate in the strike. (d) At least one teacher on paid administrative suspension pending termination hearings was docked the same as other classroom teachers. (e) On the other hand, psychological examiners; speech therapists; support staff; and building level administrators were not docked any pay and no docking of pay is planned for the next regularly scheduled pay period. (f) The District is violating the master contract between the parties with regard to pay when schools are closed. For instance, the master contract does not provide for teachers to get their pay docked for such closures of school as inclement weather and the District did not dock pay after the 1988 Strike. (g) Not only are the actions with regard to docking pay contrary to the court's intent in its ruling from the bench, but also, the actions of the District in docking pay of classroom teachers is clearly retaliatory in nature contrary to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (h) The District has made an administrative decision that all makeup days will occur at the end of the school year and it did not alter the twenty-six (26) pay periods set forth in the Master Contract 3 6. The actions of the District seriously jeopardize the success of the mediation process and the successful implementation of the District's Desegregation Plan. 7. AH the Data phase factors for Preliminary Relief are in favor of PACT. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors pray that the court order an immediate hearing and, following said hearing, to make such temporary and permanent orders and rulings as will protect the integrity of the mediation process; protect the classroom teachers of the District from retaliation for the exercise of their constitutional rights; uphold their master contract; grant them attorney's fees; and all other relief to which they may be entitled. 4 ~ctfully submitted, '---~ I~ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on September 6, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 5 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 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 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. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SEP O 6 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ------D~E...,..P . ...,.C-LE=R-K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INIERVENOR.5 INIERVENOR.5 INIERVENOR.5 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER It is clear that the actions of the School District in docking teachers' pay is contrary to the Court's intent in its ruling from the bench after the hearing of August 29, 1996. Teachers' pay was not docked subsequent to the teacher strike of 1988. Furthermore, the master contract between the parties provides that there shall be twenty-six (26) pay periods during the school year and provides no docking of pay provisions for any circumstances such as inclement weather or other incidents or other circumstances that may interrupt the school year. Even though the Court undercut the bargaining position of the teachers by ordering them back to work, the teachers did honor the Court's Orders and have returned to the bargaining table with Mr. Taylor as mediator. This mediation process which the Court clearly intended to resolve the issues between the parties is severely threatened by the District's retaliatory action against select members of the teacher union in an effort by the District to crush the union or render it ineffective by creating economic hardship among its members. The- events that have taken place and the disparate impact of the docking of pay of the classroom teachers show that the District is bent not upon settlement of the division between the parties and healing the riff between them, but rather to punish the classroom teachers who will now have to wait until the end of the school year to receive their pay. The District did not change the twenty-six (26) period pay provisions of the master contract. Further, that some teachers at the next pay period may actually owe the District money creates such economic hardship with its attendant morale problem in the classroom teachers that the successful implementation of the District's Desegregation Plan may be irreparably harmed. Finally, the rights of freedom of speech and association guaranteed to all citizens of this country, including public employees, has been violated by the District's retaliatory action. To remedy this situation, the Court should, temporarily and permanently enjoin the District from deviating from its normal pay practices without singling out any sub-group of PACT for docking of pay; grant them attorneys fees and all other relief to which they may be entitled. 2 ~tfully submitted, ~~.C)__J__ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (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 September 6, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 3 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCB Y Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 ~.~ Richard W. Roachell RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT SEP 1 0 1996 Off ice of Desegregauon Morntonng LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 96-047EALR SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.P. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN PORTIONS APPELLANT APPELLEE APPELLEE OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS APPELLEE/ APPELLANT'S BRJEF ServiceMaster Management Services L.P. (\"ServiceMaster\"), for its motion to strike certain portions of the brief filed by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") states: - ... -.,... ___... .... ~ 1. Joshua requested in a letter filed with the Court dated August 21, 1996, that it be heard with respect to \"argument one\" of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Brief as an appellee and that it be heard with respect to \"argument two\" of the LRSD Brief, which involves ServiceMaster, as an appellant. 2. ServiceMaster filed a response to Joshua's Motion on August 23, 1996, whereas ServiceMaster objected to Joshua's request that it be heard as an appellant with respect to argument two of the LRSD Brief. 3. On August 23, 1996, the Court granted Joshua's motion for an extension of time within which to file a brief as an appellee, and the Court denied, without prejudice, ServiceMaster's response, subject to renewal when the brief by Joshua is filed if circumstances warrant. 624\\MOTSTRIK.909 1 4. The brief filed by Joshua is titled: \"Brief of Appellee/Appellant Mrs. Lorene Joshua, ET AL.\" In addition, in its Brief, Joshua took the position of an appellee and appellant. 5. The following references are made in the Joshua Brief with respect to ServiceMaster: Issues Presented on Appeal, Issue number 3, page 1 of the Joshua Brief; Statement of the Case, Part B, page 11-12 of the Brief; and, Argument, Argument B, page 17-19 of the Brief. 6. Joshua advances arguments with respect to ServiceMaster which may only be properly made as an appellant in the case. 7. Joshua was served with a copy of the District Court's Order dated March 11, 1995, and failed to file an appeal of its own accord with respect to the District Court's Order concerning argument two, the ServiceMaster issue, as prescribed by the Rules of Appellate - Procedure. In addition, this appeal is not and cannot be characterized as a cross-appeal. 8. The status of Joshua in this appeal filed by the LRSD can only be entertained as an appellee with respect to argument one presented by the LRSD. WHEREFORE, ServiceMaster requests that all portions of Joshua's Brief which make reference to ServiceMaster be stricken as they are prejudicial to appellee ServiceMaster. 624\\MOTSTRIK.909 2 Respectfully submitted, GIROIR \u0026 GREGORY, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 111 CENTER STREET, SUITE 1900 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 (501) 372-3000 and - - John C. Everett, #70022 EVERETT, MARS \u0026 STILLS P.O. Box 1646 Fayetteville, AR 72702 (501) 443-0292 Attorneys for ServiceMaster Management Services BJYoseS.M:owe~ry, %~ Bar #90l23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Strike Portions of the Joshua's Intervenors Brief has been served on the following people by depositing copy of the same in the United States mail on this 9th day of September, 1996. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 17223 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capital, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Bldg. Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 624\\MOTSTRIK.909 3 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept. of Education 4 State Capital Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 624\\MOTSTRIK.909 4 C IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT' ~-  - ' \"~As EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS .C._':_\",\" ) -A \") - --~ .)  - - ') WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-8'6- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RE: c erv~~ DEFENDANfS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INIERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SEP 1 1 1996 Oifioo of D(\u003cSvc.grsgation Mon~or~VENORS BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. INIERVENORS KNIGHT, ET AL., RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF Knight, et al. Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL LAW FIRM, for their Response to PCSSD's Motion Seeking Equitable Relief, state: 1. Admit paragraph 1 to the extent that the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers' (PACT) job action continued until September 3, 1996, when the Court ordered PACT members back to work. 2. Deny paragraph 2. Asserts affirmatively that PACT' s job action does not prevent PCSSD from delivering the educational services and desegregation programs outlined in the Desegregation Plan and by orders of this Court. Asserts affirmatively that the job action is only delaying the execution of the Desegregation Plan and orders of this Court for the current school year. 3. Denies paragraph 3. Asserts affirmatively that PACT is currently involved in litigation involving the precise issue of PACT' s job action in Pulaski County Chancery Court, Sixth Division, in the case Mike Wilson, et al. v. Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, No. IJ96-5788. .: ...... . Asserts affirmatively that PACT has filed a Motion for Joinder of PCS SD in that action because PCS SD is a necessary party to that action. Asserts affirmatively that they were not aware as of the date of the preliminary hearing of any breach of contract by the PCS SD except the Teacher Minimum Salary law. 4. Denies paragraph 4. 5. Denies each and every allegation ofPCSSD's Motion not specifically admitted herein. WHEREFORE, Knight lntervenors pray for an order of this Court denying PCSSD's Motion Seeking Equitable Relief; that the Court allow PACT to continue its job action pending resolution of the dispute between PCS SD and PACT; and for all other proper legal and equitable relief. Respectfully submitted, ~ . 0--L_ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (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 September 10, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 I Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street 2 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 7220 I M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 7220 I Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0 . Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 3 Mr. Stephen W Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard W. Roachell IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S::? : ~ .:.~3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS J,.\u003c .. ~c: ','/ i~:~:-.:? ~,. -. .=. ~ cL----~ WESTERN DIVISION B, -_______ _-  _ '' 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. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF KNIGHT, ET AL.. RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF Statement of tlte Facts L,_:-c .. :::--.r\u003c PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) were unable to agree on teaching contracts for the 1996-97 school year before the school year began. PACT began a job action because of the failed contract negotiations. Several parents filed a complaint in Pulaski County Chancery Court, asking the Court for injunctive relief Mike Wilson, et al. v. Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, et al., Case No. U96-5788 . The Court denied Plaintiffs requests, and refused to order PACT teachers back to work at the time of the hearing. PACT filed a Motion Seeking Equitable Relief on or about August 27, 1996, in the abovecaptioned case. The Court held a hearing on August 28, 1996. The Court ordered teachers in PCSSD back to work on September 3, 1996. Argument At issue is whether the PCSSD has met its burden for this Court to issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary .injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PCSSD must show (1) the threat of irreparable harm; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that the movant will succeed on the merits; and ( 4) public interest. Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981). There is no threat of irreparable harm on the PCSSD or desegregation because of the teacher strike. The Eighth Circuit has given this Court much discretion to modify details and marginal issues related to the Settlement Agreement. 949 F.2d 253 (1991). The agreed timetables for school are details and/or marginal issues within the Court's discretion to modify. A mere delay in the school year is a detail and/or marginal issue that the Court can modify. Thus, PACT' s job action does not affect the Desegregation case in a substantial way, and neither does it cause irreparable harm to the school district. However, the Court's order that broke PACT's job action greatly injures the bargaining position of PACT with PCS SD. \"The right to strike, as an important symbol of a free society, should not be denied unless such a strike would substantially injury paramount interests of the larger community.\" County Sanitation District No. 2, 69.9 P.2d at 848. Furthermore, PACT joined the Desegregation case to protect its bargaining position. \"An injunction does not settle a dispute -- it simply disables one of the parties.\" Burlington Northern R .. Co. at 107 S. Ct.1854. PACT's bargaining position has been disabled because of the injunction. 2 Furthermore, it is a matter of public _policy in the state of Arkansas to allow organized labor to bargain collectively. \"Freedom of organized labor to bargain collectively ... is declared to be the public policy of the state under Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 34.\" Ark. Code Ann.  11-3-301. Therefore, there is a great interest in letting PACT maintain its bargaining position with PCS SD by allowing it to continue in its peaceful job action. On the one hand, the Court's order renders moot the issue of the probability of success on the merits because ordering teachers back to work means that PCS SD has succeeded on the merits, only to the great detriment to the teachers' bargaining power. On the other hand, because the matter has been directed to federal mediators, success on the merits means that PCS SD and PACT agree to contract terms for the l 996-97 school year. This result would be no more of a success for PCS SD than it would be for PACT. PCSSD contends that it cannot afford to raise teachers' pay. However, the Courts have said repeatedly that lack of money is no excuse. PCSSD must be made to comply with Act 917 of the 1995 legislature for the 1996-97 school year. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors pray for an order of this Court denying PCS SD' s Motion Seeking Equitable Relief; that the Court allow PACT to continue its job action pending resolution of the dispute between PCSSD and PACT; and for all other proper legal and equitable relief Respectfully submitted, 3 ~.c:u___ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 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 September 10, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 20 I East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 4 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 7220 I ~.0--L_ Richard W. Roachell 11:20 WRIGHT LINDSEY \u0026 JENN I t--!GS NO.083 POO9/ O20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LRC-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL blSTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. PCSSD's RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), for its response to the motion - of Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") for a temporary restraining order to prohibit PCSSD from \"docking\" teachers' pay for strike days, states: 1. PACT cannot demonstrate any of the Dataphase requirements lo warrant this Court's granting of injunctive relief. 2. PACT must show (1) the threat of irreparable harm, (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant, (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits, and (4) the public interest. 3, PACT cannot establish irreparable harm. It seeks money -- and it is beyond peradventure that purported injury which can be recompensed by monetary damages is not irreparable harm. 11 : 21 WRIGHT LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS NO. 083 P010/ 02O 4. This Court has "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1644","title":"Court Filings: District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants, and affidavits","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":["1996-08-30"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Lawyers","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants, and affidavits"],"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/1644"],"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.  FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 3 0 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ------;:D:;-;:E~P.--;::C;;-LE;=-;R:;;:;K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-8-66 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL SEP 3 1996 ,i ! S-J?(' .,.., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office ot Des . e~regauon Monitoring ,, ---- -- --- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S- --'-.~  MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AS TO STATE DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. With respect to the loss funding and workers' compensation issues decided -by this court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, LRSD is a prevailing party and is therefore entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs. LRSD is entitled to $42,520.00 in attorneys' fees (Christopher Heller - 262 hours x $160.00 = $41,920.00; Clay Fendley - 6 hours x $100.00 = $600.00) and $563.32 in costs. 2. The fees and costs are supported by the attached Affidavit. 3. LRSD adopts the motion and brief filed on August 16, 1996 by PCSSD concerning attorneys' fees in this matter. blby\\UISD-WC.FEES 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:(_,~ ~ Christopher H~ ---- Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Little Rock School District's Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Costs As To The State has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of August, 1996: 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  _/// / -- wilY\\USD,WC.FEES 3 JJs\\m\\ij:;NS.S E.f\u003e.STtP.N O\\S1RI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT p..l}G 3 0 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Cl\u003c. CLERK WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMA ' By. ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SEP 3 1996 3.:..,.,,,., PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS Office of Dssegregaiion Monitcnno INTERVENORS AFFIDAVIT I, Christopher Heller, after being duly sworn, state under oath: 1. The billing statements attached as Exhibit A to this Affidavit reflect the hours worked on this matter as recorded in contemporaneous time records. All of the time shown on these billing statements have been billed to LRSD and those bills have been paid. 2. My time in this case was devoted primarily to the loss funding and workers' compensation issues. I have reviewed the billing records in an effort to exclude time which was devoted to matters on which LRSD did not prevail, including the APSCN issue and our petition for reconsideration to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3. I have been engaged in the private practice of law at Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark for fifteen (15) years. My normal hourly billing rate is $160.00. That rate is in line with rates typically btloy\\UlSD-WC.AFF charged by lawyers of similar experience and ability in Pulaski County, Arkansas 4. Clay Fendley is an associate with Friday, Eldredge \u0026 .. Clark with four (4) years of experience. His normal hourly billing rate is $100. 00. This rate is in line with billing rates for lawyers of similar ability and experience in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 5. As can be seen from the attached billing statements, the time expended on this matter was originally recorded and billed as a part of the general Little Rock School District Desegregation Case file (LI230-90). Following the district court decision, a separate file was established (LI230-159). In reviewing the general file, I was very conservative in my effort to segregate the time which was devoted to the issues in this discreet matter. Many time entries which were more probably than not related to this matter are not included in the attached exhibit. Further affiant sayeth not. au,y\\LllSD-WC.AFF 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) ss. COUNTY OF PULASKI) on this the 30th day of August, 1996, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, personally appeared Christopher Heller, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the attestation and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purpose therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. Notary Pubf ic ~- My bllo,IIJISl).WC.AFF 3 EXHIBIT A TO AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PAR'ffiERSHIP Of NlMDUAlB l\u003eHO PflOFESSIONAl ASSOCIAllONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ~1 400 WEST CAPITOL ~ LITnE IIOQC, AIIUNIAS 72201 TAX IDENTIFICATION 171-0253837 2000 ARSTCOMMERCW. llUIIJllNG r 1so1 \u003e 37\u0026-2011 r A G E 6/20/94 LENC RESEARCHE~ WHAT L.R. SC~O~L ~IST. wusT aa TG BE DECLARED U~ITARY; ~OCD F~rTH COMPLIANCE o/~l/94 (Jr{ TELEPHONE C:JNfE:REtKE wITH :TE\\I[ JCJNCS RE: BUS Ct. $E PREPARATWN '.JF BUOG!:l ISSUES r~:.JTE ::.\\00!'. ; PR~Ph~ATIGN FOR HEA~ING RESE .. RCH!:r u~-HT:.AY STATUS r::SUi'.\",,, 6/21/94 L~NC USED W~3TLAW TO SHEPA~OIZ~ rrTTT3 A~~ oa~ELL UP TH~U TODAY; ~A~ VARIJU : SE~~CHES TJ SEE WHAT A SCH00l B0A~D ~UST 00 AFTE~ IMPLEMENT[~~ CONS:~T DECREE TO ATTAIN UNITARY STATUS ~~r G~; OUT OF CCJURT'S SUP::R'VISim: 6/Z~/~~ CJH TELEPHONE CCN~E~E~CE WITH JOHN RIG~S LETTE~ F~D~ STEVE JONES RECEIVED~ REVIEWED NlR 3UOGEi LETT=R TO MR. ~tlHOLL[N PREPARATION OF ~OTION TO EXCU:E MR. RIGGS RES~ARCHE~ WGRKERS CG'4P. ISSU~ PRErA~ATI  N JF DUOGET H~ARI~G: 6/22/94 LE '.K ~ES::/,f:.CHED 2 NE~ CASES FC,iND 2!; \\\\::Tu.;.: YE'..TERulV FR0'4 F.:\u003e. SUPPLEM~1:T 6/23/94 CJH TELEPHONE C~N~!:RENCE ~ITH ELIZ ~QVTER P.E: ADE TRIAL; ca~P P~EPARATI~N OF ~OTION TO ~N~nCE SETTLEM~NT RE: WORKERS CO~P TELEPHONE CONFERE~CE WITH ~ARK MILHOLLEN RE: BUOGET HEARING PREPARATION FOR WITNESS MEETrnG:; . A~!O BUDGET Hi:~R I NG TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ~Trvr JJN:~ LETTER FRO~ MR. GANS ~E: ~BEYANCE TELEPHONE CJNFERE~CE WIT~ MAR HILHGLLEN TELEPHONE CONFE~ENCE WITH 0~ JAVELL! - zqT~ PREPARATION OF MOTION TO ~X(U~E 6/23/94 LENC SHEPAROIZED PITTS ANC TOPEKA C~$E~; REVIEWED RELEVA~T CASE~ \u0026/2~/94 tJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH PAT GEE; ;. . REVIEWED STATUTE; FAXED .. LETTER FROM HR. GANS :.-.1,::. , . .'-; RECEIVED t REVI~MEO ORDER .. _i/~V:-: .. ~:i.,'., . TEt.EPH~~E CONFERENCE WITH PAT GEE :_.j(._'tt, _;~,!tii,.~,- _ _. {tl\\E,A,~~qo~ . OF BUOGET HEARING :. h -, --~.f:.,., -: LENC FQUNO_ ALL RELEVANT CASES IN :,!( . .  , f t.;~::P~,E~.i~!iA!~Off CASE; MAOE CCP IS; -~*..,, .. :: J~. ,,:,\u003c ~C~GHT!D   A IQ NlPV ~ .-~:;;, . :. ~:  . I!'\\:V~ ~ 0 -lltll oATr 7/27/o L!~30 .OO:JOO!\"-CJ l.O~ .25 -~s .1c; .25 .25 1.:5 .75 .75  2 5 2.'ic .so .25 .sc  50 .~s .zs .z., z.1~ 3.00 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PAR'ERSIF Of' INllN'llUALS AHO PROf'ESSIONAl ASSOCIATlONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 Fl'IST COMMEJICIAL a.DING \u003cIQ() WEST CAPITOL UTIU 110CX. AIIICANIAI l'22ID1 (501) '79-2011 6/'l.'t/94 WAD RECEIVED ANO R:VH:~EC LETTE\" Fi:'.::'~ 1'.. GANS o/27/94 CJrl CONF::RcNC( ,HTH STEVE JONES. :HE~ STEVE JONE: A~D nae ~ORGA~; C~LL TC NOR~A RJGERS; ~EVIf-MEO BUDGET n~cs; PREPARATION FGR ~IT~ESS ~EfTI~~~ TCLEPHO~E CONFERENCE WITH J~HN TULL~ ~: ~IO',~ P.ECEIYEO ~ REVIEWED FAX FRC~ ~q. lULL TELEPHON:: c:~FERENCE WIT~ FUS~ ~AYC CQNFCREN~C WITH WIT~ESS IN FR[ rA~!~IS~ FOR nuc~rr HEAP.ING LEfTE~ FR~~ RICHARD ROACHELL TEL[PHO~E CJNFERE~:E ~IT~ er JACOVELLf PRErARATICN OF ~OT!ON TC ~x:u:E 6/27/~4 JL~ VARIOUS ~tTTEqS t:,/27/94 LENC BEGAN OUTLINING ~HAT MUST B; DONE AFTE~ DECREE rs E~TEREO t.,/~:1/94 CJt-i PREPARATIQN ANQ APF4RF\"l AI rii,p;,i::r HEA~IT,Gj CALLS IO CJ Fe r.,~YTfQi 6/?.9/'9i. CJH JRAFTEO WJRKERS COMP. ~~TIO~; CALL TO DR. r:!LUAMSj PREPA~ATI:;I: F:'P. COMPLETT?N OE H~ARING LETTER FRO~ STEVE JONES RECEIVEO t ~EVIEWEO NLRSD STATU~ P.[P~~T ~EVIEWEO F~X ~RO~ ~R. ROACHELL R~: HEAR!ttG CONFERENCE ~ITH CLIENTS; PREPA~ATIC~ AND APPEARED FOR BUDGET HEA~I~G LETTER TO DR. WILLIA~$ RE~ NLR STATUS AEPO~ T MEMO FRO~~. BASSA DRAFTED JUNE PRJJECT MGMT TOOL CO~FEP.ENCE ~ITH J[RR~ MALON~ TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CR. hlLLIAM~ LETTER TO OR. ~ILLIA~ SU~MARI!I~G ccc~T PROCEEDINGS ~EVIEWEO JQSHUA PROPC,ED ~RCE~; REPORT(~ TO OR. WILLIA~ RESE.:.RCHEQ ANO PBF 0 4SATTQN ~F \"0T~CJ!; ANC ~TIPULAT!ON RE: ~ORKERS COMPfNS.ntoN 6/Zq/94 JLM REVIEWED ~OCUME~TS FROM OR. ~!TCHELL; NOTE FPOM MS. RODGERS; DRAFTED L[TT~~ TO MS. BOYTER REVIEWED GUOGET HEARl~G ~ATTE~S REVIEWED JUNE MG~T TOOL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH OR. BAS~A MGMT TOOL HATTERS AEVIEHEO FILEi O~AFTEO PLEADING; ?AGr TAX IOENTIFICATI~ 171-0253137 I~vr :0-11111 0.C.Tf 7/27/~ UZ3J  000090-CJ  ....-, C. ' .2s -,c  - J -~ 5  on e.7~  t_r.  :i Q.__ .75 .so .zs 7 ,. (CONTINUED ON PAGE ~I ., FRIDAY, ELDREDGE\u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0MDUAI.S AHO PAOFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL IIUIIJllNG 400 WEST CAPITOL IJTTU IIOCI(, AIIKANUI 722111 (S01) 3711-2011 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY; REVIEhED GRIEF TO 8TH CIR. RE: ELECTION ZONES; REVIEWED CHARLES PL~INTIFFS ORIEF; LETTER TO 8TH CIRCUIT CLE~K RE: RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES 7/07/q4 JLM REVIEWED AND PREPARED OUTLINE RE: AOE KGMT TOOL REVI[tiED ORDER R!:: AOE/MFPA . ,  CALCULATIONS 7/08/94 CJH PREPARATIJN OF AP~EAL - VOTING RIGHT~ RECEIVED REVIEWED PCSS~ LETTER RE: sc.-.o  L SIT ING:: 7/08/94 JU'i 7/09/94 CJH /4/94 CJH 7 /11/qr. CJH TELEPHONE CONFERE~CE WITH D~. WILLIAM: Rf: ADE/CONSTRUCTION REVIEWED ORDER RE: BUDGET INFORr.ATIO~ PREPARATION OF FINAL CRAFT - 8TH CI~. LETTER RE: TWO NEW SUPP. COURT VOTING CASES PREPAR~TICN OF LAWSUIT RE: wGRKERS CO!-IP. I S::iUE MEETING ftITH LRSD COUNCIL RF.: VARIOUS DESEG. ISSUES; PREPARATIO~ FOR euoGET HEARING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH OL.GL. JACOVELLI RE: TRA~SCRIPT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH C  U~T REPORTER RE: TRANSCRIPT CONFERENCE WITH JERRY MALONE RE: CUDGEi HEARINGS ARA TION OF WORK  COMP. MOT 7/ll/q4 JCF REVIEWED LETTER TO STH CI REVISED BY CJH 7/11/94 JLM REVIEWED ~NO REVISED LETTER RE: SCHOCL CONST R UC TI ON REVIEWED MATTEP.$ RE: LRSO BUCGET HEARINGS 7/l~/94 CJH RECEIVED t REVIEWED DRAFT INTEROISTRICT SCHOOL ASS[GNMENT GUIDELINES I AIR COPY MEMO FROM OR. MAYO RE: I~C. SCH. K. SEATSi 4 YR OLO RECEIVED t REVIEWED INFOR~ATION R(: $AO BUS. CASE; CONFERENCE WITH JLH CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY BURNETTE - VOTING APPEAL RECEIVED t REVIEWED APIC BUS. CASE RECEIVED t REVIEWED CR. JENNINGS ANALYSIS OF ASSIGNMENT ZONES RECEIVED t REVIEWED INC- SCHOOL SPANISH SUS. CASE PAGE TAX IOENTIFICATION 171-0253837 IPN ~ 31- l 11 i3 C' DATE 6/25/q LI2JO .OOOO90-CJ 4. 5,J ...?.C. l. 7':, .50 .zs .z~ .2s .5C ...., c: .5r. .~s .25 .75 .zs  7/12/94 JLM 7 I l3/9't CJH 7/t4/94 CJH 7/lS/94 7 /17 /94 CJH 7/18/94 CJH A/RCOPY FRIDAY, ELDREDGE\u0026. CLARK A PARTNERSIIP Of' INllMDUAI.S Nm PAOFESSIONAI. ASSOCIA TlONS ATTORNEYS AT UW 2000 ARST COMMEJICIAI. IIUl.DING G WEST CAPITOL I.ITT1.E 110C1C. A11KAN1A1 722111 (501) 37\u0026-2011 CONFERENCE WITH J(RRY MALONE ~E: PRINCPAL MTG; BUS CASES REVIEWED BUDGET HEARING PREPAQATION~ TRIAL PREPARATION; CONFE~E~CE WITH LR~D WITNESSES - BUDGET HEARING; REVIEhEC OOCUMEt-lTS LETTER FRO~ ATTORNEY ~EffLYN D~VIS RECEIVED C REVIEWED PCBE MEMO A~D CORR: S PONC EJ~Cf Le:TT~R TO ATTOR\"4EY DAVI$ ~E: vbru,G RIGHTS APPEAL LETTER FROM ELIZ BOYTER RECEIVED  REVIE~~ED I.OE RESP01; S[ ~E: MFPA REVIEWED BUDGET FILES; CALL TO BJ f MORGM, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ~iRK MILHOLLEN LETTER FROM DORSEY JACKSON PREPA ELEPHONE C  NFERENCE WITH STEV~ JONES RE: WORKERS COMP. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE \"ITH JGH~ ~ALKER RE: WORKER$ CO~P. OR~FTEO ANO FILE MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT; RESEARCHED AND DRAFTED R REVIEWED A~O REVISED DRAFT BRIEF; FILED TELEPHONE CONFERENCE EPHONE CONFERENCE PREPARATIGN FOR H MILHJLLEN; REVIEWED TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ARMSTRONG WITH WITH t A BUSINESS CAS'1:5 WITH CAROL CONFERENCE WITH JERRY MALONE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH OR. MAYO (2 CALLSI LETTER FRO~ ELIZ BOYTNER RECEIVED t PEVIEWED ADE MONITCRINC REPORT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JOHN wALKER PREPARATION FOR Buo:;er FILING; HEARPlG RESEARCHED WORKERS COMP. ISSUE PREPARATION OF NOTICE OF FILING; CALL TO Ee MATTHIS; CONFERENCE WITH CLIENTS RE: SUBMISSION OF REQUIRED DOCUMENTS; REVIEWED ANO REVISED DOCS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CAROL ARMSTRONG (21; RECEIVED t REVIEWED Pt.GE TAX IDENTIFICATION M71 -0253837 I~Vt 3l-ltl3C CATE 8/l5/C LI23C .CCC090-C J .50 1.00 .so .75 .:s 2.~s 1.00 5.7'5 G) _ ( CONTINUED ON PAGE : .. !i ..,;;:;;;.;a:!!llll~l;l;ailca;a;a,aa,_ _________. ,,.._ _~ -----------------~!!111.-. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PAlffllER:SNP OF INDMDUAI.S NJ \"'\"ESSIONAL ASSOCIA l10NS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMSICIAL IIUIUllNG 400 WEST CAPITOL UTTLE IIOCl(, ~ l'Dl1 (501) Sl'\u0026-2011 COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSIO~ 7/21/94 CJH LETTER FROM ATTORNEY BOYTER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COU~T REPORTER BUDGET HEARINGS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH D~. WILLIAM~ RE: TEACHER SETTLEMENT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH MR. MILHDLLEN TELE0 HONE CONFERENCE WITH ~S. MATTHIS CONFERENCE WITH LRSD AOMINIST~ATCRS RE: NEGOTI A Tt O'.l!S; BUDGE Ti PREP ARl.1YH!N NOTICE OF FILING RECEIVED t REVIEW~D REVISED BUSIN=S: CASE 7/21/94 JL~ REVIE~EO LETTER FROM MS. ~OYTER RE: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTICN 7/22/94 CJH RECEIVEO  REVIEWED ORDER OF HEARI~G TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH MARr. MILHOLLEN TELEPHONE CO~FERENCE WITH BOB MORGAN TELEPHONE CQNFERE~CE WITH POLLY RAMER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE W[TH ROBERT CLOW=R 7/22/94 JLM REVfEWED ORDER RE: BUDGET HEARI~G5 7/22/94 WAP RECEIVED AND R~VIEWEO ORDER Fk0~ JISTRICT COURT 7/:4/94 CJH RECEIVE~ \u0026 PEVIEWED TRANSCRIPT OF STEPHENS/GARLANJ HEARIN:, REVIEwEO JENNINGS ANALYSIS OF ATTE~OANCE ZONES; PREPARED NOTICE OF FILING PREPARATION FOR OUCGET HEARING 7/25/94 COGC P.EVIEWEO POLICY MANUAL RESEARCHED CONSTITUTIONALITY OF POLICY MANUAL 7/25/94 CJH RESEARCHED COURTS AUTHORITY RE~ BUDGET TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ~ARK MILHOLLEN 7 /25/9\" JCF TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE ( 2 J 0P-(FER ENCE CONFERENCE CONFERENCE CONFERENCE WITH WITH ~ ITH WITH SAM J TI~ HUMPHRES ELIZ BOYTNER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE \"ITH DON STEW~RT TELEPHONE CCNFERENCE NITH MARK ~ r-N CONFERENCE WITH JERRY MALONE RE: PUOGcT PREPARATION OF SUOGET HEARING REVIEWED OPINIONS OF 8TH CIR. ANO ORDERS OF DISTRICT COURT; MEMO TO CJH RE: POWER OF DISTRICT COURT TO MONITOR LRSO llUOGET[NG PAG( INV~ OHE LI l 30 .2 '\u003e .25 2.25 -~~ .2 'j -,r '- :::\u003e .25 .50 .z5 .25 .25 -~? c-:. .5G .75 l.75 .50 t. oc 1.25 .25 .25 .75 TAX IDENTIFICATION 171-0253\u002637 5 31-LllB.'.'l'- 8/25/94 .ooooqo-cJH ,, A/RCOPY (CONTINUED ON PAGE FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PAl!ffiERSlP Of' INDMDUAI.S N'1J PAOFESSIONAL ASSOCIA Tl0NS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 F1RST COMMERCIAL BUii.DiNG 400 WEST CAPITOL UTIUIIOCK.AMAMIAl1'Z2t1 (S01) 37\u0026-2011 ~/25/94 JLM PREPARATION RE: auOGET HEARINGS REVtEWEO au~INESS CASE RE: INCE~TIV~ SCHOOLS TAX 10ENT1FICAT1()fj 71-02531137 DAGE ~ tNV~ 31-111204 DATE 8/25/~4 Ll230 .000090-CJ~ 1.00 .5C 7/26/94 CDGC RESE,RCHED CONSTITUTIONALITY OF POLICY MANUAL 3.SC 7/~6/94 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERE~CE ~ITH C. ~RMST~DNG RE: BUDGET .~5 RECEIVED t REV!EW~O PROPJ:;E~ FINAL BUDGET ,  l  2? ~~ CONFERENCE WIT~ KAPK ~ILHOLLEN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ftITH SA~ JON$ RESEARCHED ISSUES RE: STATES rESPON~E WO~K~RS COMP. TELEPHONE C8NFERENCE WITH DGN STEWAF.r T ARM.:;TRONG ATfENDEO BOARO BUDGET WORKSESSIONt CONFERENCE MITH ~ORGAN TELEPHO~E CONFERENCE WITH PSLLV RA~tR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH B~R MCRGA~ ME~O FRO~ OR. CLOwERS RE: PPD MEMO FRO~ OR. CLO~ERS RE: ~GMT. TOCL RECEIVED REVIE~EO LISTING OF TASK CHANGES ON JUNE ~G~T. TQOL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH [STELLE MATTHIS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN LETTER FROM ELIZ BOYTER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE RESPONSE RE: WORKERS COMP. 7/2\u0026/14 Jl~ REVIEWED lTTE~ ANO RESP  NS[ ro LRSO/JCSHUA MOTION ro ENFORCE REVIE~EO LETTER RE: OESEG. LITI;ATICN OVERSIGHT PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARING; P.EVIEWEC BUDGET DOCUMENTS, riUSINf:SS CASES, PROJECTIONS, ETC. REVIEWED ADDITIONAL BUOGET OO(UMENT~; COMP[LEO ISSUES LIST; OTHER MATTERS TRAVELED TO LRSO; REVIEWED BUDGET DOCUMENTS; ATTENDED LRSD BOARC MEETING; HC. 7/27/9~ COGC CONFERENCE WITH JERRY MALONE RE: STUDENT POLICY MANUAL CJH RECEIVED t REVIEWED FAX STEWART RES LOS$ FUNDING CALL RECEIVED t REVIEWED R. WEISS DEPOSITION PREPARATION ANO MET WITH WITNESS FOR .Z5 .so .25 :.so z.oo ,--.._ (CONTINUED ON P E FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0MllUALS ANO PA0FESSIONAL ASSOCIA T10NS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL IIUlDING GI WEST CAPITOL unu IIOCK. AIIIWIIAI TD01 (S01 I 37\u0026-2011 PAGE TAX IDENTIFICATION 01-0253137 INVt' 31-11 l 8 , DATE 8/'l.\"'\u003e/ ' - ~~H~E~A-R:-I:N:-G~ =P--R-~E~PA~=R-A~T=I-O:-N:- --=::.-:-::-:--:-~=:..-:-;:-;;-_.:~~~~~~-~~~-f ~ .oooogo-c. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEANA KEI~HLY RE: 4 YR OLD TELEPHO~E CONFERENCE ~ITH NORMA ROGERS ~ECE1VED t ~EVIEWEO FAX REZ BCA~O ME~5ER .25 PREPARATION OF MOTION TO EX:USE .l5 PREPAR~TION OF NOTICE OF FILI~G .25 PR~PARATIGN FOR ~UOGET HEARING J.7~ RESEARCHED AND PREPARAilON OF RrPLY ~L: CO~P. TELEPHONE CONFER ,,..~ WITH S:.H JON:. TEL PH NE CONFERENCE WITH ANN BRD~N -~~ TELEPHONE CONfERENCE WITH BOB MORGA~ 50 ~En w!LH II DPEOSITICN t COMP. =-8 7/27/94 JLM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MS. ARMSTRO~~ RE: PROJECT MGMT TOOL .~5 REVIEWED DOCUMENTS RE: FOUR-Y[AR OLC AND KI!iOERGAHEt.i VACAtHES; RESEARCliEO RECUIREMENTS/RESTR{CTIONS; PREPARED FOR HEARING~ 1.75 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH OR. CLO~ER~ ~f: PLA~NING AND BUDGETING OOCUHENTS/PROC ESS  25 7/~8/94 CJH PREPARATION FOR HfARING; CONFERENCE WITH WITNESSES; APPEARED FOR LRSO/PCSSD BUDGET HEARINGS ... RECEIVED t REVIEW~O AMENDED ACE RESPONSE - C OIIIP. 7/28/9~ JLM V wEO LETTER FRO~ MS. BOYTER A~ AMENDED RESf\u003eONSE TRAVELED TO LRSO; ATTENDED MEETING WITH OR. CLOWERS RE: PROJECT MG~T TOOLS, PROvRAM PLANNING PRCESS ANO OT~E~ MATTERS; REVIEWED A~D RfVISED COURT FILINGS; CONFERRED WITH MS. ARH~TRONG, MRS. MATHIS, OR. WILL!tH~ aTHER RE: VARIOUS MATTERS REVIE~EO ~OTt~N, ONE AN RAFT REPLY RE: WORKERS' ca~P. FUNDING; .25 7/29/9~\"'j'J~LMM-~P~R~E;P~A;R~A~T~I~O~N~F~O~R~H~E~A~R~I~~G~~ T ~A~TT'TT8r-~N~DO~Eno---..\\.....,!~~~ UUOGET HEARING; CONFERRED WITH MRS. AIR COPY MATT~IS, ETC. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE W[TH BEVERLY GRIFFIN RE: STATE-WICE COMPUTER NETWORK REVIEWED ORDER REI HEARl~G TRANSCRIPTS VARIOUS MATTERS .zs .zs .50 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A P~ OF NllVllUALS NtD PR)fSSl()NAL ASSOOATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 F1RST COMMERCW. BUU.DING I() WEST CAPITOL UTIU IIOCIC. AIIIWIIAI 722e1 (501) S7\u0026-2011 TELEPHONE C3NFERENCE WITH D~. WILL!hMS RE: STATE-WIDE COMPUTER ~ETWQRK TELEPHONE CONFERE~C( WITH~~. AQMST~  NG RE: PROJECT ~GMT TOOL CORRECTIONS TELEPHONE CJNFERENCE WITH M5. ~ATT~I: RE: LRSu COMPUTER TELEPHON~ CONFERENC( ~ITH ~S. ARM~TRONG RE: I-IGP(T TOOL TELEPHONE CONFERE~CE WITH MS. GRIFF!~ RE: JOSHUA$ BUDGET OSJEC!IdN t  REVIEWED FILE A~D CORRESPONOE~CE Rf: STATEWiaE CO~PUTER SY:TEH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH~~. SAM JONE~ ANO ~R. OuN STEWART RE: STATEWIDE C011P~JTER SYSTP~ t~t HUA'S OPPOSITIO~ TO LPS~s BUDGET reVIE~EO FAX FRO~ MS. ARMSTRONG RE: CORRECTED ~G~T TOOL FILING 7/31/94 JCF PR O ADE'S RESP   l ~E: WORKERS COMP. CGST PAG[ TAX IDENTIFICATION 71-0253837 INV# 31-lll90 DATE 8/25/C - L 12 30  OOOOQO-C J 1 .25  .? 5 TOTAL SERVICE~ 166.00 tl654J.7~ CHARLES D~VID GCRISCH CHRISTOPHER JOH~ HELLE~ JOH~ CLAYBURN FENDLEY J~RRY LEE MALONE LANCE Ee ~EWKIRK WALTER A. PAULSON 9 INOING EXPENSE DISBURSEMENT RE: ~EPOSITIO~ EXPENSE COPY CHAPGES LEXIS COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH MESSENGER EXPENSE POSTA-.E FAX 6.25 - 101.25 lb. 50 3g.zs z.50 .2~ T~H Al E.XPE\"-.SE::; TOTAL TM[S INVOICE X ). Y. )( 1-. .,. 40.00 = lO\"-.'JO = 85.0C = 1os.oc = 45.0C ,:; 105.00 = . 25G.OC; l0o3t.:c; 140:.SQ 4121.:s , -- 112.52 Zb.25 3.50 60\u003c;.00 246.QC 372.9C 302 .b~ 13'5. 0(' 39. t 2 211. SC FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOMOUAI.S AND PROFESSIONAL ASS()CIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCW. BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL UTTU IIOCIC. AIIICANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 rAGE U,X IDENTIFICATION 171 -0253637 INVti -11::zc or,H 5/31./c LIZ)O .oaocqc-cJ FUNCING LillGAlIC~ F~C~ ~S. BGYTEA .25 e/o~/q4 CJH RECEIVEJ t REVIE~EC cc~ ~~sSE~VATlONS\" RE: 8UCGET .50 e/C4/G4 JLP. 8/0'5/G', CJH 8/05/qt, JCF 8/CS/G'i JL\" :: 0 A~,H !S\" CF P.E PL 'Y TC ~:JE !sE 1 :  W~RKER') CCMPE~S~TIC~ ISSUf. ... tiR. t-U CONFERENCE ~Ilt- ct,v FENCLEY RECEIVED t REVIE~EC f-) F~O~ O~ ~AYO TELEPHONE CONFE~ENCE W11~ MAR~ 1'1ILl-40LLEN LEllE~ lC ~~~ SPC~~ PREPA~AlIC~ er NCiICE Cf ~!LING: CONFERENCE WIT~ FE~CLE'Y REVIEWE~ CROER RE: ~ce HEARY~G PREPARATIO~ FC~ flll~G eucGEl; CCNFERENCf ftlih FE~CLE'i ciLl TO MtlHOLL~~  2 c; .sa 1.00 TELEPHONE ca~FERENC= Wl1H CLAYTr:N BLACKSTCCK .~5 TELEPHC~E CO~FE~E~CE ~JTt- ~AR~ ~ILH LLEN .2~ TELEPHCNE ca~FERE~CE ~1,~ JERRY MALONE .25 PREPAR~TION CF I~SL~'NCE nEPORT - SlAlES .sn TELEPHONE COhFERfNCE ~ll~ RUSS ~AYO .z~ RECEIV~D t REVlEMEC RE~ISEO PUOGEl .15 RECEIV0  RE~1EMC eusI~ESS ci~E5 .15 TELEPHCNE CONFERENCE ~llr CARCL A~~STRGNG .25 CONFERENCE WlTt- CJ~ PE: FILING =.UCGET TELEPHONE cc~FEQE~CE wllt- ~s. AR~STRONG: ~A~ICUS ~A1TERS RF: 8UOGE1  2 '5 ANO OTHER FILING$ PREPARATION CF ~~OGEl FOR FILTN~ e/~6/q4, JCF TELEPHONE ca~FERENCE ~ll~ ~s. e1oe/q'- J~\" AR~STRCN~; ~~PICUS ~A11E~S 6/10/q4 JL~ TELEPHONE CC~FERENCE ~11~ M~. S\u0026M JONfS RE: uUCGEl HEARI~G lELEPHONE CC~PeREHCE Wll~ MS. ~ATTHIS ,oq. CLOW~RS RE: e~OGEl ~EARING ANC PAO RE'JI!:\\.l TELEPHCNE CCN~ER2NCE Wll~ MS. OORCT~Y GRE:N (P~El RE: PBC RE'JlEW TELEPHCNE CONFERENCE wti~ M~. WALKE~ RE: MOTION FG~ CON1E~P1 ETC. 1ELPHCNE CONcE~SNCE Wll~ OR WILLIA~S  ....  ,J , ( 0 i: : r c \", e .. Pr ., or 1 a N .25 e/12/94 JU' 8/12/q4 WA:\u003e S/14/qt, CJH S/lS/g4 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOMOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOC2A TIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL UTTLE IIOCIC. ARICAHSAS 7%2111 (501) 376-201 1 ARATIC~ FCR ~E,RlNG TELEPHCNE CON~E~ENCE ~Il~ ~rc~ElLE THO~PSO~ QF CEPT. ec.; ~EVI~~ED BUOGET DOCUMENT TELEPHCH CQNFE~E~Ct \\1111- K~  . ;:.oo~gs P.E: r. uCGET Hi;tiRHG t  TELEPHO\"E COhFEqENCE ~~T~ M~. Gq!~FI~ RE: .,Hi ING T~AV~LEC TC LRSCi ~lTEN:EO ~EfTI~G ~ITH ~S. MATTHIS, ~R. INGRA\", Qt. ~ILLIAMS, ~R. ~ILHCLLE~ ~~O OR. ~AYO RE: EUCGET HEAA!NC; CCNFfR~EC ~IT~~~. IhGR~~ ~NO Cl~ERS; CCNFER~EC NITH DH CLGWERS RE: P8C ISSUES; PREPtREO FOR HEARING: REVIE~EC C~JECTION DY JOSHUA TRjVELE~ TC LAM FIR~; REVIEWED O~AFT CF PROGRA~ 8~CGE1 CCCU~E~T er-OURTH CUARTEf:) TELE?HONE ca~~ERENCE ~,1~ DA. (LO~~RS i.e: ;:ioc FILI~G REVIE\"f.C THIRC C~ARlER F!l!~G PREPARATIOh FGR HEARING; ATTE~OE  HEARING RE: LRSC B~CGE1; CON~ERR~O WITH OR. WILLT,~S ANC ~S. MATTHIS R(: TECHNIQUES ANC STRATEGIES; GTH~R MATTERS ~~ ANC RE~lE~EC C~CER ~c COURl LETTER FRO~ J ~ WA KER Ar:: AOE OEPOSIT!CN RECE!VE~ t REVIEaEC CRCER RECEIVEC t ~EVI~wec CEFQSITION NOTICE - ORa QIANA JULI'N RECEIVED t RE~IEkEC JOSHUA ~OTION AND SR IEF FOR euc RECEIVEC t REVIE~EC CEFCS!TIO~ ~OTICES; \"IlHOil; SHAVER; \"EJSSi SCCTT; CKER 8/15/g4 JL~ L HONE CONFERE~CE WIT~ M  ARMST~8~G RE: PBO FILING PREPARAllO~ CF Fll]NC RE: PeO/FCURTH CUARTER TELEPHO~E CONFEP.ENCE Wll~ MS. ARMSTRONG RE: P8C TELEP~CNE CONFeReNCE W]l~ QQ. ClO~EP.S RE: GRAY f'C!J.C I l S/16/Q~ CJH RESEARCHED ISSUES RjISEO SY OR. MAYO; raNFF.~ENCE wIT~ JcR~~ ~ALONE; CALL TC TAX IOENTIFICA TION .,, -0253637 ~AG~ 2 1~ve -llQ2~3 ~Ale 5/31/Q~ LT23D .oocoqc-cJH 1.00 .s1 .-, r .) '3.0C .so .2~ 1.an  2'5 .2., . ,. .... @ FRIDAY, ELDREDGE\u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of 1N[)MOUALS AND pR()fESSK)NAL .t.SS()CIATIONS ; n ATTORNEYS AT LAW . , / / 2000 ARST C()Mt.lERCIAL BUii.DiNG  ,/ ~ WEST CAPITOL . ,. -- ~ e,___,_/, IJTTI.E 11(05C01K). 3A7J6U-2(.0U1I1S Al 72201 I , HLEPHCNE (Ct,FE E 1 E W }1h SA~ JONE5 TEL~P~ONE (ONfERENC~ w1,~ siEVE JONES TELEP~ONE ca~FERENCE wll~ JCY SPRINGE~ ~E: OEPOS!11Ct-. MlEAL TE\"TFHH ICSN E CCNFERENCE Wll~ ~AR~ 1  MILHCLLE~~ CffICE B/l6/q4 JL~ RE~I=~EC ORCE~ RE: A:E HE~R!NG TELEPHONE CCNfERcNC: ~llh ~s. A~M~T~O~G RE: K{NCERGARlEN A~t FCUF-VEAR OL~ 6/111 (JH f, JLING No CONFERENCE wit\u003e SAM JONES se, WILHOITE A~D ClHER ACE OEPOSTTtON: CALL TC co~~, REPOR : TRANSC~Iri; ~ RV !SH lRA~SCRJP1 RECEIVED t REVIE~EC FA~ fRC~ RUSS MlYC RTEELl EPlo lG!i'i TCOL f:! I= it- OE~NNA IN r. 8/18/~4 CJh RESEARCHEC A~S PPEFAPA1ICN FCR ADE HEARIN~ - ~ORKER5 CC~P. LETTE~ FPC~ SA~ JC~ES RlEELCE;P1Hv OhE CCcN cERENCE wl1~ RUSS ~AYO TELEPHONE CONFERENCE Wll~ OEJ~NA RE: QCf'I B/1G/G4 CJ~ TELEPHONE CCNfERENCE ~]lr P.G8~R~ COUNSEL W 11~ St.t' JO\"IE S CPRFErI CAER AilO~ FCR ~FPA A~C ~OQKER: cavP. HEARING e/1G/G4 JL E\"EC ~illERS Rf: fCU~TH QUA~TER STATUS REPC~l RE~IE~EO ME~C FRC~ ~s. ~iTH(R 10 oR. MAYO RE? RECRUll~E~i ~EVIE~ REVISEO CRAFT Of P~O ~ECEIVEO REPOflT e12z/q~ CJH TELEPHONE CONfERENC ~1,~ SAM JONES MEMO F~OM OR CLEVERS Rece1ven t ~evlEEt ppe PRO(ESS Or~C,(clJ~MoEcN~l Cf ~IT~ JE~~, ~ALONE RE: TAX IOENTIFICA TION 71-0253837 PAGE !'IIVe D!:.TE L!2::30 \" -U\u003c:i2C3 5/3 i./~5 .OOOO.,Q-CJH .25 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INOMOUALS AND pROfESSl()NAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMEROAI. BUIL.l)ING .00 WEST CAPITOL UTTU IIOCK. AIIKANIAI 7%201 (501) 376-2011 VARlOUS OESEG. ISSUE VARIOUS MAllSRS R: CESEG CASE 8/22/q4 JLM RE~I5wEO ~EMCS RE: pee; PROJECT ~GMT TOOL; GRAV COCK REV1S1C~S flCi PREP~RED FCR HEARING RE: AOE ISSUES A~D OTHE~ MA iT ER S ~ EV I =,H C P tl C G! . ,e \"' P l A N~ 1 NG AN C et J 0C, E 1' I Iii u suo~ISSIC~ fRO~ CR. CLG~ER5 DRAFTED NOTICE nf fllI~G ANC CCRRESPONOENCE RE: PEC VARIOUS MA'THRS OEPOSil ICN CCNf~RENCE ~ll~ ecvTER A~O ~H~VER LETlER FRC~ JOY SPRI~GER RE: AO: OEPCSIT PREPARATIO~ FOR ~EIRING; CALL TC MARK MlLHOLLi:1' TELEPHC~E C~NFERENCE ft)l~ AN~ B~CWN LE?HCNE CQNFtRENCE Wll~ SA~ J  N~S (2) PRE~4RATIO~ FGR SH,~E~ A~O WILHJ!T OEP  SITICN TELEPHC~E ca~FERENCE ~lT~ LQU!S LA~~E~T RE: AOE lELEPHONE CONPERENCE ~llH JSY SPRINGER RE: TRAt,SCRIPl TELEPHONE CQNCERENCE Wll~ DR. ~!LLIAMS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIE~EC CRAFl JOINT MOTION TG ENFCACE SETTLE~E~l INC~ REVIEWED ANC REVISEC ORAFT INTEROISlRlCl SC~OCL PCLJCY TELEPHONE CONFE~ENC Wll~ HAR~ MIL~OLLEN RE~IEWEO TRA~scnlPl ANC PREPARATION OF STATUS REPGRT RE: :E~OLllION ~c STEPHENS SCHCCL TE . HCNE CONFERENCE Wll~ JOY SPR!NG[~ l21 R~: OEPOSITICN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WIT~ $AM J~NES REl EPOSITIONi MEARING LET  L1A~ AEt STEPHENS PREPARATIO~ OF Wll~ESS LIST 8/23/q~ JLM REVIEWEO OESEGAEGAllCN PL4N; COURT OAOERSt ETC.; REVlE~Et CCRRE!.PONOENC~ ANO OOCU~ENTS RE: AECR~IlMENT, REGtSTRATIO~ ANO ENACLL~ENT; O~AFlEO MOTION 10 RELEASE SEATS, 8AIEF IN SUPPORT ANC CCRRSPC~Ce~ce AE~IEWEQ VARIOUS ~Al1ERS RE: ~EARING; rn~~cR~~c; ~e: ?ENul~G ~eSEARCH T ,-x IOENTIFIC,-TION 71 -0253937 P :.GE INV~ OH~ LI~)C' 1.00 .75 .sc .25 l o 2.50 5 -11qz r, 3 5/31/\u003c15 ~COCOQO-CJt-i ..---:::::- isklUAt, t.LU.Kt.Uut.. d.: LLAK.I\\. A PARTNERSHIP OF INOMOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIOHS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 ARST COMMEACW. BUii.DiNG .a0 WEST CAPITOl l.lTTI.E IIOCI(, AIUCANUS l'Z2111 (501) 376-2011 CJ RECEIVED  REVIEMEC FA~ FRO~ JOHN PAG!: !NV:: OU[ L 1230 WAL~E~ RE: OcPCSJTIO~S .zr, . TELEPHCNE CCNr.ERENCE ~JT~ JOY SPR!NGEQ (2J .5~ TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WJT~ TI~ MUMPHRIF.S RE: OEPOSITICN .2~ LETTER FRO~ JG~N WAlkER RE: ADE .2~ TELEPHCNE CONFERENCE WlT~ SA~ JONES .so RECEIVE  t R~VlE\"EC J05HuA ~OTION FOR EXTENSION .2~ PREPARAT!O~ OF~ CONFERENCE WiT~ JE~A PREPARA h FON S~iVEA CEPOSI~!ON AP?~AREO S~AVE~ CEFOSil!CN 8/i~/g~ JL~ ~ V ~C FILING ~EVIEWEC BUCGET CRCER REVIEWEC A,c REVI~EC A~IEF, MCT!O~ AhS CGRRSSPONOENCE RE: VACJ~l SEATS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WIT~ MS. C. ARMSTRONG REVIE~EO A~C REVISE~ CRAFT C~ PLEADYNGS TELEPHONE CONFE~ENCE WIT~ ~R. MILHOLLrN RE: FUNDING CALCUL~ltJN~ 8/25/q~ JCF ~EVIEWEO PCSSr. PCCLING BRIEF TO 8TH er~. ANO ACGENCU~ CCCU~ENTS ?/25/9~ JL~ REVI=WEC ANO FIN~LIZE: PLEADI~G~; VARIOUS ~ATTERS RE: FILING fREL~ASE OF SEATS\u003e TELEPHONE CONFEPENCE WITH JUOGE WRIGHTS OFFICE ~(: A~E HEARING EXHI9IT EXCHANGE VARICUS MAlTERS RE2 Pee PROCESS a/25/~4 WAP RECEIVED ANO REVIEkEC CR:E~ ~E: euoGETS 8/26/q4 JL~ REVIEWED OROER ~E: ACE HEARING SCHEOUlE TELEPHG~E C  hFERE~CE Wll~ H~. WALf.ER RE: AOE O~PC5ITICN5 TRAVELED TC MR. ~AlKtR'S OFFICE: AlTE~OEC ~EPOSITIC~ CF RJCH~RO WEISS ANO MR. BOB SHAVEP E/29/q4 JL~ R~VltWEO QAOER A~C CRAFTED LETTf~ TO MR. ~ ILHOLL EN REVIEWED ccqRESPC~CENCE RE: DISCOVERY REVIEWED OROER ~E: P(SSC ~UOGET; ORAFTEG LETTER TC CR. MIL~IA~S TELEPHONE CONFE~ENCE WIT~ ~S. ARMSTRC~G RE: PROJECl ~G~T. TC~t 8/30/q4 CJ~ NCE ~Jl~ STEVE JONES TELEPHONE CQNPERfNCE WJTH SA~ JONES AfRCOPY PREPAATION ANC SE11lE~E~T CONFERENCE .75 .sc  2 c;  2., .2'; .2\", .. 25 71-0253537 t -uc;zc:: 5/31/q~  ooco\u003crn-c J1- 0) tCONTINUEO ON PAGE 71 I I I ~ I an 11q1i CJH 8/3 l/q', JI.~ G/C2/94 ATT q/oZJq'- CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOMOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIA TlONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BU1L.DING 0:l WEST CAPITOL UTTU IIOCIC, ARK.UISAI 7'22Cl1 (501) 376-2011 TH ACE A~O PiR1!ES RECEIVED  REVIEEC JC~H~A ~GTION TC SUPPLEH1-4T LETTER FRO~ JC~N WAL~E~ RE: SETTLEMENT LETTER F~O~ SA~ JO~E~ - FOIA TC ACE iELEPHCNE CONFE~P~  ' \"' \"' \"' ONES TELE , c ONFERENCE Wll~ ~S. AR~STRONG RE: FILING t  TRAVELED TC L~SC; CC~FER~E~ WITH M~. ARMSTRONG ~NO CT~ERS; CCNF~RqEC WITH OR. CLOWERS RE: F~CJECl ~~MT TOOL; RETURNED TC GFFICE C~AFTEO NOl!CES CF FILlNG ANO CORRESPONOENCE VARIOUS MATT ER EVItWEO ~CllO~ 10 eNFCRCE SETTLE~ENT ~NO M TC~ SlIP; ERIEF TRAVELEC LRSO; CO~FERR: 1 W VARIOUS A  ~INISTRAlCRSi VARI~U~ ~ATT:RS RE: PRCJECl NG~l TOOL; TRAVELLED TO KING SCHOCL RE: GREAT EXPECTATIONS I~SE~~ICE REVIEWEO OCNNfll BROCKS CO~PLAI~T;RESEA~CH ~: S~~ RECEIVEC C ~EVI=~EC CO~PUTE~ NETWCKK DOCUMENTS LETTER fRO~ SA~ JO~E5 RECEIVE  t ~evtE~EC Prssc BUCGE~ TELEPHCNE caNr-ERENCE WIT~ ~AM JONES LETT:~ FROM JO~N WALKER REt AOE LEllER fRQ~ A110RNE~ 8CVlER RECEIVED t REVIE~EC AOE ~ROJECT ~G~T TOOL LETTER FRO~ Ve ORYA~l ~/02/q~ JCF ~EVIEW~t HA~~ELL CECISJON Re: vaTING q C4/94 CJH PR P TON FOR AOE HEARING qecEIVEC t \"EVIE~EC JO HUA QPPOSITIC~ TO LRS  MOlIC~ T~ PELEASE, SEATS LETTEn FROM S1ERLING I~GAA~ WITH EXT OAY SCHEDULES PREPARATION CF CRAFT SlIPULATraN 9/0~/q4 CJH RESEARCHED NEW ARKAN5A~ ABILITY GROUPING CASE CONFERS~CE W1T~ JL~ RE: ~ITNESS AND EXtiUHT LISl!l q/06/q~ ATT CONFERREO Mil~ OR. ~ILLIA~S ANO OR. MATTHIS, PREPA~EC FOR ~EAP.ING q/Qc/qi, JI.M TEl.EPH  MtLMOlLEl'j R6: AOE 1 ~,1qJNG TAX IOENTIFICATIOIII 71 -0253837 PAGE 7 1'1\\lti -llQ2C3 CATE 5/31/g5 l  7 5 2 .2 5 . .75 .25  50 .25 .2,; .25 .25 .25 .50 .so .25 1.so .aac.oqo-cJ1-  c;/07/qi.. ,-tSHC \u003cl/08/q4 t.TT t kllJA 1, t.L,U1'.~ ...... ~ -   A PARTNERSHIP Of INOMOUALS AND PROfESSK)NAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING ~ WEST CAPfTOL IJTl\\.E IIOCK. ~ 7Z201 (501) 376-2011 REVIEWED FILES ~e: 51A1E!D~ COMPUTER NElWORKA Tia~ FCR ~OE ~EJRING; DRAFTED WITNESS ~NC EX~IeI1 LIS1i TRA~ELLEO T~ LASO; CCNFE~REC ~JT~ ~R. ~!lHOtLEN A~C ClHERS; RE\"lE~EC FILES ~~D EXHIBlTr U TC CFFI _; -~?LE ED RE\"IEWEO JCSHU~ RESPCN~E TC MCTION TO RELEASE Kt~CERG~RTEN SEAlS/~CU~ YEA~ OLG S~ATS VA~!GUS ~~TTERS RE: ~ELctSE OF. Sft.TS ETC. t  ~E\"IEWE: ~E~CS Rf: Pee UPQ~Tt~; ~u~T RTOEOVLIE WUEPDD ATEECSU CA1!CNAL ECUlTY MONITORING REPO~T - FIRST SE~ESlER \"ARIOUS 111AllE?5 e~oor.s ATlENCEO HE~RING; PREPARE~ ~OR NEXT DAV'S HEARI~G RECEIVEC t RE\"IEMEC lRIAL ORGER RECEIVED ( REVIEMEC co~ REPORT RE: PRI~CIPAl SF.CP.ETlON PRCC~S: REC~IVED C RE\"l:MEC CRCE~ R=: PRE-Va SEA'TS COPIED CASE FDR CJhw q CCPIES eROOKS-PR=PAREC FOR ,Ne ATTEN1EC HEARING; PRFPARA1ICN fC~ NEX1 OAVS PAGE E t~Vfl -11qzc! DATE ~/3l/q5 LI230 .aoocqo-cJ~ .25 e  2 'i HEA~ING q/C~/q4 (JH T~LEPHONE CCNi-ERENCE ~l'Tr o~. MAYG -t----i:n:ic\"\"ie:i1r'\\:v.ce:roi-rr.-\"--a\"R-:t:vr=-;:--r-~.,.......-r'T'T\"\"'1rri-:\u003c:r---...:__----..c:::.::::~ RECEIVED t RE\"JE~EC ~oe RESPONSE - LOSS fUfllOING ISSUE G/OS/q4 JL~ ~ t h ~R. JOH ANO REVIEWED flLES RE: CESEGRtGATI  N CASES REV!E~EO OROER RE: FCUR~EAR GLO/KINOEqGAAlE~ SEA1S ~1oqJq4 ATT aqOOKS-PREPAR:C FCR ANC ~TTENDEO HEAP I~G CJH CONFERENCE wtn SAM JCN~S ANO JOHN GILL TELEPHONE CONFER ENC~ \\,jJH MA~I\" ~ILHILLON TELEPHONE CONFERENCE w1nI eoe MORGAN RE: VARIOUS ISSUES ANO PREPARA FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOMOUALS ANO PROFESSIOHAI- ASSOCIATlOHS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUIUllNG 400 WEST CAPITOL UTIU IIOCK. AJIKAHS,\\S 72201  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1698","title":"Court Filings: District Court, supplemental response of Joshua intervenors concerning their fee petition; District Court, affidavit of John W. Walker; District Court, second supplemental affidavit of Joy C. Springer","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Walker, John W.","Springer, Joy C."],"dc_date":["1996-08-30"],"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","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, supplemental response of Joshua intervenors concerning their fee petition; District Court, affidavit of John W. Walker; District Court, second supplemental affidavit of Joy C. Springer"],"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/1698"],"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":["112 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Springer, Joy C.","Walker, John W."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  Date: To: From: Re: John W. Wall(er, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 ENCLOSURE MEMORANDUM August 30, 1996 All Attorneys John W. Walker, Esq. LRSD v. PCSSD AUG j O 1996 Office of Desegrega1ion Moni!Ofin~ Enclosure(s): Letter \u0026Attachments to Judge Wright Supplemental Response of the Joshua Intervenors Concerning Their Fee Petition Affidavit of John W. Walker Second Supplemental Affidavit of Joy C. Springer IF ANY OF THE ABOVE LISTED DOCUMENT(S) ARE NOT ENCLOSED, PLEASE CALL THE ABOVE NUMBER. THANK YOU. JOHN W. WAIJ(ER/ RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. JOHN W. WALICER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Roc.k, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FILED U.S. D1srn1c; WURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 2 9 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: -----n'.DE;:-;P:a_--c: =L=ER~K August 29, 1996 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States Federal Court Building AUG j O 1996 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD; No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright: Office of Des . e9regat1cn Mon#.oring - In preparing our reponse to LRSD's detailed analysis, we determined some additional errors in calculation after our detail analysis of the time records. You will find enclosed a revised Attachment One to our Motion of November 22, 1995, summarizing our entire claim based upon our most recent analysis oftime. The following correction should be made in our Memorandum filed on November 22, 1995: at page 12 - the first full paragraph should read as follows: The Joshua Intervenors seek, for the substantive work on the case through October 28, 1995, an award for 2,016 hours of attorney time and 3,444.4 hours of paralegal time, as well as reimbursement of the amount actually paid to six persons who worked on the Joshua monitoring reports. See motion, Attachment One. This includes: [attorneys] John W. Walker, (1761.0 hours), Wiley Branton, Jr. (79.8 hrs), Austin Porter (175.2 hrs.); and paralegals Joy C. Springer (3123.4 hrs.) and Opal Sims (365.3 hrs.) Intervenors submission,. viewed in the light of the record in this case, establishes that a claim is made for time \"reasonablv expended on this litigation.\" Page Two August 29, 1996 at page 19 - in the first paragraph, the lodestar total for the work, other than for pursuing the fee award, should be for $742,590.81 for personnel and $17,636.00 for litigation costs. Thank you for your consideration JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel Of Record .. ATTACHMENT ONE Revised 8/29/96 SUMMARY OF AWARD SOUGHT A. Substantive Work On Case Number Individual Year(s) of Hours Rate Atty. John W. Walker  1990 6.85 $250.00 1991 562.4 same as above 1992 308.5 same as above 1993 329.2 same as above 1994 218.2 same as above 1995 335.85 same as above Sub-Total 1,761.00 $440,250.00 Atty. Wiley A. Branton, Jr 1990 1991 9.3 1395.00 1992 64.0 9600.00 1993 6.5 975.00 1994 1995 1 Sub-Total 79.8 $11,970.00 Atty. Mark Burnette [Time Waived] Atty. Austin Porter Jr. 1991-1995 175.2 $130.00 Sub-Total 175.2 $22,TT6.00 : Joy Charles Springer (Paralegal) 1990 27.5 $50.00 1991 854.7 same as above 1992 714.7 same as above 1993 553.9 same as above 1994 505.8 same as above 1995 466.8 same as above Sub-Total 3,123.4 $156,170.00 Opal Sims (Paralegal) 1991 365.3 $40.00 Sub-Total 365.3 $14,612.00  2 Other Paralegal Costs: (Reimbursement of amounts paid for work on Joshua Monitoring Reports). Amount Individual Year(s) Paid Kirke Herman 1991 $16,675.00 1992 $8,400.00 1993 $12,732.00 1994 $4,587.00 Evelyn Jackson 1991 $2,700.00 Debbie Parker 1992 $26,225.81 LaRhonda Pondexter 1991 $5,218.00 1992 $6,875.00 Clementine Rouse 1991 $2,200.00 1992 $1,000.00 1993 $2,000.00 Delores Sykes 1992 $1,000.00 1993 $3,600.00 1994 $3,600.00 Sub-Total $96,812.81 Sub-1 otal Substantive Nork on case (Personnel) $742,590.81 .. 3 B. Work on this Motion Individual Number of Hours Rate Amount Atty. John W. Walker 37.0 $250.00 $ 9,250.00 Robert Pressman 120.0 $175.00 $21,000.00 Joy C. Springer 90.0 $ 50.00 $ 3,650.00 Austin Porter Jr. 2.5 $130.00 $ 325.00 Sub-Total 249.5 $35,075.00 C. Litigation Expenses Description Amount Reimbursement provided to Joy C. Springer for mileage costs anc $ 4,742.00 other monitoring expenses; see J. Springer Aff., para. 21 Reimbursement to Kirke Herman for monitoring costs; see $ 100.00 J. Springer Aff., para. 21 Cost of copying docket in clerk's office; see J. Springer Aff., $ 60.00 para. 21 Witness fees for LRSD budget Hearing and other costs; see $ 294.00 J.Springer Aff., para. 21 Copying and fax charges; see J. Springer Aff., para. 22 $ 9,250.00 4 Postage charges, see J. Springer Aft., para. 22 $ 3,190.00 Sub-Total 17,636.00 GRAND TOTAL $795,301.81 .. 5 INTHEUNITEDSTATESDIS~CTCO fl J:D E S DISTRICT OF   1\\~cr\"couAr A TERN RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION AUG 2 9 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK Cl F..RL.- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. By: PL\"JUNlli'.rS D!:P. CL!:RK V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,Ft AL.  -LIBFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. E Ef V ~ DINTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. AUG :5 0 1996 INTERVENORS Office of Desegregation M . . SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE OF THE JOSHUA INTE~~RS CONCERNING THEIR FEYPETm6N- -... _, This memorandum responds to the belated analysis of the Joshua intervenors' time entries by the LRSD. It also describes a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on August 19, 1996 compensating lead counsel's time for work on a successful appeal. A LRSD's Belated Time Analysis Should Not Be Considered Near the completion of the hearing on August 19, 1996, the LRSD presented to the court a 99-page analysis of the time entries oflead counsel, Austin Porter, Jr., and Wiley A Branton, Jr. This analysis was based upon the activity schedules provided to LRSD counsel on or about November 22, 1995. Thus, it was presented to the intervenors and the court approximately nine months after the underlying material was made available to LRSD counsel. Moreover, it was advanced approximately five and one-half months after the date on which LRSD's response to the fee petition was due (March 1, 1996).  The court should set aside the belated analysis as untimely. Contrary to LRSD's position, it did not satisfy its rebuttal burden by complaining generally about intervenors' time records without 1 particular examples.1 As the court observed at the recent hearing, the hearing was delayed due to the court's superseding obligations. It is simply unfair for intervenors to be presented with a task of such a great magnitude at the hearing, when so much time, which could have been used productively, elapsed between the presentation of material to LRSD and its response. If the court after studying this memorandum considers that a revised version of lead counsel's activity statement is needed, the court, we respectfully submit, should provide (i) for an interim award and prompt payment to intervenors, reflecting the fact that they will be entitled to a substantial award in any event, 2 and (ii) for a reasonable period for the filing of the revised statement (30 days).3 Materials submitted more recently by the Joshua Interveors are of a different character. Revisions of the chart summarizing our overall claim (see Enclosure One) make relatively minor changes in an item filed in November 1995 (and somewhat reduce the overall claim). Documents regarding the fairness hearing and its aftermath, and the 1990-91 appeal, involved materials long part of the record, as well as events in which LRSD counsel participated. The LRSD analysis should also be set aside because of the extent to which it is argumenative and otherwise flawed. The following examples illustrate this point. First. LRSD eliminates all of lead counsel's time for work on the fee petition. See 10\\23\\95, 10\\30\\95, etc. Second. LRSD views as noncompensable, \"unrelated matters\" all work designed to prevent individual class members from being subjected to discrimination in discipline, placement, and extracurricular activities. See 6\\24\\92, 1 See Joshua Intervenors' reply memorandum filed on April 1, 1996, at 7-9, and in particular the decisions cited in note 5. 2 See intervenor's initial memorandum of November 22, 1995, at 23, regarding interim' awards. 3 A prelminary analysis of legal counsel's time is attached to this supplemental response. 2 9\\18\\92, 11\\17\\92, 5\\18\\93, 12\\15\\93, 10\\24\\95, 10\\26\\95.4 Third. LRSD views efforts to promote racial diversity in the administrative corps and to prevent discriminatory treatment of staff members to be non-compensable. See 8\\22\\95, 9\\14\\95.5 Fourth. LRSD's position is not consistent with the recognition in ARC v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008, 1011, 1012 (8th Cir. 1996) that in the post-judgment phase a party is to be compensated for reasonable efforts to defend its victory, even if not totally successful - a principle of obvious significance where, as here, the court has repeatedly characterized LRSD's implementation performance in negative terms. See 6\\8\\93, 6\\9\\93, 6\\6\\94, 6\\7\\94, 6\\22\\95, 6\\23\\95, 7\\6\\95, 7\\76\\95, 9\\1\\95. B. The Allocation of Time Among the Districts LRSD notes, properly, that some of the time claimed for lead counsel pertains to the other systems. Of course, intervenors did not request that the LRSD pay the entire award. Paragrapgh (8.) of the motion provides: \"The award which is sought should be apportioned among the three school districts as follows: Little Rock School District (75 to 80 percent), North Little Rock School District (5 to 10 percent), and Pulaski County Special School District Number 1 (15 to 20 percent) (with the final percentages totalling 100 percent). See the accompanying memorandum [at 22], and the affidavit of John W. Walker, paragraph [18].\" 4 Compare LRSD Desegregation Plan, 4\\29\\92, at 1 (Para. F), at 3 (last paragraph), 28 (paras. 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14), 33, 39, 40, 45; Inter-District Desegregation Plan, April 1992, Overview, Part XIII (presumption against racial disparity in programs and activities in any school; special attention given to imbalance in various placements, extracurricular activities, and discipline); Affidavit of John W. Walker, Nov. 21, 1995, para. 10; Affidavit ofJoy C. Springer, Nov. 21, 1995, at paras. 12-19; Joshua Intervenors' reply memorandum, filed April 1, 1996, at 10-11 (work on discipline issues); Joshua Intervenors' supplemental memorandum filed August 9, 1996 (summarizing precedent establishing the compensability of work on behalfof individual class members).  5 Compare LRSD Desegregation Plan, 4\\29\\92, at 1 (para. H), 2 (sixth \"bullet\"), 3 (last full paragraph). 3 These suggested allocations were based upon lead counsel's \"assessment of the time spent litigating against the three systems, including reviewing information and filings, and their relative culpability.\" Id.6 It is proper, under controlling precedent, for the court to follow this approach, based upon its familiarity with the post-judgment phase of the case. See citations to Jenkins and Hendrickson decisions at page 22 of our initial memorandum, filed November 22, 1995; see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436-37 (1983) (recognizing that a district court has broad discretion to resolve fee questions by approximation). This submission provides additional information bearing upon an allocation among the districts. See the attached Second Supplemental Affidavit of Joy C. Springer, showing the amouts of time which she, Ms. Sims, and Messrs. Branton and Porter expended with regard to each district. See also the attached statement of John W. Walker. C. Other Contentions Regarding Individuals Are Without Merit LRSD's contentions regarding the time of other persons are without merit. Joy Springer LRSD contends in its after hours submission that none of Ms. Springer's time is compensable. This is error. First. Her Second Supplemental Affidavit filed with this memorandum allocates her time by district. Second. More fundamentally, we have demonstrated that under the controlling principles all of her time is compensable.7 6 With regard to the greater culpability of the LRSD in the post-judgment period, we note the court's many statements which we submitted with our opposition to the LRSD's motion to terminate jurisdiction and the findings of ODM which we summarized in our recent motions regarding the incentive schools and ODM's recommendations.  7 See, for example, Mc Donald v. Annontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1461 (8th Cir. 1988); Keith v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850, 856-57 (9th Cir. 1987); Duran v. Carruthers, 885 F.2d 1492, 1496 (10th Cir. 4 Bob Pressman LRSD asserts in part that \"most of Pressman's time\" was spent reconstructing time records. This is error. Pressman's affidavit filed on November 22, 1955 documented 238.98 hours spent on this large project. The affidavit, confirmed by all versions of intervenors' summary chart, evidenced a claim limited to 120 of these hours. Aff., at para. (13.). This was attributed in part to \"the nature of some of the work .. .. \" Id. A review of Pressman's detailed statement of time shows that if all hours are totalled -- for the days on which any of the work supported efforts by other persons to reconstruct their time -- the total is 94.5 hours8 (a smaller total than the number of hours set aside). Thus, in substance, there is no claim for the time spent supporting efforts to reconstruct records. Austin Porter, Jr. Some of the time expended by Mr. Porter involved representation of students deflected by the systems to the juvenile process. Our position is that this is a facet of disriminatory discipline. Our approach is supported by the gross disparities in discipline rates, cited most recently at the August 19 hearing. Other Joshua Monitors Regarding the other monitors, LRSD is content with arguing that \"Joshua has already been 1989), citing with approval Brewster v. Dukakis, 544 F.Supp. 1069, 1072 (D.Mass. 1982), affirmed as modified, 786 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1986); Joshua Intervenors' reply memorandum, filed April 1, 1996, at 10-11 (work on discipline issues); Joshua Intervenors' supplemental memorandum filed August 9, 1996 ( summarizing precedent establishing the compensability of work on behalf of individual class members).  8 Thisinfonnationis9\\28(4.5), 10\\24(3.0), 10\\30(1.0), 11\\1 (1.0), 11\\8(3.75), 11\\9(8.5), 11\\10 (9.0), 11\\11 (9.5), 11\\12 (10.25), 11\\13 (9.75), 11\\14 (9.5), 11\\15 (10.25), I 1\\16 (10.25), 11\\290 (4.25). Moreover, some other work was done on seven of these days. 5 compensated for monitoring during the life of the decree .... \" Supplemental analysis, 8\\19\\96, at 2-3. However, LRSD has yet to offer an explanation for the fact that the 36-page settlement agreement contains no such provision - despite the fact that it has all the earmarks of a document setting forth the parties' full agreement, and in its specific section on attorneys' fees it begins with a statement that LRSD (but not Joshua) agrees not to seek further fees. The fact that, as here, a witness can later give testimony based upon what is \"clear in my mind,\" \"my understanding,\" and \"what I in good faith thought\" is, why, we submit, modern contract theory emphasizes the text of documents like this one. Moreover, as the hearing revealed, Mr. Chachkin did not participate in the negotiations in question, and the objective evidence from the Court of Appeals' opinion reveals no reliance on his statement, or the somewhat different statement of Mr. Heller. See 921 F.2d at 1392. D. Prevailing Party Status We have noted, given the stage of this proceeding, that LRSD has over-emphasized to a considerable degree to extent to which an award is to be predicated on assessing whether the label \"prevailing\" is to be attached to each piece of intervenors' work. We submit that the recent decision in the ARC case validates our approach. That decision emphasizes that a party can not walk away from a case and that defensive efforts must be made, with the resulting time compen!:able. See 83 F.3d at 1010-11, 1012. To the extent that ARC indicates that some consideration should be given to \"overall success\" (88 F.3d at 1011), the Joshua Intervenors have had considerable success, taking account of the inadequacies in the LRSD which they have faced. Intervenors' input at hearings led to directives or suggestions by the court to LRSD representatives. AS ODM does not have counsel, Joshua Intervenors have been the advocates for ODM recommendations adopted by the court.' ' Joshua's contempt motion led to an agreement for regular meetings with LRSD representatives to 6 enhance intervenors' consultative role. The time statements oflead counsel and Ms. Springer show that our participation in discipline hearings has often been of benefit to students. See also J. Springer Aff., 11/21/95, at paras. 13, 17, 18. E. Recent Precedent Regarding Lead Counsel's Rate On August 19, 1996 the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit entered an order in the case of Harvell v. Blytheville School District, Appeal No. 93-1009EAJ, approving the requested rate of $ 250 per hour for the time oflead counsel for work on a successful appeal. See Enclosure Two. F. Correction of Claim for Day-Hollowell Case LRSD and NLRSD have referred to the total time claimed for lead counsel on August 11, 1995 - one of the 175 days in 1995 alone, for which time has been claimed for him in this case. As explained in open court on August 19, 1996, the Walker firm's Reply filed in the Day-Hollowell case, LR-C-94-849, on July 10, 1996, corrected errors accounting for the example cited by the parties here [an entry in Day-Hollowell should have been .5 rather than 5.5, and some of the time for the Davis case, No. 88-4082 (W.D. Ark.) should have been claimed for August 12, 1996]. Respectfully submitted,  11-i l, I// !f 0!4,,, Jo~' Walker# 64046 John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Bob Pressman MA # 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 7 .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Supplemental Response, as well as Enclosure One and Enclosure Two, were sent via United States mail to all counsel of record on this 29th of August, I 996. l t tJ /ild;L ~ V .. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAN~ LED WESTERN DMSION U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS LITI1..E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. AUG 2 9 1996 PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ETA-;L; -_------;:D;~EP:;.- -c,D.J#ij!:::n:r.,,,..,....-NDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. STATE OF ARKANSAS ) )ss. COUNTY OF PULASKI ) AFFIDAVIT INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS 4UG JO 1996 Office of Desegregation Monitoring I, JOHN W. WALKER, affiant herein, states under oath the following:~- - -- ____ . _ _ - ... ~~-' _.,. I hereby state that I have made a preliminary appraisal of my fee petition and determined the approximate time whicn I have expended on work for each of the districts and for joint work involving all the districts. It is attached hereto. I have not had time to make a thorough analysis using concepts such as monitoring, or unrelated work. I have read the foregoing statement and certify that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief \\) - /~ / ,./ 41_ ,/'' ~ .__-f'/\u003c ~W. Walker SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 29th day of August 996. My Commission Expires: C, j 17 ) -:z.C03 ,  . . ..:  io \\ : I \\ ~ ~ ~. ... ...~.... ,_~,,,,,. . . ATTACHMENT ONE ANALYSIS OF JOO W. WALKER'S TIME 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 TOTAL , LRSD 6.25 253.9 132.2 163.8 118.4 221.65 896.2 50.9% PCCSD .6 70.3 35.4 68.8 48.6 33.0 256.7 .. 14.6% NLRSD 13.8 24.5 18.7 5.3 9.9 72.2 4.1% JOINT 224.4 116.4 77.9 45.9 71.3 535.9 30.4% TOTAL 6.85 562.4 308.5 329.2 218.2 335.85 1761  UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 93-1009EAJ Shirley M. Harvell, et al., Appellants, vs.       Blytheville School District, etc.,  et al.,   Appellees.  Appeal from the United States District Cou.rt fox the  Eastern District of Arkansas Appellants' motion fox attorneys' fees and costs and appellees' response to the motion have been considered by the court. It is hereby ordered that appellants shall recover from appellees $53,280.81 fox attorneys' fees and costs on appeal. The clerk of the United States District Court is directed to place these - costs and fees in the previously issued mandate. August 19, 1996 o~J:;rt~irection of the Court: Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.  I I - XII TD UllITBD STATBS COURT OJ' APPBALS l'OR TD BIGBTB CIRCUIT HO. 93-1009 SHIRLEY M. HARVELL; BKKAHUEL LOFTON, Reverend; HATTIE JUDDLEBROOX; ALICE JOHBS; and JACQUELINE HlDl'TOH APPELLANTS v. DR. PRAHX LADD, Individually and in hi  official capacity as Superintendent of the Blytheville School District Ho. 5; BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 5, a PUblio Body Corporate; THE BOARD 07 DIRECTORS OF THE BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT Ho.5; and Individual Board Members: WILLIAM \"BILL\" TOKLIHSOH; NORVELL KOORE WILLIAM \"BILL\" SULLIVAN; HAROLD StJDBtJRY; HBLBH HtJNN7 KAREN FRAZIER; STEVE LITTRELL; AND WILLIAM \"BILL STOVELL, JR.; Individually and in Their Official Capacities as School Board Members of the Blytheville School District Ho. 5. APPELLBBS MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REQUEST TO REMAND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES TO DISTRICT COURT Come the Plaintiffs/ Appellants by and through their undersigned counsel and move for an award of attorneys' fees and cost pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1973l(e) in the above styled appeal and in the predecessor appeals in this case, Harvell v. Ladd, CA Nos. 91-1914 EAJ, and 91-2037EAJ and request remand of this Motion to the district court. In support of their motion, appellants submit 1. That this Court's en bane opinion of December 5, 1995 establishes for the first .. time in these appeals that plaintiffs/ appellants are \"prevailing parties\" for purposes of a fee award. 2 A Brief in Support of Motion for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs to I I - .. the Plaintiffs/ Appellants as the prevailing parties in this action. 3. The attached Affidavits of Mark Burnette and John W. Walker, attorneys for the plaintiffs/ appellants describing their general qualifications and the time each reasonably expended; 4. A summary of the work performed in this case by John W. Walker and Mark Burnette, and the expenses necessarily incurred. 5. Plaintiffs/ Appellants are entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs in the amount detailed in the accompanying submissions. The hours detailed in this application represent the minimum hours for which an award must be granted. 6. Plaintiffs have not petitioned the district cout for fees yet, as additional work on remand of this case is inevitable. In order to conserve judicial resources, and, in light of the district court's familiarity with the overall work in the case, plaintiffs' request that this motion be remanded for consideration with plaintiffs' petition for fees in that court Plaintiffs/ Appellants also seek reimbursement of all costs incurred which were reasonably necessary for the appellant's success in the court of appeals as is described herein below. Accordingly, Plaintiffs/ Appellants move for an award of attorneys' fees and costs in the Court of Appeals in the following amounts: ATTORNEY HOURS John W. Walker 16.8 Mark Burnette 341.5 RATE $250.00 $135.00 Sub Total (Fees) TOTAL $ 4,200.00 $46,102.50 .. $50,275.50 Court Fee Transcript Travel and accomodations Photocopying Postage By: COSTS Sub Total (Costs) GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 Mark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE $ 210.00 900.00 942.70 727.16 198.35 $2,978.21 $53,280.71 .. I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has mailed, postage prepaid to Mr. Robert Llgh~ Friday Eldridge and Oark, 400 West Capitol, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 thisg'Ldayo!December, 1995. ~~ \u0026 ;\u0026- . ~aU Mark umette Re:Harvell, et al. v. Ladd, et al. SUMMARY OF COSTS Description Amount Court Fee [04/17/91] [12/23/93] $ 210.00 Postage charges $ 198.35 Transcript $ 900.00 Copies $ 727.16 Hotel $ 356.70 Transportation $ 586.00 Total $2,978.21  . .. . ... IR TD mlITED STATBS COUJlT 0~ APPllLS :r0R TD EIGB'l'II CIRCUIT HO. 93-1009 SHIRLEY x. HARVBLL; BKJIMltJBL LOFTON, Reverend; HATTIE MIDDLBBROOlt; ALICE JOHBS; and JACQOBLIHB HBHTOH APPELLANTS v. DR. PRAHX LADD, Individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Blytheville School District Ho. 5; BLxTHBYILLB SCHOOL DISTRICT No. s, a PUblic Body Corporate; TD BOARD OP DIRBCTORS OP TD BL'xTHBYILLB SCHOOL DISTRICT No.5; and Individual Board Kamber: WILLIAM \"BILL\" TOKLIHSON; NORVELL KOORB WILLIAM \"BILL\" SULLIVAN; HAROLD SUDBURY; HBLBN HmDI; KAREN PRAZIER; STEVE LITTRELL; AND WILLIAM \"BILL STOVELL, JR.; Individually and in Their Official capacities as School Board Members of the Blytheville School District No. s. APPELLBBS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEE I. BACKGROUND OF CASE Plaintiffs filed this action in federal district court on November 14, 1989, under the Voting Rights Act, 42 u.s.c. 1973, to secure equal voting rights pursuant to the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. After trial, the district court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove a violation of the statute. Harvell Y, Ladd, 759 F.Supp. 525 (E.D.Ark. 1991). Plaintiffs appealed that decision to this court. .. Defendants cross appealed as to the district court's denial of a motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs and their attorneys. On appeal, this Court held that the district court had ~fred in its decision on the merits, affirmed the denial of sanctions, and remanded the case for further findings pursuant to the guidance of the court of Appea1s decision. Harvell y.Ladd, 958 F.2d 226 (8th cir. 1992). Since that decision remanded the case for further findings, it did not establish plaintiffs as \"prevailing parties;\" hence no petition for fees was submitted even though that was a successful appeal for plaintiffs. on remand, the district court again held that plaintiffs had failed to establish a violation of the Voting Rights Act. (unpublished Opinion). Plaintiffs again appealed. A panel of this Court reversed the district court on August 24, 1994, holding that the plaintiff had proved a violation of the Voting Rights Act, and instructed the district court to implement a remedy. Harvell v, Blytheville School District No, 5, 33 F.3d 910, (8th Cir. 1994). Defendants moved for rehearing en bane. Their motion was granted and the panel opinion was vacated. Finally, on December 5, 1995, the full Court reversed the district court and remanded the case for a remedy order. Harvell v, Blytheville school District, __ F.3d __ (8th cir. 1995) (en bane). II. 11:NTITLEHENT TO F1!3!:S 'C7N'IlE:R U. S. C. 19 7 31. ( e J In order for individuals to pursue their rights to equal protection under the voting rights act, Congress provided for the recovery of a prevailing party's costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, with the following provision: In any action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment, the court, in it., di.,cretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a ' ' . .. reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. - 42 u.s.c. 1973l(e). In this case, all -of the proceedings before this court in the two appeals of the case are \"proceedings to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment,\" and therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to . an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs were not \"prevailing parties\" under the statute until the conclusion of the final appeal. Therefore; application for fees for the first appeal is appropriately made now. see Hester y. McGee, 815 F.2d 1193, 1198 (8th Cir. 1987)(Holding that plaintiff's attorney in an earlier appeal, which merely reversed the granting of summary judgment to the defendants in a section 1983 action, was entitled to submit application for fees in light of the ultimate success of plaintiff on second appeal after trial . .Id.). III. ESXABLISHING A REASomlB.Lr FD The standards for awarding attorney's fees under 42 u.s.c. 19731(e) are the same standards applied under 42 U.s.c. 1988. ~ .e....a,..., Riddell Y, National Democratic Party, 624 F.2d 539, 543 (5th Cir. 1980); campaign for Progressive Bronx v, Black, 632 F.Supp. 647 (S.D.N.Y 1986); and Connor v, winter, 519 F.supp. 1337, 1339 (S.D. Miss. 1981). The appropriate standard for \"prevailing party\" status is whether \"plaintiff has succeeded on 'any significant issue in litigation which achieve[d] some of the benefit the. parties sought in bringing the suit.'\" Texas State Teachers Association Y, Garland Independent school District, 489 u.s. 782, - 792, 103 L.Ed.2d 866, 877 109 S.ct. 1486 (1989) (citation omitted). .. ' . . , As with other federal civil rights tee statutes, e.g. 42 u.s.c. 1988, and 42 u.s.c. 2000, the Supreme Court directs that: \"The most useful starting point tor determining a reasonable fee is the number of hours . reasonably expended on the litigation I multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.\" Hensley y. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.ct. 1933 (1983). In this case, plaintiffs are 100% successful on the appeal and on the underlying claim. Thus, no reduction is necessary for work on unsuccessful claims. Each of the plaintiffs/appellants' lawyers' time and rate, and a description of their expertise are itemized in the accompanying affidavits, actvity statements, and motion. These submissions represent the time reasonably expended by each attorney for particular activity necessary to the successful resolution in favor of plaintiffs/appellants before this court. The hours submitted were screened to remove redundant or excessive time. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasorr, plaintiffs/appellants' urge the Court to grant their motion for attorney's fees and costs as set forth in the accompanying motion. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway  Arkansas 72206 ( ~ .. Mark Burnette, No.880'18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has mailed, postage prepaid to Mr. Robe~ Jdght Friday Eldridge and Clar~ 400 West Capitol, Llttle Roe~ Arkansas 72201 this.2,J_ day of December, 1995. 220/lh \u0026t~~- Mark Burnette  l'.)I THB tJIIITBD STATES COmlT 01' APPDLS l'OR THB BIGJl'l'B CIRCUIT )IQ. 93-1009 SHIRLEY x. HARVELL; BKKAliTIJEL LOFTOH, Reverend; BATTIB KIDDLBBROOlt; ALICB JOHBS; and JACQOBLIHB BEHTOH APPBLLAN'l'S v. DR. FRANX LADD, Individually and in hia official capacity as superintendent of the Blytheville School District Ho. 5; BLY'l'BBVILLB SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 5 1 a Public Body Corporate; '1'HB BOARD OJ' DIRBC'l'ORS OF TBB BLXTBEYILLB SCHOOL DISTRICT Ho.s; and Individual Board Members: WILLIAM 11BILL11 TOMLINSON; NORVELL KOORB WILLIAM 11BILL11 SULLIVAN; HAROLD SUDBURY; BELEN NtJNH; KAR.EN FRAZIER; STBVB LITTRELL; AND WILLIAM \"BILL STOVELL, JR.; Individually and in Their Official Capacities as School Board Members of the Blytheville School District No. s. AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W, WALKER STATE OF ARKANSAS) )SS. COUNTY OF PULASKI) APPELLBES Comes now the affiant, JOlDI w. WALDR, who submits the following affidavit under oath: 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. 2. In 1964, I was admitted to practice before the Bar of Arkansas. Subsequently, I was admitted to, and still practice before, the United States Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth, Fifth, Eleventh, and Tenth Circuits, the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, and the United States District Court, Eastern and Western Districts 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. I "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1692","title":"Court Filings: District Court, second supplemental affidavit of Joy C. Springer with attachments","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)","Springer, Joy C."],"dc_date":["1996-08-29"],"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","Lawyers","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, second supplemental affidavit of Joy C. Springer with attachments"],"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/1692"],"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":["31 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Springer, Joy C."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. AUG 2 9 1996 P~~~CORMACK,CLERK By: -----....,De--=E=P.. . ..,C~L=ER-K DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENO SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER t\\llG j O 1996 STATE OF ARKANSAS) SS) Office of Desegregation Momtorin9 COUNTY OF ___ ) Comes now the affiant, Joy c. Springer, who after first being duly sworn, states as follows: 1. This affidavit supplements my affidavit dated November 21, 1995, in which I described work performed in this case totaling over 3100 hours. 2. This supplemental affidavit responds further to questions raised by counsel for the Little Rock School District and the North Little Rock School District at the hearing on August 19, 1996 by providing a more detail analysis of my time among the Pulaski county districts. This analysis is attached hereto as Attachment One through the use contemporaneous time records and notes. Also attached hereto as Attachment Two is an updated copy of my schedule of hours by district. As these 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I attachments show, when my joint time is allocated equally among the three districts, the total allocations are LRSD, 63.6 percent of my time, PCSSD, 23.8 percent and NLRSD, 12.6 percent. 3. I have also reviewed the time records of Opal Sims. Ms. Sims also maintained contemporaneous time records. Attached hereto as Attachment Three is an allocation of her time among the Pulaski county districts. A new schedule of her hours is attached hereto as Attachment Four. As these attachments show, when 2.4 percent of Ms. Sims' joint time is allocated to LRSD and PCSSD and 2.3 percent to NLRSD, the total allocations are LRSD, 72.2 percent, PCSSD, 16.9 percent, and NLRSD, 5.9 percent. 4. Based upon my knowledge of the facts of this case, I have been able to allocate the time claimed for Attorney Wiley A. Branton, Jr. to the three districts. As Attachment Five and Six to this affidavit show, when his joint time is allocated equally among the districts, the allocations are LRSD 60.8 hours (65.6 percent) and PCSSD 25.5 hours, (31.9 percent). 5. Based upon my knowledge of the facts of this case, I have also been able to allocate the time claimed for Attorney Austin Porter Jr. to the three districts. As Attachment Seven and Eight to this affidavit show, when his joint time is allocated equally among the districts, the allocations are LRSD 73.95 hours (43.8 percent), and PCSSD 96.75 hours, (56.2 percent). I have read the foregoing affidavit and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information. 2 I I 1- 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Joy C. Springer SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1996. Notary Public MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 9P~ ? 3 ;:J'l day of August, --. I ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LRSD PCSSD NLRSD JOINT TOTAL ATTACHMENT ONE ANALYSIS OF JOY CHARLES SPRINGER'S TIME 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 19.0 425.1 356.9 385.3 360.5 304.4 4.0 190.2 156.1 79.5 86.8 91.6 2.5 106.4 80.0 32.5 22.1 16.1 2.0 133.0 121. 7 56.6 36.4 54.7 27.5 854.7 714.7 553.9 505.8 466.8 TOTAL 1851.2 59.3% 608.2 19.5% 259.6 8.3% 404.4 12.9% 3123.4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - /+ffa(2/1 ft1h 11 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL PLAINTIFF DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ACTIVITY STATEMENT OF JOY CHARLES SPRINGER DATE ACTIVITY TIME AMOUNT 6/28/90 Conference with JWW regarding Pulaski .5 Joint County School case 6/28/90 Reading and review of Pulaski County 1.5 Joint school settlement agreement 6/29/90 Conference with JWW regarding Incentive 3.5 LRSD school hearing; Preparation for hearing; review of Incentive school plan 6/30/90 Prehearing conference with JWW; Hearing 8.0 LRSD before Judge Wright re: Incentive school hearing; abstract of witness testimony 8/5/90 Review of LRSD desegregation plan 3.5 LRSD 8/21/90 Review of LRSD desegregation plan 4.0 LRSD 9/8/90 Review of PCSSD desegregation plan 4.0 PCSSD 10/15/90 Review of NLRSD desegregation plan 2.5 NLRSD c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 1 - I I I I I I I I I I .,I I I I I I I I 1/5/91 Conference with JW\\/v re: implemetationn JOINT of desegregation plan and discussion re: assistance Joshua can provide to parties re: implementation and identification of problem areas 1/6/91 Conference with JW\\/v re: plan JOINT implementation, assistance to District, and identification of problem areas 1/8/91 Pre-meeting conference with JW\\/v; JOINT meeting school district officials and lawyers regarding modifications to desegregation plan; took notes; post meeting conference 1/9/91 Meeting with school district officials and JOINT lawyers regarding plan modifications; post meeting conference with JW\\/v 1/10/91 Meeting with school districts officials and JOINT lawyers regarding plan modifications 1/11/91 Conference with PCSSD attorney, SJ, to PCSSD discuss plan modifications; travel to his office; parking $4.25 1/11/91 Preparation of memorandum to JW\\/v re: JOINT meetings with respect to plan modifications 1/14/91 Discussion of monitoring instrument with JOINT JW\\/v; preparation of same 1/15/91 Preparation of monitoring instrument JOINT 1/24/91 Preparation for hearing re: Aersospace LRSD proposal; telephone confemce with CJ re: implementation procedure; telephone with PCSSD,NLRD, LRSD re: implmentation procedure; preparation of exhibits; conference with JW\\/v re: trial strategy 1/25/91 Hearing before Judge Wright re: LRSD Aerospace grant proposal c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 2 3.0 1.0 1.9 6.0 5.5 3.0 2.0 2.5 4.0 4.5 1.0 I I I I I -1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1/30/91 Continued review of Aerospace proposal 2.0 LRSD 2/4/91 Continued review of Aerospace proposal 2.0 LRSD and LRSD desegregation plan 2/18/91 Deafted proposal for monitoring activities 6.5 JOINT and instrument for Joshua monitoring team 2/25/91 Conference with Joshua team members to 3.0 LRSD discuss monitoring activities and instrument; updated monitoring instrument; discussed LRSD schools to be monitored; conference with JW'N 2/26/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Mitchell 1.5 JOINT Incentive school to monitor Incentive school program with Joshua team members; conference with principal and visted classrooms 2/26/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to lsh 1.5 LRSD Incentive school to monitor Incentive school program with Joshua team members; conference with principal and visted classrooms 2/27/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Garland 2.0 LRSD Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; conference with principal and visited classrooms 2/27/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to 1.5 LRSD Stephens lncentve school to mointor incentive school program; conference with principal and visted classrooms 2/27/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to 1.5 LRSD Rightsell Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; confemce with principal and visited classrooms c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2/28/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LASO Rockefeller Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; conference with principal and visited clasrooms 2/28/91 Conference with team members to discuss LRSO results of monitoring visits and discussion of monitoring instrument for Incentive schools 3/1/91 Conference with team members to further LRSO discuss findings from incentive school visits and formulate draft report on findings 3/4/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to lsh and LRSO Mitchell Incentive schools to observe extended programs 3/4/91 Preparation of draft report re: first week's LRSO observations and findings at Incentive schools 3/5/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LASO LRSO elementary schools -Geyer Springs and Cloverdale for discussion and inspection of construction at these school with administration. Court approval? 3/5/91 Preparation of report regarding visits to LRSO elementary schools undergoing new construction 3/6/91 Conference with team members re: LASO findings with respect to Incentive school extended day programs 3/6/91 Preparation of report with respect to team LRSO findings at incentive school extended day programs 3/7/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LASO elementary schools-Baseline and Chicot for monitoring visit c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 4 2.0 2.5 1.5 2.3 2.5 1.5 1.3 2.0 1.0 1.8 I I I I I I I .1 I I I I .I I I I I I I 3/7/91 Conference with team members to discuss Letter to team members re: meeting to formulate plans for further monitoring activities monitoring instrument; updated same 3/7/91 Conference with Billy Bowles re: placement PCSSD of TAG program at Fuller Jr. High and concerns about school within school 3/8/91 Conference with parent in LRSD, A.Milner LRSD re: concerns at Booker Arts Magnet; educational placement for daughter, J. Milner 3/8/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD LRSD elementary schools-Gibbs and Pulaski Heights for monitoring visit 3/14/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD LRSD elementary schools for observation and informal visits to Wakefield, Chicot Mabelvale and Watson 3/15/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD LRSD elementary schools for observations - Meadowcliff and Wakefield *note: Wakefield's principal was off on 3/14/91 3/15/91 Conference with JWW to discuss findings LRSD with respect to previous weeks visits to schools 3/15/91 Telephone conference with parent, C. LRSD Sanders regarding student suspension, A. Burgess, a student at Pulaski Heights Jr. High; letter to LRSD atty, CH re: same 3/18/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Wakefield elementary school for observation c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 5 2.7 .5 2.5 2.4 4.0 1.0 1.0 .7 1.3 I I I I I I I I I I I  , I I I I I I I 3/18/91 Telephone conference with M. Mooney a PCSSD.3 parent of a student in PCSSD; voiced LRSD 2.2 concerns about segregation of certain programs; Preparation for LRSD hearing 3/19/91 Preparation for LR hearing; review of LRSD monitoring report re: on site visits to construction sites; conference with K. Herman and JWW 3/20/91 Prehearing conference with JWW; Court LRSD appearance with respect to plaintiff's and Joshua's concerns re: new construction in LR; post hearing conference with JWW 3/20/91 Conference with team members; preparation of monitoring instrument 3/21/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to PCSSD-PCSSD visited Sylvan Hill Jr. High school: observations of classrooms and conference with principal 3/21/91 Conference with team members regarding JOINT monitoring instrument; update instrument 3/22/91 Updated monitoring instrument JOINT 3/22/91 Telephone confernce with and review of PCSSD information provided by PCSSD parent, D . Blockmon-Mason re: suspension of son, W. Blackmon; failure of PCSSD to provide educational opportunities to son; memo to JWW regarding same 3/25/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD, JOINT PCSSD and NLRSD student assignment offices to pick up student enrollment numbers; analyze numbers and reviewed for compliance with desegregation commitments 3/25/91 Conference with team member, Rouse to JOINT assist in dissemination of tasks and strategies to be used by team members on Mure visits c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 6 3.5 4.0 2.5 2.0 2.3 1.0 1.5 .6 3.2 1.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3/27/91 Telephone confemce with LRSD parent, S. LRSD Pansy re: concerns at Central with respect to her daughter, K. Pansy and services received from school counselor; review of materials/documentation; Trip to Central; observations of school and conference with counselor and other staff members 3/28/91 Review of report prepared by LRSD Supt. LASO Steele re: 2.0 GPA as requirement for high school graduation 3/28/91 Telephone conference with NLRSD Deseg. NLRSD Supt. M. Bynum re: information in Monitor's report completed on district per Democrat article of 3/24/91 3/28/91 Review of information submitted to office PCSSD from PCSSD personal regarding \"phanthom figures\" being submitted and complaints about PCSSD 3/29/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to NLRSD NLRSD administrative offices to pick up 1st semester's monitoring report by biracial committees; review of report 4/2/91 Meeting/conference with team members to JOINT discuss monitoring instrument; Updated monitoring instrument 4/4/91 Review of letter from J. Huff regarding LRSD Incentive schools 4/4/91 Conference with team members re: JOINT monitoring instrument; reviewed instrument as updated; updated monitoring instrument 4/8/91 Orientation of new team member, 0. Sims JOINT 4/9/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to lsh LRSD Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; classroom visits and conference with principal, Dean c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 7 2.2 .3 .2 .3 1.5 9.0 .3 4.8 2.5 4.3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4/10/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Mitchell LRSD Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; classroom visits and conference with principal, Hudspeth 4/12/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Rockefeller Incentive school to monitor incentive program; classroom visits and confemce with principal, Mangum 4/12/91 Telephone conference and letter to LRSD LRSD hearing officer, R. Howard to request discipline statistics 4/13/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Garland LRSD Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; classroom visits and conference with principal, Dr. Simmons 4/15/91 Conference with JWW re: lack of parental LRSD involvement at Garland Incentive school; drafted letter to parents re: same; contacted LRSD for parent list for Garland; used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD administration office to pick up parent's list 4/16/91 Finalized letter to Garland parents and LRSD prepared mail out 4/17/91 Used personal vehicle for monitoring visit LRSD to Brady Elementary; conference with principal and visit to classrooms 4/17/91 Review and preparation of revised JOINT lnterdistrict plan 4/18/91 Conference with PCSSD officials regarding PCSSD revised desegregation plan; review of revised plan with JWW 4/22/91 Conference with LRSD officials, PACT \u0026 LRSD CTA regarding revised plan; review of revised LRSD plan c:\\wpdoe\\jce.stmt 8 3.5 2.5 .5 2.5 1.2 2.5 3.0 2.0 9.0 9.0 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 4/23/91 Review of LRSD plan LRSD 4/24/91 Used personal vehicle for visit to Baseline LRSD and Meadowcliff Elementary schools; confernce with principals and visits to classrooms 4/25/91 Used personal vehicle for visit to Jefferson. LRSD Fullbright and Williams Magnet elementaries; conference with principals and visits to classrooms 4/26/91 Review of LRSD plan LRSD 4/30/91 Review of data and conference with LRSD Garland Incentive school staff members and parents re: concerns about the school; Meeting with Garland parents re: same 5/1/91 Meeting with LRSD officials \u0026 JWW re: LRSD plan modifications 5/2/91 Reviewed LRSD plan modifications LRSD 5/7/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Cloverdale and Watson elementaries to pick up survey data 5/8/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Woodruff Elementary school; conference with principal and visit to classrooms 5/9/91 Used personal vehicle for trip to LRSD Metropolitan Vo-Tech and Southwest Jr. High School; conference with principals and classroom observations 5/10/91 Conference with team members to discuss LRSD observations during previous school visits c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 9 2.0 3.2 4.5 2.0 4.3 8.0 4.0 .7 1.5 5.0 2.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5/13/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Mabelvale Jr. High school; conference with principal and classroom observations 5/14/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD 6.7 McClellan High school; conference with PCSSD.7 principal and classroom observations; Conference with B. Bowles to advise of monitoring activities for PCSSD; attented meeting with Garland Incentive school parents 5/15/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to PCSSD PCSSD school- College Station elementary; conference with principal and classroom observations 5/15/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to North NLRSD Little Rock High School-West Campus; conference with principal and classroom observations 5/16/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to PCSSD PCSSD 6.0 schools-Fuller Elementary, Fuller Jr. High LRSD N/C and Mills High School; conference with principals and classroom observations; picked up survey from Metro. Cloverdale and Pulaski Heights 5/20/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Oak PCSSD 6.4 Grove Elementary and High schools; LRSD.6 conference with principal and classroom observations; Conference with parent, J. Tucker re: selection process for cheerleaders at Parkview; parent believes there were violations in process 5/21/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to PCSSD PCSSD schools-Robinson Elemntary, Jr. High and High schools; conference with principals and classroom observations c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 10 2.5 7.4 3.0 3.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5/22/91 Used personal vehicle for visit to PCSSD PCSSD schools-Sylvan Hills Elementary, Jr. High, and High schools; conference with principals and classroom observations 5/23/91 Used personal vehicle for visit to North NLRSD Little Rock Schools-Pine Elementary and Lakewood Middle; conference with principals and class observations 5/24/91 Conference with parent regarding drill NLRSD team selections at NLR East campus; telephone contact and letter to principal to secure handbook, selection criteria, etc. 5/28/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD LRSD Metro Vo-Tech; confemce with principal and obesevation in classrooms 5/29/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD LRSD schools- Mabelvale Jr. , Chicot, Bates, Gibbs to pick up survey data 5/30/91 Conference with NLR parent regarding NLRSD.7 questionable practices of selecting LRSD .6 cheerleading and drill team members; conference with parent, D. Walker regarding disparate treatment in NLR schools; used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Alternative school and travel to Central High school, conferences with principals and classroom observations 5/31/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to NLR - NLRSD Pine Elementary and LRSD-McCLellan High to pick up survey data; conference with Marty Moore regarding unfair treatment of her son by school officials 6/1/91 Preparation of conference material for JOINT ODM meeting c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 11 7.0 6.0 2.0 1.8 2.0 6.7 2.5 1.5 I I, . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6/2/91 Conference with Arma Hart of ODM's office JOINT re: monitoring plans 6/3/91 Conference with team members after JOINT meeting with ODM to strategize about monitoring activities 6/4/91 Conference with Ann Brown of ODM's JOINT office re: their plans for monitoring in the future 6/4/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive for interviews with potential teachers filling new Incentive school vacancies 6/4/91 Preparation of monitoring report for LRSD LRSD note: (evening work at home) 6/5/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive school for interviews with potential teachers; preparation of monitoring report (note: evening work at home) 6/10/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive school for interviews of potential staff; preparation of monitoring report including evening at home 6/11/91 Preparation of monitoring report including LRSD work at home until midnight 6/11/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive school for interviews with potential staff 6/12/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive school for interviews with potential staf; preparation of monitoring report including evening work at home to midnight c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 12 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 6.0 9.0 7.0 3.0 9.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6/13/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Booker LRSD Arts Magnet; conference with food service mgr re: disparate treatment; preparation of monitoring report including evening work at home 6/14/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive school for staff interviews; Interview with parent, Clayton regarding disparate treatment of students at Fair Park; preparation of monioring report including evening work at home to midnight 6/15/91 Preparation of monitoring work includes LRSD evening work at home 6/16/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD evening work at home 6/17/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 7.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/18/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 7.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/19/91 Conference with Asst. Supt. Matthis LRSD regarding monitoring results; preparation of monitoring report 6/20/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 7.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/21/91 Review of Court's order; Preparation of LRSD 8.0 monitoring report includes evening work at PCSSD 2.0 home NLRSD 1.0 c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 13 8.0 8.5 2.0 2.0 10.0 10.0 5.5 10.0 11.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6/24/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 8.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/25/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 8.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/26/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 7.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/27/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 8.5 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/28/91 Conference with teachers from Cloverdale LRSD 8.0 Jr. High school re: complaints about PCSSD 2.0 principal Bradford; preparation of NLRSD 1.0 monitoring report includes evening work at home 6/29/91 Preparation of monitoring report LRSD 6/30/91 Preparation of monitoring report LRSD 7/1/91 Preparation of monitoring reports for PCSSD 6.0 PCSSD and NLRSD including evening NLRSD 4.0 work; conference with LRSD principal LRSD 1.0 regarding monitoring report; review of parties motion for reconsideration of Court's order of 6/21/91; Discussed wtih JWW 7/2/91 Conference with JWW and team members PCSSD 6.0 regarding monitoring report; preparation of NLRSD 5.0 monitoring report including evening work c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 14 11.0 11.0 10.0 11.5 11.0 3.0 4.0 11.0 11 .0 I ,I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7/3/91 Conference with parent, S. Jones on 6.6 PCSSD 3.6 behalf of son, T. Jones re: complaint vs NLRSD 3.0 PCSSD involving discipline; Conference with Supt. Lester re: Jones complaint; preparation of monitoring report for PCSSD and NLRSD 7/8/91 Preparation of monitoring report for LRSD, 11.0 LRSD 1.0 PCSSD and NLRSD including evening PCSSD 5.0 work NLRSD 5.0 7/9/91 Conference with S. Jones regarding 2.8 PCSSD PCSSD complaint; Used personal vehicle for travel to PCSSD Board meeting and made presentation on behalf of parent, S. Jones to Board of Education 7/9/91 Preparation of recommendations for LRSD 9.3 LRSD monitoring report; Discussed with JW'N 7/10/91 Preparation of recommendations LASO 10.5 LASO monitoring report; review of monitoring report 7/11/91 Review and preparation of monitoring 9.5 NLRSD 5.0 report for NLRSD \u0026 PCSSD PCSSD 4.5 7/12/91 Preparation of monitoring report NLRSD 7.0 NLRSD 4.0 and PCSSD PCSSD 3.0 7/15/91 Preparation and review of monitoring 6.0 PCSSD 3.0 report PCSSD and NLRSD NLRSD 3.0 7/16/91 Conference with LRSD, PCSSD and 8.8 JOINT 6.0 NLRSD attorneys re: court's order of LRSD 2.8 7/15/91 denying motion for reconsideration re: plan modifications; Used personal vehicle for travel to Parkview to monitor summer school; conference with principal and classroom observations; preparation and review of monitoring report including evening work c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 15 I I I I I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I 7/17/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to J.A. Fair 9.8 LRSD High school to monitor summer school, conference with principal and classroom observations; preparation and review of monitoring report and recommendations including evening work 7/18/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Forest 8.8 LRSD Heights Jr. High school to monitor summer school, conference with principal and classroom observations; preparation and review of monitoring report and recommendations including evening work 7/19/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to 7.0 LRSD Rockefeller Incentive school to monitor summer school, conference with principal and classroom observations; preparation and review of monitoring report recommendations 7/20/91 Review of monitoring report draft 2.0 JOINT 7/22/91 Review of monitoring report draft 4.0 JOINT 7/22/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to 1.5 LRSD Washington elementary to monitor summer school program; conference with principal and classroom observations 7/23/91 Telephone conference with PCSSD Asst 1.2 PCSSD Supt B. Bowles regarding new interdistrict school, Crystal Hill and draft monitoring report; used personl vehicle for travel to administrative offices to delivert monitoring report to Bowles 7/23/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to 5.2 LRSD 4.6 Wakefield elementary to monitor summer NLRSD.6 school program; Review of monitoring report; Letter to NLR Supt Smith and Asst Supt Bynum re: results of desegregation monitoring c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 16 I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I 7/24/91 Conference with PCSSD officials including PCSSD Asst. Supt. regarding monitoring report results; review of monitoring report; Discussed with JWN and S. Jones 7/25/91 Letter to court, ODM and attorneys re: JOINT .4 Joshua monitoring report; conference wtih LRSD 1.6 LRSD officials re: administrative changes; PCSSD 2.0 review of PCSSD monitoring report 7/26/91 Review and finalized monitoring report JOINT draft 7/29/91 Conference with AR State Press reporter, JOINT A Smith re: Joshua's monitoring and report 7/31/91 Conference with parent, J. Morris re: son's JOINT course assignment; additional conferences with principal Anderson, and Supt E. Matthis 8/5/91 Revise and review monitoring instrument JOINT 8/6/91 Revision of monitoring instrument JOINT 8/7/91 Court appearance regarding motion for JOINT 2.5 stay on revised settlement; Telephone LRSD 1.0 conference with B.Brown and Supt Steele re: concerns at Garland; Letter to Supt Steele re: Garland c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 17 5.3 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 2.0 4.0 3.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8/12/91 Telephone and personal conferences with LRSD teacher with concerns about Chicot elementary which include: PAL program deficiencies, referral of students to spec ed, parental consent and involvement, disparate treatment between back and white staff and unprofessional actions of teachers towards students; review of LRSD schools improvement plans (evening work) 8/13/91 Review of LRSD schools improvement LRSD plans(evening work at home) 8/14/91 Telephone conference with parent of LRSD 5.6 student who attends Carver Magnet PCSSD.6 regarding the G/T program placements; telephone conference with spec ed teacher @ Sylvan Hills re: appropriate placement of spec ed student; review of LRSD school improvement plans(evening work at home); Telephone conference with parent of K. Wilson re: disparate treatment in PCSSD school 8/15/91 Letter to principal Guinn at Carver Magnet LRSD regarding G/T placements; review of LRSD improvement plans 8/16/91 Telephone conference with PCSSD Asst. PCSSD Supt B. Bowles re: PCSSD monitoring report and complaint parent of K. Wilson 8/26/91 Conference with staff members re: NLRSD disparate treatment of students@ NLRSD West campus 8/27/91 Orientation with new team member, JOINT 3.0 LaRhonda Pondexter and discussion of NLRSD.7 monitoring process and plans; Conference with parent S. Smith re: staff assignments at NLR West c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 18 6.2 2.0 6.2 8.0 .5 .3 3.7 I I I I I I I .1 I I I I .I I I I I I I 8/28/91 Meeting with team members regarding 2.5 JOINT new procedures for monitoring activities 8/28/91 Orientation with new team member, 4.0 JOINT 3.0 Pondexter; disscussion of plans and NLRSD 1.0 monitoring process; used personal vehicle for travel to NLR West campus 8/29/91 Orientation with new team member 3.0 JOINT Pondexter, discussion of plans and monitoring process 8/30/91 Orientation with new team member 2.0 JOINT Pondexter, discussions of plans and monitoring process 9/3/91 Orientation withe new team member 2.0 JOINT Pondexter, discussions of plans and monitoring process 9/4/91 Court appearance before 8th Circuit Court 2.5 JOINT 2.2 judges re: the proposed plan LRSD .3 modifications, abstract testimony and arguments; conference with principal at Garland Incentive school re: concerns 9/5/91 Meeting with incentive school parent 1.5 LRSD coordinator, C. Gill 9/9/91 Telephone conference with parent, L. 2.9 LRSD .4 Frierson re: transportation concerns of her PCSSD 1.0 children who attended Washington JOINT 1.0 elementary; telephone call to Dist. transporation to remedy and reinstate service; telephone conference with PCSSD parent, Wood re: District's failure to implement IEP for her two sons; conference with ODM regarding plans for future monitoring, tour of office and meeting with staff c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 19 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 9/10/91 Meeting with PCSSD Supt. B. Bowles re: PCSSD 2.0 Joshua plans for future monitoring of LRSD.5 District; telephone confernce with H. Fogg custodian at Chicot elementary re: disparate treatment by principal 9/12/91 Conference with LRSD Supt. J. Jennings LRSD re: Joshua plans for future monitoring and Incentive schools 9/13/91 Conference with NLRSD Supt. M. Bynum NLRSD 1.5 re: Joshua plans for future monitoring and LRSD.5 dates of visits; confemce with principal Guinn at Carver LRSD Conference with parent, L.\u0026 W. Ward re: disparate treatment of daughter L. Hunt, student @ J.A. Fair 9/18/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to J.A. Fair LRSD and McClellan to discuss LRSD's motion for class renovations with principals Carter and Niven; used personal vehicle for travel to Incentive schools: Stephens, Franklin Mitchell and Garland for informal monitoring visits 9/19/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Incentive schools: lsh, Rockefeller, and Rlghtsell for informal visits 9/20/91 Conference with JWW re: findings at LRSD Incentive schools, J.A. Fair and McClelllan; File organization 9/23/91 Review of Incentive school monitoring LRSD report information; letter to J. Jennings re: monitoring visits to Incentive schools c: \\wpdos\\jcs. stmt 20 2.5 2.5 2.0 .3 6.0 3.0 4.0 2.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9/24/91 Monitoring visits to PCSSD school- PCSSD Jacksonville High; conference with principal and clasroom visits 9/25/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD schools-North PCSSD Pulaski High school and Arnold Drive elementary; conference with principal and classroom visits 9/26/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD school- PCSSD 2.5 Pinewood Elementary; conference with LRSD .5 principal and classroom observations; conference with parent, P. Simmons re: excessive corporal punishment by music teacher at Mabelvale elementary 9/30/91 Monitoring visit to Sylvan Hills elementary; PCSSD 2.5 conference with principal and clasroom LRSD .7 observations; telephone conference and personal conference with principal at LRSD Alternative school; Principal wants JWW to request adequate compenstion and benefits on her behalf 10/1/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD school- Dupree PCSSD 3.0 Elementary; conference with principal and LRSD .5 classroom observations; telephone confemce with parent, Bell re: expulsion recommendation 10/2/91 Telephone confemce with parent, T. Calvin LRSD re: suspension of son, M. Murphy from school at Horace Mann; conference with principal; telephone conferenc with parent, L. Bell re: expulsion recommendation; Hearing before Howard; charge modified c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 21 5.0 6.0 2.8 3.2 3.5 1.6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10/3/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD school- Sylvan PCSSD Hills Jr. High; conference with principal and classroom observations 10/8/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD schools - Oak PCSSD Grove Elementary, Jr. High and High schools; conference with principal and classroom observations; discipline hearing before PCSSD Board 10/9/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD - Jacksonville PCSSD 3.5 South Jr. High; conference with principal LRSD.2 and classroom observations; telephone conference with parent, A. Wayne re: explusion recommendation of son from Mabelvale Jr. High school 10/10/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD schools- Scott PCSSD elementary and Scott Alternative school; conference with principal and classroom observations 10/11/91 Hearin "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1654","title":"Court Filings concerning ADE's motion to dismiss, PCSSD's motions regarding the minimum teacher salary law and the court's orders, planning and budgeting plans, and LRSD's motion to end federal court jurisdiction","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":["1996-08-22/1996-08-30"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Knight Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Teachers","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning ADE's motion to dismiss, PCSSD's motions regarding the minimum teacher salary law and the court's orders, planning and budgeting plans, and LRSD's motion to end federal court jurisdiction"],"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/1654"],"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":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Court of Appeals, response to motion to extend time by Joshua intervenors; District Court, response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss; District Court, response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to abstain; District Court, response to separate school districts' motion to intervene; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to the Knight intervenors' responses to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motions regarding the minimum teacher salary law and the court's orders of June 15, 1993, and July 14, 1993; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) brief in support of its motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, intervening school districts' reply to the response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) to motion for intervention; District Court, memorandum brief in support of intervening school districts' reply to the response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) to motion for intervention; District Court, second supplemental affidavit of Joy C. Springer; District Court, supplemental brief; Court of Appeals, summary of argument, Servicemaster Management Services L.P.; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) August 1996 program planning and budgeting process and Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) August program planning and budgeting tool for FY 1996-97 and FY 1997-98; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply to Joshua's response to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to end federal court jurisdiction; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, portion of transcript  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  !  AUG 2 6 1996 Office f\u003ef D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS asegregauon Mon1tormg FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ......_ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 96-047EALR SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.P. APPELLANT APPELLEE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO EXTEND TIME BY JOSHUA INTERVENORS ServiceMaster Management Services L.P. (\"ServiceMaster\"), for its response to the motion to extend time made by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") states: 1. Joshua requested in a letter filed with the Court dated August 21, 1996, that it be heard with respect to \"argument one\" of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Brief as an appellee and that it be heard with respect to \"argument two\" of the LRSD Brief, which involves ServiceMaster, as an appellant. 2. Subject to the positions taken hereinbelow, ServiceMaster has no objection to Joshua's request that it be heard as an appellee only with respect to argument one of the LRSD Brief and to any extension of time granted to Joshua for that purpose. However, ServiceMaster hereby objects to Joshua's request that it be heard as an appellant with respect to argument two of the LRSD Brief. 3. Joshua was served a copy of the District Court's Order dated March 11, 1995, which was appropriately styled and was in no way misleading~ Joshua knowingly failed to file an appeal of its own accord with respect the District Court's Order concerning argument two, the ServiceMaster issue, as prescribed by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In addition, this appeal is not and cannot be characterized as a cross-appeal. 4. The status of Joshua in this appeal filed by the LRSD can only be as an appellee with respect to the argument one presented by the LRSD. WHEREFORE, ServiceMaster requests that any order granting Joshua's request to file a brief in this case be qualified and limited to allow Joshua as an appellee only and that Joshua not be allowed to argue or make references to ServiceMaster and argument two presented by the LRSD in its appellee's brief or in oral argument. Respectfully submitted, Joseph S. Mowery Giroir \u0026 Gregory, Professional Association 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 372-3000 and John C. Everett Everett, Shemin, Mars \u0026 Stills P.O. Box 1646 Fayetteville, AR 72202 (501) 443-0292 Attorneys for Appellee ServiceMaster Management Services L.P. \"\" ' , ... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to the Motion to Extend Time has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of the same in the United States mail on this 23rd day _of August 1996. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 17223 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capital, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Bldg. Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept. of Education 4 State Capital Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 624/RESP JOSH.823 FILED  U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 2 3 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION B y: DEP. CLERK NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. NO . LR--C - 8 2 - 8 6 6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. DEFENDANTS AUG 2 o 1996 IlITERVENORS Office of Desegregation Moniton~VENORS RESPONSE TO ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS Comes now North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"), by and through its attorneys, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A., and for its Response to the Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to Dismiss, states as follows: 1. On or about July 23, 1996, the Arkansas Department of Education filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Abstention. 2. Subsequently, the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") filed Responses to the Department of Education's Motion to Dismiss. 3. Upon careful review of the PCSSD' s Responses, and in order to promote economy and avoid burdening the Court with repetitious filings, NLRSD joins in and adopts the motions and corresponding memoranda referenced in paragraph No. 2. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, NLRSD respectfully requests this Court: (a) Dismiss the Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to C, Dismiss; (b) Award NLRSD its costs and attorneys fees; (c) Award .NLRSD all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 By, s~~Caa, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 23rd day of August, 1996 served one copy of the foregoing via United States mail to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Avenue, Ste. 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 RECEJl/~~ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AUG 2 B 1996 DEFENDANTS Office Of Desegr . INTERVENORS _ esation Monitoring  - ~- - - INTERVENORS .RESPONSE TO ARKAN~AS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO ABSTAIN For its response, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: LRSD adopts Pulaski County Special School District's response to ADE's motion. 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:~ cw~: :::~ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Arkansas Department of Education's Motion Dismiss Or, In The Alternative To Abstain has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 23rd day of August, 1996. 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 Mr. William P. Thompson Mr. James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2 \\ FILED. U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 3 1996 WESTERN DIVISION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. NO. LR-C-82-866 AUG t o 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ------,0::-::E\"\"P.--:aC\"\"\"LE=-==R=K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. Office of Desegre9allcn Momtorm~ INTERVENORS INTERVENORS -  ~- -  RESPONSE TO SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS' MOTION TO INTERVENE Comes now the North Little Rock School District ( 11NLRSD 11 ), by and through its attorneys, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A., and for its Response to Separate School District's Motion to Intervene and Answer, states as follows: 1. On or about July 23, 1996, a number of Arkansas school districts filed a Motion to Intervene and an Answer in the above referenced matter. 2. The Pulaski County Special School District ( \"PCSSD\") filed Responses to such Motion and Answer on or about August 2, 1996. 3 . Upon careful review of the PCSSD' s Response, and in order to promote economy and avoid burdening the Court with repetitious filings, NLRSD joins in and adopts the motions and corresponding memoranda referenced in paragraph No. 2. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, NLRSD respectfully requests this Court: (a) Award the relief sought by the PCSSD; (b) Award NLRSD its costs and attorneys fees; (c) Award NLRSD all other relief to which it may be entitled. By: Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 )iii:~Jo~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 23rd day of August, 1996 served one copy of the foregoing via United States mail to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Avenue, Ste. 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant .Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stepnen w. Jon~ AUG 2 3 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Dasagregilllon Munitonn~ ----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. PCSSD REPLY TO THE KNIGHT INTERVENORS' RESPONSES TO THE PCSSD MOTIONS REGARDING THE MINIMUM TEACHER SALARY LAW AND DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INT ERVEN ORS THE COURT'S ORDERS OF JUNE 15, 1993 AND JULY 14, 1993 The Pulaski County Special School District {\"PCSSD\") for its reply states: 1. The negotiated agreement between the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") and the PCSSD explicitly recognizes that any savings generated by the early retirement incentive program are to be used to reestablish the District reserves. 2. Compliance by the District at this point in time with the new minimum salary law will interfere with the PCSSD's ability to desegregate since it cannot now reasonably project sufficient funds to justify compliance and PACT has not, and cannot reasonably project such funds 3. The PCSSD incorporates by reference its motion for equitable relief and brief in support filed August 27, 1996 in further support of this reply. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By~ M. mue (76060) At~orneys for 1 Pulaski county Sp~School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August ;'1 7 ,7- , 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas . 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 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 Mr~7Jones~ \\ _______/ 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 ~ f\\ECENEO liUG 2 9 1996~ AUG 2 7 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS . I oeseNegation Mon~o1111~ Olhce o ,., _.. ...- I.NTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to release previously reserved four-year-old program seats throughout the distric~ and kindergarten seats in the incentive schools (doc.#2729]. The Court previously issued oral approval of the motion and follows with this Order. The LRSD states that it engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts during the 1995-96 school year and that, while those efforts yielded positive results, seats still remain vacant in the LRSD's four-year-old classes and also in the kindergarten level in the incentive schools. The c~urt has repeatedly been reluctant to condone releasing seats reserved for white children because relinquishing those seats makes it more difficult for the district to desegregate the schools, especially the incentive schools. In previous orders granting the LRSD's request to assign black students to seats set 2 7 8 ~ aside for white students, 1 the Court has noted that it is not - satisfied that the district has engaged in timely, vigorous, and sustained recruitment which is targeted at filling the reserved seats. Again this year, the LRSD's recruitment record does not convince the Court that the district has been significantly more energetic or diligent in recruiting students. Further, the Court has previously observed that the district has repeatedly filled incentive school kindergarten seats in proportions that are outside the guidelines, indicating that the district had either already released seats to black children or never reserved them for whites in the first place. Such is the case again this year. Despite these recurrent problems, the Court is mindful that another major goal of the early childhood programs, in addition to racial integration, is to promote the academic achievement of black students. The desegregation plan provides that vacant seats reserved for white children will not remain unfilled. (LRSD Desegregation Plan, pg; 140.) The Court notes that the LRSD has pledged, in its motion, to continue \"vigorous recruitment efforts\" and also to determine what adjustments are necessary and appropriate to ensure that the effect of releasing the seats is minimized on future year enrollments. The Court encourages the parties to consider amending the district's racial balance goals in the plan so _that the district will have more flexibility in filling these seats. More realistic goals, together with vigorous 1 See Orders of September 7, 1994 and Seplemb~r 7, 1995. -2- recruitmentr could assist the LRSD in meeting its desegregation obligations. 2 .., 7/J1.__ IT IS SO ORDERED this._ day of August 1996. -UNITED ST.Z TES DISTR.i,cT JUDGE rHIS DOCUMENT t:NTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN : C.,MPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND10R 79(a) FRCP )N ?J ~ '3' /'J~ BY k7t:: ;c;::::: 2 The Court refers the parties to the testimony of Dr. David J. Armor, who t.:stilied dunng May 1996 with respect to his studies and conclusions regarding achievement disparity and student assignm.:nt. -3- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ' v. LR-C-82-866 RECEfVED PLAINTIFF AUG 2 8 1996 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Monitiffi..ENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the district court Order of July 3 O, 19 9 6 by which the district court interpreted the \"pooling\" provision of the Settlement Agreement to require that LRSD pay PCSSD $345,294. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL- DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (50~~ BY:~ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been served on the following counsel of record by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 27th day of August, 1996: ~r. 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 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 Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership ORDER i1UG 2 7 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Upon motion of the Little Rock School District, the time within which it must file its application for attorneys' fees with respect to this Court's January 13, 1995 decision and the May 15, 1996 decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is hereby extended to and including August 30, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this )- ... ?\" 1\\ day of August 1996. 2782 MAR 2 7 1997 li1L.::U OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOrmORING U.S. DISTRICT COUAT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR~\u003c;TERNOISTRIC'tARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 7 1996 WESTERN DMSION 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. MCI.UK1v1~1.,K, 1.:LERK By: -----,,.pm.~-. l\"\"lf....,.,F DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. The teachers in the PCSSD are on strike. 2. As a result of this unilateral action by a party to this case, the PCSSD cannot deliver the educational services and desegregation programs outlined in the Desegregation Plan and by orders of this Court. 3. As more fully set forth in the accompanying memorandum, this Court should order striking teachers to return to work in the PCSSD because their unilateral action precludes the PCSSD from performing its constitutionally mandated role as a desegregating school district, because the issues which underpin the strike are already before this Court, because this Court already has a mediator in place, because the strike is inconsistent with the negotiated agreement between the parties, and because PACT has a remedy at law to allege breach of contract or specific performance of the agreement. 4. This Court possesses broad equitable powers to take all reasonable acts and to fashion all reasonable orders necessary to accomplish the remedial goals of the Desegregation Plans. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court directing that PACT end its strike, that the PCSSD teachers return to work pending resolution of the issues already before this Court, and, as appropriate, for a reference to the United States Department of Justice Community Conciliation Service and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By __ ...,,c...-.i.:----~-====-----M. S Atto Dis Special School CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August n._, 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 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 3 ' r :~ .. . -  RECEniED U.S. DISTRICT COURT MAR 2 7 1997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cc:MR'flNo,srn,cTARKANsAs 0:=FICE OF DESEGREGATIOi'J MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 7 1996 WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JAMES W. MCliUliMAliK, CLERK 3y: PLiUm'IFF DEP C'.. : DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS PCSSD BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF Introduction The teachers in the PCSSD are on strike. As a result of their unilateral action, the - PCSSD cannot operate its schools as required to deliver the education and desegregation services envisioned by the desegregation plan and the orders of this Court. The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") is a party before this Court. It has been since July, 31, 1984. Procedural History On July 31, 1984, the Knight Intervenors, which specifically include the PACT, filed their complaint in intervention in this case. Paragraph 1 of the complaint in intervention states that: Intervenors intervene for the purpose of requesting that the Court order the protection of their rights to bargain and the rights they have bargained, pursuant to the agreements and policies between Intervenors and their respective districts. The District Court's order granting intervention followed an order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit directing that the intervention be granted. The concluding paragraph of the opinion of the Court of Appeals, dated July 6, 1984, states in pertinent part that: The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the district court with instructions to grant the appellants' motion for leave to intervene as parties in the remedy phase of this case. Their intervention shall be for the purpose of litigating the issues raised in their complaint, the protection of their existing contractual rights and their right to bargain collectively. Thus, as parties to the remedial phase of this litigation, PACT is decidedly subject to the remedial orders of this Court as is any other party. The Applicable Law The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its decision approving the Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plan in 1990. In that decision, it also outlined the rules for implementation. 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). The Court of Appeals delivered both broad responsibilities as well as a broad charter and grant of authority to the District Court in respect of the Settlement Agreement and the Plans. As it held at page 1394: 8. The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. In its subsequent decision, reported at 949 F.2d 253, the Court of Appeals evaluated the status of changes to the desegregation plans proposed by the parties but rejected by the District Court. In a passage often quoted by the District Court since then, the Court of Appeals held that: It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 Plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows ... (3) operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools acco~ding to the agreed timetable; ( 4) intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agreed timetable; 949 F.2d 253 at 255. The Issues Underpinning the Ongoing Strike Are Alread,y Before This Court On May 22, 1996, this Court delivered a letter to the parties in this case informing them that Mr. Gus Taylor, Chief Conciliator for the United States Department of Justice Community Conciliation Service, was being made available to the parties. As the Court directed: There are a number of disputes among these parties in which your services might be of great value. I will not attempt to list them for you now. By sending you this letter I am inviting you and the attorneys for the parties to contact each other. Mr. Taylor's services to the parties, which have been rendered on several occasions in the past in this case, are free of charge. On August 5, 1996, the PCSSD filed and served its amendment and supplement to second motion to enforce the settlement agreement with the State. Among the issues advanced by the PCSSD in that filing is the proposition that the State's new minimum salary law violates that provision of the Settlement Agreement which prohibits the enactment of any legislation which substantially interferes with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate. On August 19, 1996 -- ironically the day the strike began -- the Knight Intervenors, including PACT, filed a response denying that the new minimum salary law substantially interferes with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate and that the minimum salary law did 3 not violate any provision of the Settlement Agreement. Indeed, PACT affirmatively requested the federal court to find that the minimum salary law should be enforced in all respects including those issues raised in PCSSD's motion to clarify the Court's orders of June 15, 1993 and July 14, 1993 and to grant to them \"all relief to which they may be entitled\". The referenced PCSSD motion, as it relates to the Court's orders of June 15, 1993 and July 14, 1993, deals with the issue whether the \"savings\" realized by the PCSSD from the previous refunding of its bonded indebtedness and the savings generated from its early retirement program are or should be available to the District to fund teacher raises this year. PACT has contended from the outset of the strike that the District should use its contingency fund, a fund generated by the savings realized by the refinancing of the debt and the early - retirement program, to fund raises to comply with the minimum salary law. In their memorandum also dated August 19, 1996, PACT contends that the Court should clarify its June and July, 1993 orders to declare that: \"The savings may, in the discretion of the District, be used to increase teachers' salaries.\" Accordingly, the two central issues around which the strike seems to revolve are already before the District Court and the issues have been joined between the parties. Further, the District Court has already placed a mediator in place to resolve the disputes that may exist or may arise between and among the parties. In sum, PACT specifically intervened in the federal court action with regard to its negotiated agreement and it is respectfully submitted that all strike issues should be resolved by the District Court, particularly given the resources the Court possesses through the Office 4 of Desegregation Monitoring to evaluate any budget and revenue claims that may be advanced by either of the parties. The Negotiated Agreement Is Inconsistent With The Present Strike As a preliminary matter, it should be observed that Section 8, Item C of the negotiated agreement between the Board of Directors of the PCSSD and the PACT provides: \"The parties agree that state and federal statutes and court orders are incorporated into this Agreement.\" (emphasis added). Accordingly, the parties explicitly recognize as part of their negotiations and agreement that the orders of this Court would be part of and control. The PCSSD declared impasse no later than August 26, 1996. Section 12 of the negotiated agreement sets forth the \"impasse resolution procedure\". It is clear from the structure of the impasse procedure -- which begins with mediation, continues with fact finding and ultimately places authority for a final decision with the Board -- that the agreement contemplates that all parties are working and that no job action is occurring when impasse is declared. Among other reasons, the status quo between the parties should be restored so that the impasse procedure can proceed in normal fashion which requires that the teachers return to work. Further, Article VI, Section 2A of the Agreement provides that: The Association agrees that the Board shall have the right to establish the work year and annual school calendar. Thereafter, certain provisions and conditions associated with establishing the calendar are set forth including days when school can be held and days when it cannot. Singularly absent 5 from the Agreement is any term which would support the proposition that the teachers are entitled to interrupt or change the work calendar by striking, when they explicitly recognize that the Board shall establish the working days. The teachers' publicly espoused position that raises can be funded from savings generated by the early retirement incentive program are specifically refuted by Article IX, Section 8 of the Agreement which explicitly recognizes that: The purpose of the early Retirement Incentive Program is to reduce District expenditures in order to build a reserve which will off set the cessation of State Desegregation Settlement Funds in 1995-96 and 1996- 97. As previously observed, this issue is presently and squarely before this Court and issue has been joined. Finally, any contention that the teachers are presently operating without the benefit of a contract is specifically refuted by Article XVII, Section 1 of the Agreement which provides: The Collective Bargaining Agreement after ratification by the Board and the Association shall be effective upon the signing by the President of the Board and the President of the Association and shall remain in effect until a successor a~reement is ne~otiated. (emphasis added). Ar~ument PACT sought, and w "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1629","title":"Court Filings concerning PCSSD's motion to modify desegregation plan with regard to class sizes, Joshua's motion for an interim award of attorneys' fees and costs for post-judgment monitoring, settlement agreement with the state, and LRSD 1995-96 fourth quarter status report and budget","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-08-12/1996-08-22"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School integration","Lawyers","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning PCSSD's motion to modify desegregation plan with regard to class sizes, Joshua's motion for an interim award of attorneys' fees and costs for post-judgment monitoring, settlement agreement with the state, and LRSD 1995-96 fourth quarter status report and budget"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1629"],"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":["125 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to modify desegregation plan with regard to class sizes; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for enlargement of time to present petition for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) supplemental response to Joshua's motion for an interim award of attorneys' fees and costs for post-judgment monitoring; District Court, motion to quash affidavits; District Court, Joshua intervenors' correction to motion of November 22, 1995; District Court, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) supplemental response to Joshua's motion for an interim award of attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to the state defendants; District Court, memorandum in support of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for attorneys' fees as to the state defendant; District Court, affidavit of M. Samuel Jones III; District Court, order; District Court, Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to modify desegregation plan respecting class sizes; District Court, brief in support of Knight, et al.,response to mostion of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to modify desegregation plan respecting class sizes; District Court, Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) amendment and supplement to second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, brief is support of Knight, et al., intervenors response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) amendment and supplement to second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, motion for extension of time to file petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1995-96 fourth quarter status report and program planning and budget document and addendum to 1995-96 third quarter status report and program planning and budget document  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  AUG 1 ti. 1996 FILED U.S. D!STRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 121996 IN '3'HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR'1it',icS W McCORMACK. CLERK Olflce of Desegregation Mormorni\"EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By: ------;::;;:'r,,'~w WESTERN DIVISION DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-Soo PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT. ET AL. ' '' RECEIVED DEFENDANTS !llJG 1 A 1996 INTERVENORS O,f. . INTERVENOR$ , ice of Desegregat,on Monitormn .f. ii JOSHUA INTERVENORS OPPOSITION TO PCSS\u0026~-Su MOTION TO MODIFY DESEGREGATION PLAN WITH RESPECT TO CLASS SIZES Come now the Joshua Intervenors and respectfully oppose the Pulaski County Special School District's motion to modify the desegregation plan regarding compensatory education classes. The reasons given by the school district for its position is that the plan requirement is too modest to yield any tangible results. The District has not demonstrated ~hat it has compiled with the agreement in the first place; and secondly the District is in contempt for de facto modification of the plan. The issue is presented because the teacher organization has filed a grievance regarding the matter and one way for the District to avoid an unfavorable result with respect to the grievance is to have the Court void it. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully oppose this motion and cite as authority the Settlement Agreement herein. Joshua also requests that the District provide a comprehensive report to the Court indicating to which it has complied with the plan provisions. The report should also include a class by class break down, the results achieved on a longitudinal basis, along with the amount of funds expended and/or saved by this effort since the institution of this particular settlement plan provision. Joshua also requests that the District provide a written business case demonstrating the \"sufficient information to indicate that the funds spent on reducing class sizes in compensatory schools by 5% can be better utilized in other areas.\" WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court reject the Pulaski County Special School District's motion to modify the desegregation plan with respect to class size in compensatory education schools after a hearing which is hereby requested. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading was forwar~~via United states mail to all counsel of record on this ( ~ day of August, 1996. F)Lxt~[if - AUG 1 4 1996 Office ot Desegregalion Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership ORDER FiLr-D US 01s,h;:::T COURT EASTERN OISTf;. ICT ARKANSAS AUG 13 1996 JAMtSyV. M?CORMACK,CLERK By: II  s-::, 'hdw.f o DEP'eLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court are a number of motions for extensions of time upon which the Court now rules. The Little Rock School District's {LRSD) motion [doc.#2711) for an extension of time in which to respond to the Joshua Intervenors' (Joshua) motion for implementation of the recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring {ODM), is moot, the response having already been filed. .The Clerk is to remove this motion from the pending motions report. The motion (doc.#2726) of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) for an extension of time in which to respond to the various school districts' motion to intervene is granted. response is due on or before August 19, 1996. The ADE's The LRSD's motion [doc.#2732) for an extension of time in - which to file a reply to Joshua's response to LRSD's motion to end 2750 federal court jurisdiction is granted. LRSD's reply is due on or before August 30, 1996. The motion of the parties [doc.#2736] for an extension of time in which to respond to the ADE' s motion to dismiss or, in i;he alternative, for abstention, and for an extension of time in which to respond to the various school districts' motion to intervene is granted. The parties' responses to these motions are due on or before August 23, 1996. 1 The Knight Intervenors' (Knight) motion [doc.#2741] for an extension of time in which to respond to PCSSD's motion to modify desegregation plan respecting class sizes, and Knight's motion [doc.#2749) for an extension of time in which to respond to amendment and supplement to second motion to enforce the settlement agreement with the state are both granted. Knight's responses to these motions are due on or before August 19, 1996. Also before the Court is the LRSD's motion (doc.#2712] to shorten Joshua's time to respond to discovery with respect to the hearing on Joshua's petition for attorney's fees. In the alternative LRSD asks that the hearing on Joshua's petition be continued from the scheduled hearing date of July 29, 1996. Because the hearing was in fact continued until August 19, 1996, the LRSD's motion is moot and need not be addressed. Accordingly, 1 The Court notes that the Pul:i,ki County Sp.:c1JI Sd1ool Dl\u003etncl (PCSSD) h~, J!r.:~Jy riled 11, response to both motions. -2- the Clerk is to remove this motion from the pending motions report. R IT IS SO ORDERED this~ day of August 1996. -3- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 1 4 1996 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Desegrega1,on Monitorins _.. PLAINTIFF v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS PCSSD MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO PRESENT PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES \u0026 COSTS On July 31, 1996, the Court's memorandum and order granting the motion of the PCSSD with respect to the \"pooling\" issues was entered. Rule B-3 of the United States District Court Rules requires in many instances that the petition for attorneys' fee be filed within 14 days of entry of the order. Counsel for LRSD and the PCSSD have conferred and have agreed to ask that the Court defer the requirement of a petition and further defer any ruling on the issue of attorneys' fees until 30 days after entry of a final order on the pooling issue. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ~ Q\u003c:::::C ~ M. Samuel Jones III76060) Attorneys for Pulaski County Sp~chool Di-strict 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August /3, 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by facsimile on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 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 M. rUEh JonesIII ~ / ' 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 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL AUG 1 4 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS '/: 2 tJ I' #'VJ KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Offi' ce Of D INTERVENORS esegregation Monitormg LRSD'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO JOSHUA' s MOTION FOR ArrTNTERI-M~ - AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS FOR POST-JUDGMENT MONITORING LRSD for its Supplemental Response to Joshua's Motion for an Interim Award of Attorneys' Fees and Cost for Post-Judgment - Monitoring states: 1. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference are the following exhibits: A. Affidavit of Dr. George C. Cannon; B. Affidavit of James L. (\"Skip;') Rutherford; and, C. Joshua Intervenors' Responses to LRSD's Interrogatories. 2. In their affidavits, Cannon and Rutherford confirm that Joshua's $2,000,000.00 fee paid by LRSD as a part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement included compensation for future post-judgment monitoring by Joshua during the life of the LRSD Desegregation Plan. See Exhibits A and B. 3. Attached to Joshua's Responses to LRSD's Interrogatories - are fee requests submitted by counsel for Joshua in other cases. See Exhibit c. Comparison of these fee requests with Joshua's fee request in the present case raises serious questions as to the accuracy and reliability of Joshua's \"reconstructed\" time records. 4. For example, on August 11, 1995, counsel for Joshua claims to have worked a total of 21 hours. In the present case, counsel claims to have worked 7. 5 hours in \"preparation for and hearing before Judge Wright re: budgets.\" See Activity Statement of John Walker, p. 87. In Davis v. Franks, U.S.D.C. No. 88-4082, counsel represented that he was in Hope, Arkansas on August 11, 1995, and spent 8.0 hours meeting with clients. Finally, counsel stated that on August 11, 1995, he spent 5.5 hours \"work[ing) on proposed findings of fact\" in Day v. Johnson, U.S.D.C. No. 94-849. See Exhibit C. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion for an Interim Award of Attorneys' Fees for Post-Judgment Monitoring be denied. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 ( 501) 376-2011 BY: 2 istopher Heller ( n c. Fendley, Jr. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the fo~lowing ~eop/q.Y deposi~y of sam/)jn the United States mail on this ~ay of --+f41---~~-cxs=----' 19--7,e--. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 h~istopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. 3 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Mr. Chris Heller .. ,. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX(501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 376-2147 August 15, 1996 Mr. John C. Fendley Friday Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Chris and Clay: Enclosed please find a copy of the motion which I am filing with respect to the letter that I received from you regarding the hearing on Monday. Also enclosed are subpoenas for Dr. George Cannon and Mr. Skip Rutherford requesting their appearance at the hearing on Monday. JWW:js Sincerely, Dictated but not read John W. Walker cc: Honorable Susan Webber Wright Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel of Record Enclosures IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT_ COURT-~--, ... ,.,._,., . :::::., EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS~ WESTERN DIVISION C=? c__::, 7 .'\u003c LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS MOTION TO QUASH AFFIDAVITS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, do hereby request that the Court quash the affidavits of Skip Rutherford and George Cannon. For its motion, Joshua states as follows: 1. The Little Rock School District's affidavits of Skip Rutherford and George Cannon are untimely. 2. The Joshua Intervenors are prejudiced by the late filing of the affidavits. Undersigned counsel has not received said affidavits as of this date and is not familiar with the contents thereof. 3. However, Joshua does not oppose the appearance of Skip Rutherford and George Cannon at the hearing on Monday in order that undersigned counsel may question them regarding said affidavits. Attached as Exhibits A and Bare subpoenas for witnesses Skip Rutherford and George Cannon which are served upon counsel for the Little Rock School District on this date for their appearance at the hearing on Monday, August, 19, 1996. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that - the Court quash the affidavits of Skip Rutherford and George Cannon or in the alternative require that they appear at the hearing for cross examination. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)~ :?74-3758 J /1 By: {/AL JI tf\u003cUL1c-i___ Certificate of service I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was delivered facsimile to John C. Fendley and Chris Heller, Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark, 2000 First Commercial Bank Building, Little Rock, AR and by United States mail to all other counsel of record on this 15th day of August, 1996. - .... =AO= =88 =(R=ev= =119='1= S=ub=po=en=a =In =a C=lv=l C=a=se= ============- it h lb(.,f /l Issued by the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF-----------------  SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE Little Rock School Dist,V, Pul, County Special School Dist, 1 CASE NUMBER: LR-C-82-866 TO: Mr. Skip Rutherford [ii YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place. date. and time specified below to testify in the above case. PLACE OF TESTIMONY United States District Court United States Federal court Building 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 COURTROCM Judge Wright OA TE ANO TIME August 19, 1996 9:00 a.:n~ D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place. date. and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in - e above case. A.CE OF OEPOSmON D YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place. date. and time specified below (list documents or objects): PL..A.CE D YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. PREMISES Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers. directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated. the matters on which the _person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 30(b) (6). - I John W. Walker, P.A., 1723 Broadway 1 Little Rock, AR 72206 (SM Aute 44, l'edII Aut11 of Clvfl ~ooedute. ~1111 C \u0026 0 OIi ,-_ .. , If action 11 pending In district other than dl1trlct of !nuance. 1t1t dl1tr1ct under c111 number. OATE August 15, 1996 --- .... - /(Kh/btl 6 - AO 88 IRev 1 /9\" ! Subeoena In a ClvQ Case - - Issued by the - - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF - SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE Little Rock School Dist V . Pul, Co, Special School Dist, 1 CASE NUMBER: LR .. ~82-866 TO: Dr. George Cannon ~ YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place. date. and time specified below to testify in the above case. PLACE OF TESTIMONY COURTROOM United States District Court Judge Wright United States Federal Court Building 3rd Floor 600 West Capitol DATE ANO TME Little Rock, AR 72201 August 19, 1996 9:00 a.m. D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date. and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in - above case. E OF DEPOSITION I OM' ANO \"'\"  YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date. and time specified below (list documents or objects): .. PLACE lo,ne=o,.,,  YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. PREMISES ' I OMSANO '\"' Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers, directors. or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf. and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the _person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b) (6). fl;?S~~~ATTOA~Y ,OA ~ 0A OEFE~ANT) OATE . - - August 15, 1996 -- ,1$8\\JINQ ~!R'S NAM, AOOAl!aa ANO F'HONI NUMll!R John W. Walker, P,A., 172} Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72206 1 (SN Rule ,a. 11-t \"ult1 of Clvtl lllrooedute, llatll 9 l 0 1111 \"-If)  : !'l.t 1f action 11 pending In dl1trlct other than dl1trlct of I11uance. ltate dl1trlct under ca  e number. : ' JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITILE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVE~ AUG 1 9 1996 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. Office of Desegregation Monitonn~ August 16, 1996 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States Federal Court Building 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: In preparing for the hearing on Monday, August 19, 1996 regarding our fee petition, we determined that we had made several errors in calculation. This material is to correct those errors. You will find enclosed an amended Attachment One to our Motion of November 22, 1995, summarizing our entire claim. The following correction should be made in our Memorandum filed on November 22, 1995: at page 12 - the first full paragraph should read as follows: The Joshua Intervenors seek, for the substantive work on the case through October 28, 1995, an award for 2,016 hours of attorney time and 3,444.4 hours of paralegal time, as well as reimbursement of the amount actually paid to six persons who worked on the Joshua monitoring reports. See motion, Attachment One. This includes: [attorneys] John w. Walker, (1761.0 hours), Wiley Branton, Jr. (79.8 hrs), Austin Porter (175.2 hrs.); and paralegals Joy c. Springer (3079.1 hrs.) and Opal Sims (365.3 hrs.) Intervenors submission, viewed in the light of the record in this case, establishes that a claim is made for time \"reasonably expended on this litigation.\" at page 19 - in the first paragraph, the lodestar total for the work, other than for pursuing the fee award, should be for $740,375.81 for personnel and $17,636.00 for litigation costs. at page 20 - the request for work on the fee petition should be $35,075.00 for the work of four persons. -.... Affidavit of Joy c. Springer - (November 21, 1995) - at page 16, para. 20, the number of hours claimed for work on the fee petition should be 90 hours rather than 73 as indicated in her fee petition. We are seeing to it that opposing counsel receive this information ort Friday, August 16, 1996. Sincerely, Bob Pressman for John W. Walker BP:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel Of Record Enclosure CORRECTED ATTACHMENT ONE TO JOSHUA FEE PETITON (August 16 1 1995) ,,_.,M.., -l ATTACHMENT1ONE SUMMARY OF AWARD SOUGHT A. Substantive Work On Case Number Individual Year(s) of Hours Rate Atty. John W. Walker 1990 6.85 $250.00 1991 562.4 same as above 1992 308.5 same as above 1993 329.2 same as above 1994 218.2 same as above 1995 335.85 same as above Sub-Total 1,761.00 $440,250.00 Atty. Wiley A. Branton, Jr 1990 1991 9.3 1395.00 1992 64.0 9600.00 1993 6.5 975.00 1994 1995 Sub-Total 79.8 $11,970.00 1 Atty. Mark Burnette [Time Waived] Atty. Austin Porter Jr. 1991-1995 175.2 $130.00 Sub-Total 175.2 $22,ns.oo Joy Charles Springer (Paralegal) 1990 27.5 $50.00 1991 849.0 same as above 1992 681 .9 same as above 1993 548.9 same as above 1994 505.0 same as above 1995 466.8 same as above Sub-Total 3,079.1 $153,955.00 Opal Sims (Paralegal) 1991 365.3 $40.00 Sub-Total 365.3 $14,612.00 2 Other Paralegal Costs: (Reimbursement of amounts paid for work on Joshua Monitoring Reports). Amount Individual Year(s) Paid Kirke Herman 1991 $16,675.00 1992 $8,400.00 1993 $12,732.00 1994 $4,587.00 Evelyn Jackson 1991 $2,700.00 Debbie Parker 1992 $26,225.81 LaRhonda Pondexter 1991 $5,218.00 1992 $6,875.00 Clementine Rouse 1991 $2,200.00 1992 $1,000.00 1993 $2,000.00 Delores Sykes 1992 $1,000.00 1993 $3,600.00 1994 $3,600.00 Sub-Total $96,812.81 Sub-Total Substantive IVork on Case (Personnel) $740,375.81 3 B. Work on this Motion Individual Number of Hours Rate Amount Atty. John W. Walker 37.0 $250.00 $ 9,250.00 Robert Pressman 120.0 $175.00 $21,000.00 Joy C. Springer 90.0 $ 50.00 $ 3,650.00 Austin Porter Jr. 2.5 $130.00 $ 325.00 Sub-Total 249.5 $35,075.00 C. Litigation Expenses Description Amount ~ Reimbursement provided to Joy C. Springer for mileage costs anc $ 4,742.00 other monitoring expenses; see J. Springer Aff., para. 21 Reimbursement to Kirke Herman for monitoring costs; see $ 100.00 J. Springer Aff., para. 21 Cost of copying docket in clerk's office; see J. Springer Aff., $ 60.00 para. 21 Witness fees for LASO budget Hearing and other costs; see $ 294.00 J.Springer Aff., para. 21 Copying and fax charges; see J. Springer Aff., para. 22 $ 9,250.00 4 Postage charges, see J. Springer Aff., para. 22 $ 3,190.00 Sub-Total 17,636.00 GRAND TOTAL $793,086.81 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF L' 1-; .l- \" -- - - I  ..J r I -. -;',( .. - . ' v -- vs. ...---NO. LR-C-82-866 -,.,..~ ,1 i.',_::,_ ,  --~ 1~ -cC,l_':_P RECEIVED'\"\" \"~ - PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS AUG l 9 1996 LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. Office of Desegre9ation Mom1onr19 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR AN INTERIM AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES On or about August 9, 1996, the Joshua Intervenors filed a Supplemental Memorandum Regarding the Issue of an award of Attorney's Fees and Costs. Included in such document were brief excerpts from six (6) cases deemed relevant by Joshua, an affidavit of Joy Springer, a report on discipline; and an affidavit supporting Mr. Walker's request that any fee award in his favor be set at $250.00 per hour. As an initial matter, as set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that the \"fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.\" NLRSD submits that, based upon both the Joshua Intervenor's failure to adequately identify those time entries which apply specifically to NLRSD, and the failure to keep contemporaneous time records, Joshua has failed to satisfy the standard set forth in Hensley and an interim award is inappropriate. The prejudice created by such lack of accurate, contemporaneous time records is evidenced in the Little Rock School District's Supplemental Response on this issue filed August 14, 1996. Such Response notes that on a particular day, August 11,  1995, counsel for Joshua claims, in three separate fee petitions, to have worked a total of 21 hours in two separate cities. Clearly, the significant period of time relevant to the fee petition, five years, renders Joshua's failure to maintain adequate records fatal to its petition as the attendant prejudice to the Districts is overwhelming. See Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 534-35 (9th Cir. 1995), holding that an \"applicant [for fees] should maintain billing time records in a manner that will enable a reviewing court to identify distinct claims. Individual Student Disciplinary Actions. Perhaps the most inappropriate basis for the recovery of attorneys fees from the NLRSD is Joshua's request for compensation for the representation of various African-American students in personal disciplinary disputes. Quite simply, neither the Plan nor relevant case law contemplates Joshua providing counsel, at the District's expense, for each African-American student who faces disciplinary action. The purpose of the Court's activities and the scope of its jurisdiction is to enforce the implementation of NLRSD 's Plan with respect to the class as a whole. Nothing in that Plan suggests black students may not be disciplined nor that each would be represented by counsel at District expense. Rather, the Plan describes a process that will be followed, and, unless it is alleged that this process is not being followed in a particular case, it is not related to the issue of Plan implementation and falls outside the scope of this Court's interest. We would note that the Court has already reached the same conclusion with respect to teacher disputes, and the sa\"m e reasoning applies here. Each disciplinary proceeding in unique and specific to the individual student. If Joshua contends that the NLRSD is failing to comply with the terms of the Plan as they relate to student discipline, the appropriate action is to file a motion stating such in this Court. Adopting Joshua's position would result in legal representation for all african american students at District expense for any event which occurs at or is related to school. Clearly, such eventuality is not contemplated by the provisions of the Plan or the relevant case law. Hourly Rate. The Supreme Court has clearly articulated that the goal of the reasonable fee provision \"to attract competent counsel, ... not produce windfalls to attorneys .. 886, 897, 104 s.ct. 1541 (1984). II Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. In the present matter, it is beyond dispute that an award of Two Hundred Dollars per hour is more than adequate to attract experienced counsel. It is apparent, based upon a review of the Fee Survey cited by Joshua, that an award of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) per hour would not result in a \"relegation of the present matter to \"those lawyers with belowmarket billing.\" Casey v. City of Cabool, Mo., 12 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 1993). In fact, the great majority of those polled in such survey reported top hourly fees of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) - per hour or less. As the Supreme Court held in Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-96, 896 n. 11 (1984), \"the requested rates [ should be] in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.\" By: Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 41M CaAMf24/ Stephen w. Jones,1#78083 Allen Carney 0#94122 - - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 16th day of August, 1996 served one copy of the foregoing via United States mail to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206  Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACEELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Avenue, Ste. 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 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. RECEIVf:.rl AUG 1 9 1996 Office of Desegrega:ion Moniicnng -  _...,._,. ___ ........ - - - -~ - --- - .. ._,,.,.. - PCSSD MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS AS TO THE STATE DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. The mandate of the Court of Appeals was returned to the clerk of this Court by letter dated July 18, 1996. The judgment of the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court on two of the three issues presented on appeal. By previous order, the District Court had extended the time for the bringing of this fee petition until 30 days after return of the appellate court mandate. 2. The PCSSD, and others, are clearly the prevailing parties and are entitled to pursue an attorney's fee and an award of costs pursuant to Ark.- Code Ann. S 16-22-308 and 28 u.s.c.  19-20. 3. A memorandum detailing the law controlling this petition and the factors for the Court to consider in fashioning a fee and cost award is submitted with this motion. 4. Also attached to this motion as exhibit A is the affidavit of M. Samuel Jones, III detailing the time devoted to - these claims. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs, all as provided by law. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE on August /l , 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John w. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF 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. Rec AUG 1 9 1996 PLAINTI~F DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OfflceotD INTERVENORS - ...... _ - 8SeQre9aJJon Monitorm~ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT O.F! .THE PCSSD MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AS- TO THE STATE DEFENDANT The PCSSD fully participated in these c "}],"pages":{"current_page":18,"next_page":19,"prev_page":17,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":204,"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}}]}}