{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1631","title":"Court Filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplemental memorandum regarding the issue of an award of attorneys' fees and costs","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Walker, John W."],"dc_date":["1996-08-09"],"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","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers","Court records","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School discipline","Student assistance programs","School improvement programs","Education--Evaluation","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplemental memorandum regarding the issue of an award of attorneys' fees and costs"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1631"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["57 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  Rece,,,En~~HN w. WALKER. P.A.  A'ITORNEY AT LAW AVG 1 2 1996 Office of Desegregation Monijorin9 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKErr------ ---- ----- - RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. August 9, 1996 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Office of Oe~eg, cgation Monijorifl.n,, , , United States District Judge  . , ..._ _, United states Federal Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed please find our supplemental memorandum which supports our contention for compensation for work on behalf of particular class members relative to our motion for fees. Also enclosed are Attachments A, B, c, which address disparate discipline in the Little Rock and North Little Rock school districts. I have also asked Ms. Springer, of my office, to give a supplemental affidavit contrasting the ODM and Joshua monitoring reports with respect to the North Little Rock School District. Attachment Dis a copy of an affidavit that I submitted to the Court in my motion for fees in the Day-Hollowell case which supports my request for $250.00. Finally, we further remind the Court of our enclosure one which was attached to our opposition to LRSD's request for release of federal court jurisdiction which also supports our position for fees in this matter. JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Brown REcec~\"-D - AUG 1 2 1996 f'ol,\\;,~ij;:.s.s _c.!LcdIJN 01s1r.1ci p.. Office Of Deseg IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I i\u003c' Q 9 i99o ragation M~RN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS P.,ul.l \\(  ........._________ WESTERN DIVISION cor-MP-C\\(, CLE.P,   M  , - JP-MES \\N_~:-~ .. ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Bf ~rtrc:,-~- v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS Joshua Intervenors' Supplemental Memorandum Regarding the Issue of an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs Decisions Recognizing as Compensable Work on Behalf of a Class Member(s) As Well As Preparation of a Report on Monitoring (1.) Brewster v. Dukakis, 544 F.Supp. 1069, 1072 (D.Mass. 1982), aff'd as modified on other issues, 786 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1986) In describing the \"vigorous and necessary role in implementation\" played by plaintiffs' counsel, in a case involving the deinstitutionalization of persons with mental disabilities, the district court includes in part \"report[ing] and vigorously press[ing] charges of client abuse or neglect both in the community and in the hospital [and] represent[ing] clients during hearings on the drafting of individual service plans called for in the Decree .... \" The court of appeals quoted with approval the district court's having distinguished the roles of the \"court-appointed monitor\" and plaintiffs' counsel by noting counsel's responsibility for \"advocating on behalf of plaintiff class 1 responsibility for \"advocating on behalf of plaintiff class members.\" See 786 F.2d at 19 n.5. (2.) Eirhart v. Libbey-Owens-Ford co., 996 F.2d 846, 850-51 (7th Cir. 1993) In case involving sex discrimination in employment where the court had earlier approved a consent decree, the court ruled that compensable \"post-decree work\" included work on \"a dispute over whether a class member had shown 'good cause' under the terms of the decree to delay the starting date of her employment with Libbey.\") (3.) McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1461 (8th Cir. 1988) In a case involving conditions and practices on death row in a Missouri penetentiary, the court's description of appropriate monitoring activities by counsel included \"interviewing prisoners [and] investigating complaints .... \" (4.) Keith v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850, 856-57 (9th Cir. 1987) In a case involving compliance with the Constitution and federal and state law in the construction of a freeway, the court of appeals quoted with approval a list of postjudgment activities identified by the district court as compensable, including the following: \"[i]Tenant relocation issue: assisting Advocate's office in resolving disputes between Advocate's Office and Caltrans regarding orderly removal of remaining corridor residents. [ii] Housing priorities for displacees: mediating disputes between the Advocate's Office and Caltrans to ensure the preservation of priority for displacees who are forced out prior 2 to availability of housing .... [iii] status Conferences: preparation of quarterly reports for court's Quarterly Conference on staus of project.\" In an opinion addressing fees for a subsequent period, the district court described the quarterly reports as follows: \"providing quarterly comprehensive reports to the court which summarize the progress made in implementing their decree and draw to the court's attention potential areas of difficulty; ... \" See Keith, 644 F.Supp. 1312, 1314 (C.D.Cal. 1986). (5.) Duran v. Carruthers, 885 F.2d 1492, 1496 (10th cir. 1989) In approving fees for postjudgment services, the court quoted with approval the district court's description of compensable activities by counsel in Brewster v. Dukakis. supra, - including activities on behalf of class members. (6.) Alexander v. Hill, 625 F.Supp. 567, 568, 569 (W.D.N.C. 185) In case involving compliance with federal time limits for processing Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Medicaid applications, the court identified as compensable time spent by counsel in \"review[ing] thousands of documents and hundreds of files in ten counties across the state as well as Medicaid files 3 at the Disability Determination Section in Raleigh.\" ohn w. 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 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing supplemental memorandum was s~~~ via United States mail to all counsel of record on this ~day of Aug\"M//,~,.., v6\"ohnw. Walker \\... 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF 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. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER STATE OF ARKANSAS) SS) 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. It is to give a contrast between the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Intervenors' monitoring reports with respect to the North Little Rock School District. 2. The Joshua reports for the years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, which included the monitoring of the North Little Rock School District, differed from the reports of the Office of Des~gregation Monitoring in that the gathering of information for the Joshua reports included on-site visits to every school in the North Little Rock School District. The Joshua reports were 1 based, in part, upon information secured during these school - visits and interviews with the principals and other staff members. The Joshua reports also set forth anecdotal information from students, parents, and staff (a feature present in ODM reports to a lesser extent). Joshua's reports integrated statistical data from schools profiles. They further addressed more areas of operation of the NLRSD than the ODM has addressed in its reports concerning this district. Areas in the Joshua reports included curriculum, discipline, parental involvement, staffing, student enrollment by school and in particular programs, student participation in activities, and general areas of concern. The overall findings of the Joshua reports indicated that there was a substantial amount of noncompliance by each of the districts including North Little Rock regarding their - commitments to address achievement disparities, discipline disparities, integrated parental involvement, student assignments, integrated staffing, overrepresentation in special education, and underrepresentation in gifted and advanced placement classes. 3. I am familiar with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and its charge to monitor the settlement agreement for the Pulaski County school districts. I also have some knowledge of the ODM's areas of concentration for their monitoring activities in previous years after having met with members of the ODM, staff on several occasions. Moreover, I have read the reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring that have been 2 distributed for last five years. - 4. Based upon my recollection, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring has produced written reports relating to five specific areas of .the North Little Rock School District over the last five years. These areas are racial balance, alternative schools, student participation in two of the many extracurricular activities, achievement disparity and buildings. 5. The ODM's first written published report on the North Little Rock School District was dated December 18, 1992. It was entitled 111991-92 Monitoring Report on the Alternative Schools: LRSD, NLRSD and PCCSD.\" The second written published report was dated February 26, 1993. This report was entitled \"NLRHS-West Campus 1992-93 Spirit Team Recruitment and Selection Process.\" It was completed, in part, as a result of a motion for - preliminary injunction by the Joshua Intervenors regarding the selection of cheerleaders and spirit team members at North Little Rock West campus. There have been at least two written published reports on Racial Balance dated January 12, 1994 and January 31, 1995. The next written published report was entitled \"Status Report on Achievement Disparity: LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD.\" The last written published report regarding North Little Rock was recently released on July 31, 1996 and was entitled \"Report on Elementary School Facilities in the North Little Rock School District.\" 6. This is not to say that the Office of Desegregation Monitoring has not been monitoring this District in other areas 3 since the settlement agreement simply because there is no written - report. Joshua has not completed a written monitoring report since its report of June 27, 1993, however, they have continued to monitor compliance with the settlement agreement in all three districts including North Little Rock . 7. I believe that there has been value to our monitoring every school in the three school districts. For at least two years straight, we visited every school in the North Little Rock School. I further believe that our frequent visits to these schools conveyed a sense that we would be vigilant about determining compliance with the agreements. Our visits also identified activities needed to improve compliance, not only in the North Little Rock School District, but in Little Rock and Pulaski County as well. We received feedback from principals and - staff regarding our findings in all three districts. I have read the foregoing affidavit and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __9 _d ay of August, 1996. Notary Public 1 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 9-/7-~~3 4 NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES October 13, 1995 Ms. Joy Springer Mr. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Ms. Springer: 2700 POPLAR Enclosed is a report of our disciplinary referral summary by action taken. The report is a cumulative record as of June 9, 1995 for the 1994-95 school year. - Suspensions are listed in the following areas: 09 Student Assignment Class (SAC) 10 Home Suspension 11 Boys/Girls Club Suspension ~z1o ~ff.1Iiff c~ Director of Student Affairs P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 B . ., .  Ref : , DI!JOl~ Fii .E YEAft : NLRBl\u003e9S CUML'l /\\TIVE 01~ NORTH 1.ITTLE ROCK HIGH EICHOOl. - i l/i2 R- f\u003cEFERR/\\LB - ---- - -- - - - TOTl'IL- - - - ----   - -  --.. EcLt\\CK -- -- ... - - -tc  -- --NON--llLhCI\u003c -- -  - - \" CODI:: 081.:RIPTION B...._o, lHIL ar UDE:NTQ 'Hll'Al-:c---LE- - Fl'~Al .. 6 .. l 'JlAl----HAl--.li- - - H:;.H..i . \u0026;..,:J'QT-.i.L.- - -lo--~iC .. --- - - - Ot Cun~rnc wl th Studn't R 201 181 20\" 143 130 i ~ tc ~ a ~ i 7 ~ B i~3 13~ i9  i06 94 l 2 \" 47 41 6 ~ 02 Cnnf'rance w I -th Pareni'  R - - -- -fi5------l2---f - -- -- --i:O-- -- - -- 'i\u003e --- t.- -  -- a - -----;J-----Q--------------- ------- B st to s  e 7 1\" 3 3 o K 03 Confrnc with Btudnt nd P r nt R 9 6 3 M 7 ~ 3 K 2 ~ 0  a a s 3  7 4 3  t s o  0-4  Fl   - .. 0 ---------- O  -- ~  --  -  -- - -- - - ---- - 0 - -- ---- 0-*--- -- 0 - -- --- -- 0 --~-- ------ - - - ---- - ------- 8 0 0 0 N O O O  0 0 0 015 R O O O w O O O  0 0 0 \" B O O O w O o o  0 0 0  --oe-O-tW'nt ton Hall ------ - - --- -  -  - - - - - R - ---l9? t 76--2f--l2\u0026----l ? ---- --...;,:;i . ___ _,r.-4 ___ _.._ ___ __________ _ 8 l~l 122 19  04 7 2 12   ~7 LO 7 ~ 07 8tudnt WI ll H~ Up Tim R O O o w O o O  0 0 o ~ B O O O w O o o  O O O  ---- 8tudnt Placwd c,n -P.-obat Ion --- -- - -- R ----45--- -- i!l-4----tcf- ----~---;;,,!,- - ---=.,..-. -- 4.:.! - - ---4o- ---4__..._ _____________ _ B 3B 28 10  ~7 20 7 * ii 9 3  09 R 203 2i8 6~ w 219 164 5 5  64 ~4 lO  B 172 123  9  129 07 42  43 ~6 7  ~ - -H.-- 1tuw .. wnw I cm---- - - - - - ---  --------i!I,;;. 29 2 N 22---- I ! i--- - - - ------s----- --\"\"----+--1---------------- , 13 2e 26 2 .. 20 t '.? 1 .. a 7 1 .. R 45 43 ~  43 4 1 2 - 2 2 0\" 8 25 23 2 M 23 2t 2 N 2 2 0  li flc:,y/Glrl Club Susp:nlan ---- - -- . ....... -----;----ft--0-- - ----- - ------ - -0-  - ---- 0 - - - -'--\u003ci,_ _ _ .... ,_ ________________ _ Bue au ... nlan lt--'t\"'r-ea~urdy ttct,aol--------- us Rco111 .. nded Expulwlan --;.-- - Ottnor -- ------ l7 11,.11llan a o o o .. o o o  o R 20 i9 i w i2 il 1  B 0 8 B 18 17 t  12 S\\ l\" 6 6 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. R 29-4 20!5 89  S.69 lt.i-!---1!Fl '---f,li!t!!l!5;.---~9'i'~-.;.---;,hi!--~------------- B 209 i36 73  1 2 0 ~i. -49  1~9 R 4 4 0 w  4 0 N 0 a 4 4 o \" 4 4 o  o o:S (\u003e 0 0 ., ---- - --- ---R---26--- 2l---6 ----  iii! a:'i~ --   -- ----- -2 - -----------i---------------- 0 24 19 ~  22 1~ 4  2 i l w A 4 4 0 w  4 0 N O O O tt 8 4 4 0 N 4 4 0 N O O O N - -   - - --- -- - ------------'l\"'O-- Rfi'.FERR,l,t;a-------'l'-,--- -95l-- - Q--\u0026f.15-----.....,.- - i....,_. _ .. - -~\\'!.,..__-.;,.. ,.. .::. .__ _. .,_..----------------- TOTAL STUDENTS---- 83~ 6~2 183 tt Si,6 ' 432 i ~ 'I \" ;;,9 ~~-o .. ,9 ... ---  - . . ------ -------------- ----------- - ---- - - -------- - - ----- - ---- -- -- --- -- ---------------------------- tt----- -- -- - -- - ----- ------------ - - - - - - ----------- - ------ - -------------- - --  ,, \"' ----------------------- ---- --------------- ------------------------------------------------ . ------ -- - ------ -- - ---------- - ---- - --- ----------- ---------------------------- - - - - ----------- ------- - -- ---- ---- ---- - - --------------- --- - -- -- -- ---------------------- - --- - - - -------------- ----  - ----........ -- --- ...,1----- ---- - ------------- --- ------------------------- - -------- - - --------- ------------ --------------  Ref, , DIU01 .5. F II. E r'EAF~ , NL.l~BlY~ CLIHUI..ATIVE 013 NORl.H l . ITlLE ROCK Hl~H 6CHOOL  \u003c\u003e9/10 F\u003c   REFl'RR/\\Lfl COl\u003ett hl!:8Cft I F-r I UN 8-... Cl UAt . f'I I UDl;.HTfJ 0l with Gtudnt 02 0:1 Con1'rnc wl th Studer,t and Pa, en1: 0-4 oa Detwntlr,n Hall 07 Student Will Hak Up 11~ oe  8tudnt Placed on  0Prohe  lan 09 Studnt \"'--nt ClaaaC\u0026IIIC\u003e 1--to - - - eu.,....,., \". ll B\u003ev  /Clr l Club Suepanlon R 97 63 34  66  6 2 0,. 31 9 86 ~5 31 tt ~9 40 J ,, N ',,,l.7 17 i. -4 .. l2 \" R - S\"' --- 10 --   .. .. -  ~2-----9---- -i'l---- 2 --- --i ~ ---if------- - ----- ----- 13 14 so 'I ,. 12 9 :J,. 2 1 i \" R  9 3B 11 ,. ~!5 ~6 9  \\  I ~ 2  B 44 34 10  31 23 a 13 11 2  R i'i. 14   -'?   ~.5 - - - --+-   \u003c!r- .., -----6- - --- S----l--------- - - -- ----------- - - -- 8 ~1 14 7 N ~~ 9 6 - 6 ~ i N R 64  7 17  47 39 12  17 12 l5  a 5a  s 1 7   i ~,;, 12  17 ~ l5  -Fe  .. 1.096-- .. ---13.5 3!ii'I - *   - ? ;\u003e-~ ----9\u0026---- ~------~--~ ~,._-______________ _ U ~92 31~ 180  339 203 136  J~3 109 ~~\" R 6 3 3  4 1 3  2 2 O \" B 6 3 3   ~ 3  2 2 0  A -- f'\u003eB  ,,, -  115  - . .. . ii() - - - - - -H--  --9--:;us-----9 .. ----4..-.. _ a ~- 39 1~  30 21 ,  2  1a R 669   7\"' 19~ tt tsO   I 3  11 lf;6 w 1-!.!5 ! l:;\u003e6 e 3~~ 232 li2  ~~7 \\ 1~? ea w ?7 7 3  - .... - - A -- -i4H - - -  87 --   -- f. - - -----  -----\u0026fl---+----.4-a------.'\"-,._ _ -;--.-- ------- ------ a 7:S 62 S.3  47 3 1 i O  2 8 ! 2!5 R 79 ~~ 24  67 ~lJ t9 ~ 12 ' 7 8 64. 4~ 22 N ~3 :56 17  11-~ 6 ::s \"  - --- - ----- A - -0 ---- -- \u003c\u003e --- - ----- ----- - ~\u003e- - --- - O-----O- --- -Q- ---\u003c\u003e_.~ - - - ----------- B O O O  0 U O  0 l:I 8uw Buepnalan R 13 11 2  10 9 1  3 B 12 iO 2 * 9 13 1 ~ 3 0 2 2 0 .. i .. i .. 1--,....---,alt  ~rd..., -tk:hoa l ----------     - - - -- -~- -- !5tcd - --- i5  '1-- --6,..__..._07 26!0 f.--2-- -~'6------'i~--..+.--------------- B 297 i9f l06  226 137 09\" 71 !;4 17  Ui R 2 2 0  2 ~ O  O O O M Q 2 2 0 M 2 ~ () - 0 0 0 M --;.-ath.r -- ----  - - - --- ---- --- -   - - - - - ---fl -  20'- --ti39 - --65   -  ib7- ----i0=! ----6-- 7 ;,.,_ _ ... ,...-_.. ______________ _ B 1153 100 153 tt 11.3 70 \u003c11 :s  ... 0 :JO 10 \" 17 EPullon R :J 2 1  2 .l I.  i .1 0 \"' B 3 2 1 N 2 1 l M l l O M t---  - - -  ---- -  - - ----T0TM;- ftt!:Fe:~--t:t---~'1'6---2066  --9f 1  -tt - 220-4 --1\\-- 'IA- --- '?5'6---lli! --- fSfl~.+.l-=s----- ------------ T01.AL STIIDENTel-- 17:,::s t.i-4? :\"17l, * 12:,10 7e1 ::.  'l:':i \" 4'1!5 3l,... 1., 1  - ----  -   - - - ----  ---- ----.. - - --... - - -- - - .. ... . .. ... - .... ----- --- - -- -- - - - - ------ - --- ------- --------------- 1------ - - - - - - ---- - ----------- - ------- ---- ----- - -- ---------  -- - - ---- - --- ---- - ------------------------- - - -- ----------- --- . - ..... -- - - - --------  . _ ,, -- -- --  - - ---- - -- ---------- .... ---- ------ - . .. - ---- - .. -- -   . - -- - - - ---- ---- -- ---- --- - ------ ---------- --------------- ------  - -- -- - - - - ---------- -- --- - ----------- - --- ----- - ----- --- - - --- - - - ---- - -------- ------ .. ---------------------- It----- --   --. -    - -- --- ---- ---  - ------ ---- ------  -\"-- -  -----  ----\"- - - - - - - - ---------- .. - . ---- --------  Rt : j OJHOj .J. FJI i;_ ,E. Af~ , \u003c811'15 CllHUL,,TIVE 020 ,,._ l\"l,RNATIVE CENTER - i::l.1:HE,~TA \u003c l' R-  REF HRF\u003cALB   - -- l oTAL--     - N      --  Etl.r.CI\u003c --  -  - --  - -NON EtL-.CI\u003c -- --\" COl\u003eE IIESC\"I,.TIUN e~AC;\"I UAI. STUDENTe TOTril. HfllL e - FE_H ... l.E*\"f O'f\"';---+fN-:E--f-r.H,t,LE\u003c\u003effH-.a.L Hi1lLE - -F:H,i,l:E=-- - - - ------------- 01 C1.,11 frnc with Ytudnt r~ o o 0 M O O O M O 0 6 .. a o o \" 02 C1.,n'frnc  WI th Prn1\" -  - - o  -- - -o - 0 M O ( ) 0 M O O ? M --o-,. - -\u0026- ---- 0---- - -0 ------~----e-1,..~-------------- B O 0 \u003c\u003e N O O OM O O O 4 03 Ct\u003enfrnc with l3tudent Htid Prnt R \u003c\u003e o () M O i) 0 M O O ()  t a o o 0 N O I) \\) H O {\u003e 0 .. o .. F-r lvl lv Denied  - R O  0   O  ,.  O --- --- -.:) ----  \u0026 --   0 ---------\u003e----- - ------------- a o o \u003c\u003e M O D O  0 0 0  OS Bhavlar Contract R 0 o 0 M O O \u003c\u003e M O O O \" 13 0 0 0 M O O O  0 0 0  - \"()6 - l)tntlon Hall  - -  R -    O -  O -- \u003c\u003e . ..   0-----~-----0----  0-----.... ---~----------------- ~) 0 0 0 N O () () M O () 0 M 07 8tudnt Will Hk Up 11~ R O 0 0  0 \u003c\u003e O  0 0 0  a o o (). 0 () 0 N O O Off 09 9tudnt Plcd on  ,...,.obatlon R   \u003c\u003e -  o - 0 ... - 0 --  - --0------0----.-   0- -- --0----0-------------------- B O 0 ()  0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 M 09 81udn't Alvn,...ni Cl\u003cBAC) R O 0 0 * 0 U O ,. 0 0 0  B o O \u003c\u003e  0 o O ,. 0 0 0  ~O-- 8uwpnlon--- -   --  --  ----- --- R - - le--  -\u003c   -   --- ... - - ~ - - - --.\u003e- --------- . 0 ---~----\u003ci------------------ B 1 0 1  1 0 l M O O 0 ll 8'\u003eys/Clrl Club l:luspnslon R O 0 0 M O O O N O O O tt 8 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 \" 0 0 0 N -t~ --1'lt School Sup  IC-6, R -   O  -o 0 * 0 ---- - --- -- - 0-  0 ------ - -0 ------- -....--0-----0--.----------------- B O \u003c\u003e 0 M O O O M O O O \" 13 811  auspenelon R o O \u003c\u003e w o n o  o o o B O 0 \u003c\u003e  o n o  o o o .. 1--1~--1_11.,tvrday Br.hoot ---   - --- - - -- - --- - - - - O -- -- -- O -\u003c -  - --  -\u0026 - - ------~- - - - - ~...------o - ---.-. ----------------------- a o o (1 M O O O ,. 0 0 0  lS Rac....,_ndd EPullon R O O 0 M O O O M O O O ff B O O () M 0 0 () M 0 0 0 tt -;-  Oth...-   - ---- -  ----- -- R - -   0 -- O - - -  0 - ...  \u003c\u003e-   - -- - ,\u003e---- -- 0 - - - --0 - ----~---~---------------- B o O 0 w O D O  0 0 0 ff 17 11!:pulslone R O 0 0 0 0 0 N O U O  0 0 0 \" 0 .. 0 0 6 .. 0 0 0 .. ------- TO\"I\",._._. ~f'-ll!:RR1'l:-- --- - - -t------- O - - 1 -tt --- ---------0 l 11 --- \u003c\u003e- ----\u003e---....._._ _______________ _ TOTAL BTUDENTB---- 1 O 1 M l O 1  0 0 0 .. I----- - - . - - -- . - - ------------- - . ---------- - ----- -- ----- - --- - ----- -------- --- ---------------------------- ,___ - - -- --- -  - -- ---- -- -------- - - --- ---------- - - . ----  - - . - -  -  .... -- - --- . -------- - --------- --- - - --------------- --- . - -- - ---------- ------ . -- ------------- ------- - -- -- -- . ----- --- - ---- - -- ---- -------------- -- - - - . -- --------- ------ ------ -- -- - '  - -- . - -- -  -----------------  ----------- ------- --- -.  ---- .. - ----- .... .. - --- -- -- --- - - - ----- --------- - - - __, _ .  - - - --- ----- - -- ------- ----- --- -- - - - --- --- -- -- - - - - Rw1 : OIHOS JSL DI ,.c Ip l In., y t\u003cwf.,.el fl umot y FJlE YEAR : NLRS095 Act lon rlcen CUHULATIVE 021 ALTCRNATIVE CEN.fEF\u003c BECONl\u003eAF\u003cY R- REFfcRRALS  --TOl AL.--- -----   -------- EoLACI\u003c - - - - - -- ----- --NON-ltLACI\u003c  - - ----,. COi'\u003e DESCRl~TION 8MAc,uAL t!ITUDt!.HT1S Tl]TAl_ - H ... Lt! l'E.HM:E..-'1-0TAL----HM..::E r1: 11. ..L Eto'FeTT'\"'\"'\"1L.c:---il~\"\"ML.::iEE..---FF.'tiEl::tt1.\" \".'=.L ::iEF---....- -------------- 0t 02 03 oa Cun'frnc wl th Stu.dnt Con'feruc Mith Utuden t nd P r nt ~rlvllev Denied R 5 a  3 2  3 3 2 l. l \" l 0 l .. .. l 0 i - -- R --- --~- --- -  1-- - - - - - ~ - ----1-----e..-..----\u0026-----~-----e ........ ---------------- 8 t s o t 1 0 .. 0 0 0 R t3 t2 1  9 0 ..  3 t .. e 1t 10 s ,. a 0  3 2 i .,  --- R  -- - 1 ---  t - -- ---O- - - - ----\u003e-- --,-.,,._--+---- --+-----e,-,,._--------------- B l l O ,. 0 R O o O ,. 0 S O O O N 0 0 0 () 0  0 .. 0 .. l 1. 0 . 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 .. --o - 1\u003etwntlon Hatt - -- ---- -------- ~ 07 cw it 115 l7 Studnt Will Hk Up Tlfflw t!J'tudwn1' r-tc:d an ,-raba  ton - u  pwnwt01-r------ Boy  /Glrle Club Bu Pnlon -l~\u0026chaal-a~fjlCf-,~llo+t--- - Bue Bu  Pnlon -1t~day ttchool---------- --  11,alelon B l l O ,. R o o o  B O O o ,. i 0 0 l () () 0 .. 0 .. 0 .. 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 ..   - ----- R  t ---- ----0 -----+----+---e-.----\u0026-----~---.Q..---------------- B t l O ,. 0 .. 0 0 0 R 63  6 t7 tt 16 .. 6 !5 l .. B 46 32 t4,. 13  6 s i .. ----- - R 415 a~--f.------'---- -\u003e--~\u003c+--\u003e---''-------''----------------------- B :It 24 7  7 .. 3 3 0 .. R 6 5 S tt l. .. l l 0 .. a 6 ~ s ,. .. s. .. t l 0 .. - ------ -A----\u0026---- ~ - -----\u003c~-----Q--- ---0----~:\u003e------0----.Q..----------------- s 0 0 O ,. R 3 3 o tt B 3 3 o  0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 .. .. 0 t \" i 0 0 .. l 0 .. l 0 .. --------iRFt---t a---- -ta- ~-----H\u003e----+\u003ci\u003e----\u003co\u003e-.--- -31-----;a----\u003c-\u003e------------------ s 10 to o  a a 0  2 2 0 .. R   o  2 2 0  2 2 0 .. B   O  2 ~ 0 .. 2 2 0 .. - - - ---A-------- - - t ------c.  - - - -,--- --~ - --~ ... B l l Ott i l 0 .. 0 0 0 .. R e  t   3 1. .. i i 0 .. B 8  l  4 3 l  l l. 0 .. - - ---- --,-OT-.t- REFERftH::------wo-----~- -3-- - a4---!-.ta~\u003c!...---.~!W9 \u003e-4o\u003e---2-~- ---?-4.----.!li-o\"-------------- TOT ... L STUDENTS-- - - t2S 99 26  to  81 ::' :~ .. ::? i 19 3 .. --------- - - - ------- -- -- - ---- - --- - -- - - --- .. - ----- - - - --- --- ---- -- - -------- --- --- --- - ---- ,.... ________ . . - - -- - - -------- . -- --- ---- - -- - -------- ---- ---- . ------------ --- ----- - - --- --- -------- - - --- - . -- - - -- - - ----- ----- -- .. ------- - - - - ----  -------------------------------------- ----- - -------------- - ------ - - - R , , 01aot ~ FJI.E tEAn , ~Bb9S DI \"'c Ip l I nrv r-.cef.A l aununrv Et ,.. Act on--n CUHIJI \"TJVE 024 HIDGEf\u003cUAD HIDDLE GCHC.JOL R REFfi RRAL!3 -  - -  - -  rOTAL------ ----- - - r.L.ACI\u003c --- --- - -N -- --NONBLACI\u003c -  conE DF.BCAJ~TJON S-ACIU,..l, 9TUDP.:NT13 TOTAi, H/IILE FF.HAI Ettl\"OT~-tt11ot::E FCtl,.,I .. E..-'fG'f-M;---t-tM::E --~-t?H#'.t:l~-------------- Ol C,\u003enfrenc \"'I 'th Student R 1J\\ 48 36 M ~,9 :41 :.?l3 tt :.?S I 7 0 \" 8 64 30 34  4S 19 26 N 1.? fl 8  02 - ft'  -.- !, - -  -- 22 - - - 72 --- - !~?-------f\"\"l - - --,-a-.--- i.0------+1----e---------------- a ~IJ 19 iY tt ~~ 1~ 12 tt ~~ 7 7 ~ o::s R 17 9 a Ll \"' 7\" 6 ~ 1.  G 17 9 a tt ll 4 7  6 ~ l \" 04 I'\u003c l O :I   -t - t\"~ - - ---t----- -O------O------e----------------- S l o 1  l o 1  o o o  OS R 1 0 l  l O i  0 0 0  B 1 O IN l O 1N O O Ow :  !f~ 1.1; ---~:-: -- t~------~1- - - -;~-: --~:---....;,:;,w_3'l----tl-t63-.,.. ,_ _____________ 07 Eltudent WI ll Hake Up Tl11te R 2 2 O  2 ~ O  0 O O  B 2 ~ (}  2 2 0  0 0 0  -oa - etudent ~lcd un l\"\"rablan R  - -   0- -  0 ---0 ....... --$--- -  (  - ------- 4;9._----88---------------------- B O O O w O o O N O O O  09 R 436 2::13 183 tt :ns'I' 1.31 l~B \" 177 S22 !~S \" B 21B 126 B~  130 73 ~7 M 0::1 ~3 32  ------  --- A - -- Ul1   - 1.06- --?~---- :l-33 -----7.,;\u003e---\u003c\"rt--.... 1381------ac, _-+_,_ _____________ _ B 10? 60 4? N 79 4L 30 w 30 19 Ii ll R 3~ 26 \"/  22 IH 4 N 11 a 3  9 30 23 \"1 N 20 j6 4 N iO 7 ~\" ~-.-t 8choot  8u--it(-t  - - - - --     ---   - - - R - - -   O O -- -  0 . ... ____ ______ ___ ~\u003e - -----0- -- ----Q-\"---'--v----v-,_ _____________ _ B O O O  0 0 0  0 0 0 \" t3 8u S\u0026\u0026Pnlan R 11 7 4  lO 7 3  l O l\" ~.--.-~urday echa~n-1.1--------- . _____- -=--t~~---S:--6:-:__a:_ ___ 3 ~---\",3_'-\u003c,.__ _ .,.a1----i~oe----P.i1.-.\". -------------- 8 106 '50 eit..  68 30 3B \" ~18 ;.\u003eO i 8 us Rcaa11tndd Expulsion R o O o  0 o O \" 0 0 0  S O O O  0 0 0 w O O O  --- - - ~ - ---tU- - - Si   ----El~    66 ---iilf.l  -- S-8-- H5----t-3-------\u003c--------------- S ~... 30 2~ .. 42 ::a\u003c, :?2  1.2 10 2 .. 17 Expulsions R i i O i 1 \u003c\u003e 0 0 ON B l 1 0  i 1 O  0 0 0  - --- - -- -- -------- - TOT.-.t- ftef't!:ftftH.;\u0026------1.-1. r?----685-- --49~- ---,''!f-9-----41 a --- 36-t:------398 267 TOT\"'L STUDENTS----- 7615 42\\5 ::S40 \" 15J 1 ' 270 241. \" 2~\u003c'1 1t,:5 i~------------------ '19 .. f--- - --- -  -------- --- - - ------- - - -- -  -------------- ------ -- -------- -- ---- - -------------------------------------- - -  ---- - --- ---- ------- ------- .. ------------- ----   .. ------------- a-----  --- - --- -------- - - ---  ------ --   - - - ---- ---- -  - -   - --- -- - --- -- - --------  -  -- -------------- -t------ -- ------------------------------ ------ - .. - -- -------------------------- . . --  .. --------- --- - -------- - -------- -    - . . - - - ----- --- ------------ ------- -------- ---- --- - --------- - - - - - - --- -- - ----- - Rf , D180S .58L Fll.E YEAR I NU~8D9:5 CUHULATIVE 02!3 I. AKEWODD HIDDLE\" SCHOi.iL -,1'09/9:S R- REFE,RRALB -  ---- --- TOTAL--- ---- -  - ----- -BLACl\u003c ----- - - --- -----NON- \u0026LACK- --- __ ,. CODE DESCRIPTION  \u0026ACTUAi:- STUD\"NTIS TMTl\\l~---HM:t!'\" ---- ~!:Hlllt:1! .. TOTnt;;---=:e--f\"eHnt:eto-'f'O'l''l'~,._,tL=--tl1ilAAtL:tE~---11f'-'f!E~l111,,,,,t:L:tE::-\"...------ ---------- 01 02 03 0:5 C~nfrnc Nlth Btudnt --oa- Detent Ian tta t t 07 --oe 09 ll Poys/C.lrls Club 8usplitnlon R 53 33 20  ::S9 2 :5 l .6  l\"' 10 .. .. a  6 29 17.. 3\"' 2t 13\" 12 ---- -- ft ---:s 2 ---t  . 2 e ~ .. :t B 3 2 l  l O 1  2 2 0 .. Parent R 2  B 6  1.0 5 ~ -  .J 1 a 1  a 6  ,o ~ 5\"  3 l \" .. - - ---  - --- ft -  - \"1.--- ---0 - - - t -- - ----1,------ -\u003c, -\u0026-._--- ----- ---,,._.---------------- 8 l O 1 M l O l  0 0 0 .. R 6 2   :5 1 4  i 1 0 .. B 6 2 4  :5 l 4  l l 0 .. -   '  -- -  - -- ft- - -T:?-----\"41!, .. -\"21!,(t -~.,\"1\u003e---~22'17'!~.,_-~2~(71'6-\"ilNt----5!2\".J-~0,-----1;~t---,M!.....,,._.-------------- 8 29:S l68 12~  11-11 ;\u003e1~ 93 ,. l 1.2 70 -42 M R 2 1 1  2 1 l  0 0 0 .. a 2 1 1 ,. 2 1 1 ,. o R -  - - 1.:t--- --  9  - .... -  -- 't.- ~ ----.+-.....-- -=.\u003c\u003e-- ----------0-- ------------- 8 13 9   ll ? 4 2 ~ 0 .. 2 0 .. R 187 138 49  144 97  7  43 .. , 2 .. e 110 e5 33,. 07 56 31.. 31 29 2 .. .. --- --- -- -ft--26----- -i: -- --------- l5 _____ __,-,-------------------------- s 19 l  5  12 a 4  7 6 S: .. R 29 15 l  M ~2 0 14 N 7 7 0 .. B 19 ll B  13 5 ~  6 \"' 0 .. l---t:::t--tt- -t1chaat-a-c1\u003c-a-,---- ------ --- - - - ------ R- ---~ --------o ---- e -- - ----0-------,~ \u0026-- ----e----\u0026------------------- e O O O  0 0 0  0 0 0 .. R 27 17 lO  23 14 9 w 4 :1 l e 27 17 10,. 23 14 9  - \"' --------ta, da .,- 8chau 1- --------- -- - ------\"--t1 'l\"?-----85 49 - --_.!_, -,..-----a+----e\u0026------.1,-.--------------- 3 l .. B 9:5 :59 36  67 ~l 30  28 ::!2 6 .. UJ R 2 l lM 2 I l 0 0 0 .. S 2 l 1 w 2 l 1 ,. O 0 0  -- -- --   -  ft-  - -6~--- - - - -~4----lB ... -   49- ---- EIS.----1:,,._.-- .l a------1Hil-----t---o ..... -------------- S \"'\"' 32 12  3:5 2  11  9 e l .. 17 R O O O  0 0 0  0 0 0 .. e o o o .. o o o ,. o 0 0 .. - - ----- - TOT~f\"t!:,-fttf'\"t.,._\"-ILL11111---- ---~2d'l\"---eso--.....a? - --'9\u0026o-- ___....s.,.~--aff--tt---l:!lot-------liets-----..:.,,,1,-..... ------------- TOTAL STUDENTS--- 702 438 264 t0 4fl'4 270 206 \" 218 l,',O :;a .. t------------------ -- ------------- t------------------------ - - --- --------------- ----- - - --------------------------------------------- ,_ __________ __ . --- ------ ----- - - ------------------- ---- ------ ---------------- -- -------------------------- --------- ------- --------------------------- --------- - - --- ----------------- ------------- - ------------- - --------- ---------- - - - ----- -------- ---------------. -- -------  ------ ----- ------ ---- ---- ------ - -- -- --  \u003e----------- --- -- - -- --- --- - ----- - -- - -- - ------------ ------ --- -- ----- - ----- - --- - - - ---- - - - -------------------- --------- - ----------- ----- - - - - ---------- - - - --- - -------------- --- ------- -------- - - --- - ------- - -- -- -- ------ ------ - ----- - ---------- ----- --- ------ ------------ -------------  ... ... --- --  - - --- - --. -- - ------- - -- - - ---  ------ ------- --- ----------------- .. .   - - --- --  ---------- ----- - - -- ---------- -- - -- ----- -- ----------- Ref : ' DlBOl- Fll E \u003cEAR : NU'\u003cSD9:S CUHULi\\TIVE 026 HOBE CITY HlVDLE SCHOOL CODE DESCR?PTtnN Ol 02 - cc,n'f'rnc wl th Prnt - -- c,,nfranc with atudent f\"rlvllv Dnld 9.t,avlor Contract - -oa---- Dtantlan Hll -------- 07 Student Will Hak Up lime Dt10c:lplln y R-nl !.um,narv ,,c i I on T. k ., .. f\"\u003c- r\u003cEFE:RRA "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1641","title":"Court Filings concerning motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats, court proceedings on settlement agreement, and incentive schools","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-08-02/1996-08-09"],"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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Education and state","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School employees","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats, court proceedings on settlement agreement, and incentive schools"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1641"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["24 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to clarify the court's orders of June 15, 1993, and July 14, 1993; District Court, response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to motion to intervene as defendants; District Court, separate response of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to the answer of intervenor school districts to the second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to respondent Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for abstention; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) brief in support of response to respondent Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for abstention; District Court, amendment and supplement to the second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, three motions for extension of time; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Joshua's motion for implementation of recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Joshua's motion for relief concerning incentive schools; District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Joshua's motion for relief concerning incentive schools and to Joshua's motion for implementation of recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplement to motion to modify desegregation plan dated July 30, 1996  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 AUG ~ 1996 Office of Desegregation Moni1orm9 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS MOTION TO RELEASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL KINDERGARTEN SEATS AND FOUR-YEAR-OLD PROGRAM SEATS The Little Rock School District (LRSD), for its Motion To Release Incentive School Kindergarten Seats and Four-Year-Old Program Seats, states: 1. The LRSD engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts during the 1995-96 school year as it prepared for registration for the 1996-97 school year. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a partial listing of those recruitment efforts conducted by the district. Additionally, the information contained in the district's quarterly program planning and budget document status reports and project management tools serve to supplement this listing . .. 2. Although the recruitment efforts yielded positive results, seats still remain vacant in the LRSD's four-year-old program as well as the kindergarten level in the incentive schools. 3. Taking into consideration the importance of reserving seats for the recruitment of white students, the LRSD made special efforts during the recruitment season to register as many new white students as possible into these programs. Since seats still remain vacant, LRSD submits that the vacant seats should now be released to black students who can benefit from the educational opportunities which will be provided. By doing so, the district is not retreating from its obligation to continue to vigorously recruit white students into the designated schools. Rather, the LRSD is merely recognizing the importance of disparity elimination through early childhood educational opportunities. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a copy of the LRSD fouryear- old assignments and kindergarten assignments for the 1996-97 school year as of July 10, 1996. 5. The LRSD will continue its vigorous recruitment efforts and will determine what adjustments are necessary and appropriate to ensure that the impact of this action on future year enrollments can be minimized to the greatest extent possible. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District moves the court for an order permitting it to release the vacant seats at the kindergarten level in incentive schools as well as the vacant seats at the four-year-old program sits as reflected by the attached exhibit; that it be awarded all legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. btbyll.RSD-lac.Fau, 2 Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ( 501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Plaintiff Christopher He Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion To Release Incentive School Kindergarten Seats And Four-Year-Old Program Seats has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 1st day of August, 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 172 3 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 bllQ,ILRSD-Inc.F..., 3 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 bll,y\\LRSO.lnc.Four 4 November 1, 1995 To: From: Re: JULY Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment Becky Rather \u0026 Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Recruitment Report, 1st Quarter, 95-96 Developed ad for Kid's Directory featuring Incentive Schools, CARE, 4-year-old program and registration dates. Met monthly with PTA Council. Mailed letter to all white students on 4-year-old waiting lists offering available seats. Mailed 84 letters to ministers, including registration flyer. Sent memo to principals about open house dates. Sent memo to principals listing upcoming recruitment dates and opportunities. Participated in PTA Summer Leadership conference discussing public relations and newsletters. AUGUST Worked with Pat Price to develop, typeset and print new generic 4-year-old brochure. Spent two days placing registration posters throughout city at grocery stores, housing projects, medical offices. Department of Human Services, etc. Put individual school recruitment plan outlines on disks and offered to all schools who requested them. (Some wanted to continue using hard copy outlines and a typewriter.) Participated in Governor's Press Conference proclaiming Arkansas Public School's Week. Met with Quapaw Realty. Participated in PTA Council pre-schoo,l workshop. Met with McKay Realty. Gathered and delivered Parent Involvement information to five incentive schools. Participated in booth on LRSD at African American Heritage Celebration at Philander Smith College. Met with new magnet coordinator and principal at Henderson on recruitment ideas. Met with Rightsell on setting up Parent Involvement. Held Open Houses in all schools. Met with Franklin on recruitment. SEPTEMBER Held brainstorming/planning sessions ~ith new Director of Student Assignment. Secured home owners association lists from City hall. Sent memo to Principals on recruitment training session. Met with Geyer Springs recruitment ream. Gathered lists of names of recruitment team members from each school. Worked with Connie Whitfield, Advocates for Children, in identifying target neighborhood with low parental involvement and Kids at risk. Mitchell Incentive was selected. Worked with Rector, Phillips, Morris Realtors. Worked with ReMax Realty. Worked with Winrock Development Company, (Real Estate Developers) Worked with Janet Jones Realty Participated in two meetings with Pulaski County Parents (one South and one North of the river.) Revised Recruitment Timeline Calendar. Julie Wiedower represented office in Magnet meeting. Recruitment training meeting with principals (especially new principals) and recruitment team leaders. Met with Washington recruitment meeting. Met with Dodd recruitment team. Met with Parkview recruitment team. Revised recruitment timeline calendar. Conducted tours for 21 families from July through September. - - Jan. 5, 1996 To: From: Re: Oct. 2 Oct. 3 Oct. 3 Oct. 5 Oct. 5 Oct. 6 Oct. 10 Oct. 11 Oct. 11 Oct . 12 Oct. 16 Oct. 16 Oct. 16 Oct. 17 Oct. 17 Oct. 17 Oct. 18 Oct. 18 Oct. 19 Oct. 19 Oct. 20 Oct. 23 Oct. 24 Oct. 25 Nov. 6 Nov. 6 Nov. 7 Nov. 7 Nov. 9 Nov. 9 Nov. 10 Nov. 10 Nov. 14 Nov. 14 Nov. 15 Nov. 21 Nov. 27 Nov. 27 Nov. 30 Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment Becky Rather, Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Recruitment activities, second quarter 95-96 Assist Henderson recruitment team Work with Incentive schools on reports due Work with Rector Phillips Morse Realty Participate in Arkansas Business Expo Work with Central recruitment team Assist Baseline recruitment team Attend PTA Council at Bale Attend program at Rockeferler Attend meeting on pre-registration brochure All individual school recruitment plans due Contact Connie Whitfield for parent involvement at Mitchell Meet with Booker recruitment team Meet with Rockefeller recruitment team Meet with Franklin recruitment team Assist Otter Creek recruitment team Assist Badgett recruitment team Meet with Dodd recruitment team Memo to principals requesting private school directories . Attend team meeting at McClellan Deliver information to McKay Realty Mail letters/ flyers to Neighborhood Associations. Assist Cloverdale Junior High team Assist Gibbs team Attend meeting with Mabelvale Jr. team Attend Henderson team meeting Assist Adkins, McNeill, Smith and Assoc. King recruitment team meeting Presentation to the \"Good Ole Girls Ne.t work\" Assist Rector Phillips Morse Realtors Meet with Washington Team Assist Adkins, McNeill, Smith and Assoc. Assist Rector Phillips Morse Realtors Attend PTA Council at Forest Park Meet with J.A . Fair recruitment team Bi-monthly recruitment survey due from all schools Evening meeting with 6th grade parents at Second Presbyterian Church. Assist Henderson recruitment team Assist Mann recruitment team Meet with Melissa Guildin, ODM Dec. 1 Dec. 1 Dec. 4 Dec. 5 Dec. 6 Dec. 7 Dec. 8 Dec. 12 Dec. 12 Dec. 13 Dec. 19 Presentation to Secretaries meeting on Magnet schools Assist Charlotte John realty Assist with two special tours at Mann Assist with two special tours at Forest Heights Assist with two special tours at Dunbar Assist with two special tours at Henderson Assist with two special tours at Pulaski Heights Attend PTA Council Washington Report to Biracial committee Assist Garland team Prepared Open House flyer for Garland Provided tours to 46 families during this quarter. June 3, 1996 To: From: Re: Nancy Acre, Director of student Assignment Becky Rather, Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Recruitment efforts for third quarter 95-96 Jan. 2 Held Registration training meetings with all school secretaries Jan. 8 Provided private school mailing labels to Magnet Review Committee, schools upon request. Jan. 9 Attend PTA Council at Mann Jan. 9 Participated in 6th grade recruitment for Junior High at Terry Jan. 9 Participated in 6th grade recruitment for Junior High at King. Jan. 12-13 Participated in Park Plaza Mall Show Jan. 15 Bi-Monthly recruitment survey due in from all schools. Jan. 16 encourage Jan. 16 the city. Mailed letters to all P-4s on waiting list to Kindergarten registration. Mail letters to churches and daycares throughout Jan. 16 Sent private school lists to all area schools. Jan. 16 Picked up PCSSD labels for incentive schools. Jan. 18 Held special tours for parents of 6th graders to Junior Highs. Jan. 19 Mailed 2,000 pre-registration brochures to private school students. Jan. 22 Open House, Incentive and Interdistrict Schools Jan. 22 Met with Early Childhood Advisory Committee. Provided pre-registration information and posters. Jan. 23 Presentation to Charlotte John Realtors Jan. 23 Mailed registration brochures to 25,000 LRSD households. Jan. 23 Presentation to HIPPY parents at McClellan Jan. 23 Open House, Elementary Magnets Jan. 24 Open House, Secondary Magnets Jan. 24 Assist Wilson School Recruitment teams. Jan. 24 Provide Assistance to Caldwell Banker Realtors Jan. 29-Feb. 2 CHECK US OUT WEEK! Jan. 29 Open House, Elementary Area Schools JAN. 29 Display posters throughout the city. Jan. 29 Assist Fair Park Recruitment Team Jan. 30 Open House Secondary Area Schools Jan. 30 Presentation to HIPPY Horne Visitors Jan. 31 Participated in Dunbar Recruitment Program Jan. 31 Display posters throughout the city in housing projects, grocery stores, day care centers, etc .. Feb. 1 Feb. 5 Iniervice Secretaries on pre-registration Pre-registration open through Feb. 16. Feb. 5 - Feb. 6 Feb. 12 Feb. 13 Feb. 14 Feb. 19 Feb. 19 Feb. 20 Feb. 27 Feb. 29 Mar. 1 Mar. 7 Mar. 11 Mar. 12 Mar. 12 Mar. 12 Mar. 14 Mar. 15 Mar. 26 Mar. 27 Provided quarter. Assist Caldwell Banker Realty Give Biracial report Meet with Wilson Recruitment Team Attend Open House at Metropolitan Assist Rainey Realty Participate in Early Childhood Meeting Attend Parent Involvement meeting Participate in PTA Founders Day program Speak at Bayou Mete in PCSSD Work with Mccaskell Realty Attend opening of Chicot School Parent Involvement meeting Participate in Early Childhood Fun Fest at King Attend PTA Council at Rockefeller Attend meeting of AllianFe for our Public Schools Attend program at Booker Assist national Early Childhood tour Rockefeller Bimonthly recruitment report due from all schools. Assist Wilson recruitment teams. Meet with Alliance for Our Public Schools 46 tours to individual families during this June 5, 1996 To: From: Re: Apr. 2 Apr. 3 Apr. 5 Apr. 9 Apr. 10 Apr. 1() Apr. 15 Apr. 15 Apr. 23 Apr. 24 Apr. 30 May 1 May 7 May 7\u00268 May 8 May 13 May 14 May 16 May 19 May 20 May 22 May 29 June 4 Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment Becky Rather, Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Fourth Quarter, 95-96, as of June 4, 1996 Recruitment report presented to Biracial committee Meet with Selma Hobby on obligations Notify 4-year-olds of assignments Attend PTA Council at Woodruff Assist Atkins, McNeil Realty . Attend meeting for Alliance for Our Public Schools Attend Early Childhood meeting Attend Parent Involvenent Meeting Participate in PBD audit Assist Rector Phillips Morse Realty Assist Dodd with recruitment Attend meeting for Alliance for Our Public Schools Assist Caldwell Banker Realty Show and Tell in all LR schools Provide 25 Realtor packets for Atkins, McNeil Attend Parent Involvement Meeting Attend PTA Council at Carver Attend reception at Mann HIPPY graduation Attend Early Childhood meeting Attend meeting for Alliance for Our Public Schools Assist Janet Jones Realty Make report to Biracial Committee Recruiters provided tours to 37 families during the first two months of this quarter. With each family the recruiters provide tours to an average of 3 to 4 schools, depending on the number cf children, grade levels, requests and time allowed. Most of our concentration is with residents moving into the city. Most local residents prefer to tour schools on their own time. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUR YEAR OLD ENROLLMENT 1996-97 Enrolled Waiting List / TOTAL 360 242 6021 118 59. 80% 870 58 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ASSIGNMENTS AT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1996 -97 Enrolled Waiting Lis 18 18 ..  :5i4s 36 18 36 720 SCHOOL BL NBL TLT Vacancies %BLACK BL NBL CAPACITY FRANKLIN 70 5 75 25 93.33% 21 0 100 GARLAND 22 4 26 14 84.62% 11 0 40 MITCHELL 27 1 28 12 96.43% 12 0 40 RIGHTS ELL 24 2 26 14 92.31% 15 0 40 ROCKEFELLER 29 28 57 3 50.88% 44 0 60 TOTAL 172 40 212 68 81 .13% 103 0 280 - - - - -- - - HERSCHEL H . FRIDAY C1122 1114J WILLIAM H . SUTTON, P. A . JAMES W. MOORE IYRON M . EISEMAN , JR., P. A .  . BELL, P. A . C . ECHOLS , P. A . S A . BUTTRY, P.A . ERICKS . URSERY , P. A . H . T . LARZELERE, P. A . OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR ,, P. A. JAMES C. CLARK , JR ., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P . A . PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill. P. A . .,,.,,. LARRY W. BURKS , P.A. - A . WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR ., P.A . JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P. A . J . PHILLIP MALCOM, P. A . JAMES M . SIMPSON, P. A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT , P.A . JAMES M . SAXTON, P.A . J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111, P. A . DONALD H. BACON, P. A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P. A . WALTER A . PAULSON 11, P. A . BARRY E. COPLIN, P. A. RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR, P. A . JOSEPH 8 . HURST, JR ,, P. A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P. A . CHRISTOPHER HELLER , P .A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH , P. A. ROBERTS . SHAFER, P.A . WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill , P .A . THOMAS N. ROSE, P . A . MICHAELS. MOORE, P. A . DIANE S . MACKEY , P. A . WALTER M . EBEL 111, P. A . KEVIN A . CRASS , P. A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR ., P. A . FRIDAY, ELDR'EDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3493 TELEPHONE 601 - 3782011 FAX NO. 601-3762147 August 2, 1996 RECEIVED AUG_, 1996 Office of Dase . gresation Monitorin9 Hon. James W. McCormack Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 W. Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock~ AR 72201-3325 Re: Little Rock School District, et al vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack ! /; SCOTT' J , LANCASTER , P. A . M . QA/'ILE COPILEY , P . A . ROIERT I. BEACH , JR . , P.A. J . LEE BROWN, P .A . JAMES C . IAKER, JR . , P. A . HARRY A . LIOHT , P. A . SCOTT H . TUCKER , P . A . JOH.N CLAYTON RANDOLPH , P. A . OUY ALTON WADE , P . A . PRICE C , GARDNER , P . A . J . MICHAEL r!CKENS , P. A . TONIA P. JONES, P. A. DAVID D . WILSON . P. A . JEFFREY H . MOORE , P.A . ANDREW T . TURNER DAVID M . GRAF CARLA G . SPAINHOUR JOHN C . FENDLEY, JR. ALLISON OR AVES JOHANN C . ROOSEVELT R . CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C . HICKMAN 9ETTY J . DEMORY IARBARA J . RAND JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W . PLUNKETT WILL BONO DANIELL. HERRINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWELL o, COUNIH WILLIAM J. SMITH 8 . S . CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P. A . WILLIAM L. PATTON , JR ., P. A . un11 OlfllCT NO , (5011 370-3323 Enclosed herewith please find an original and three copies of the Little Rock School District's Motion for Extension of Time with regard to the above-captioned matter. Please file same and return a file marked copy to us. By copy of this letter we are serving all counsel of record. JCFjr/cf Enclosures cc: Mr. John Walker (w/encl.) Mr. Sam Jones (w/encl.) Mr. Steve Jones (w/encl.) Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. Mr. Richard Roachell) (w/encl.) Ms. Ann Brown (w/encl.) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger (w/encl.) Hon. Susan Webber Wright (w/encl.) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVIS-ION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 1996 RECEIVED t I ! AUG :5 1996 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL Off ice ot Desegregation Monitoring . ...:... -. DEFENDANTS ~ , , ~ .,. ..... MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ~  .\u003c1 ~ . - -.....~-,., INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion for Extension of Time states: 1. On August 1, 1996, LRSD was served with Joshua's Response to LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction (\"Joshua's Response\"). Because of the issues raised in Joshua's Response, it is necessary for LRSD to prepare a Reply thereto. 2. Due to other obligations of counsel for LRSD, including LRSD's Response to the Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief Concerning the Incentive Schools due August 9, 1996, LRSD needs additional time to prepare its Reply. Accordingly, LRSD respectfully requests that it be granted leave to file its Reply to Joshua's Response on or before August 30, 1996. 3. Based on statements made by the Court in recent hearings related to the Court's docket, it appears this matter will not be scheduled for a hearing in the near future. Thus, the additional time requested by LRSD should not result in any prejudice to Joshua or undue delay of these proceedings . WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that it be granted leave to file its Reply to Joshua's Response to LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction on or before August 30, 1996. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller John c. Fendley Jr. Friday Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial B.ldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Attorneys For LRSD B Bar No. 81083 2 I I , i i .' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE  I certify that a copy of the foregoing motion has been served on the following peo~l~ by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this-~- day of August, 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 W. 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 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Cistopher Heller 1 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRIG--T---l:JO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ij,O .. LR-C-82-866 AUG 2 1996 ~ : f'0,,,.,., Office of Desegregation Mornionuv PCS SD MOTION TO CLARI,B.Y-.!r,HE--,C..Q~'l'..-~)L 9~~RS OF JUNE 15, 1993 AND JULY 14, 1993 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On June 15, 1993 the Court approved the District's proposed restructuring of its bonded indebtedness and on July 14, 1993, the Court approved the District's plan for its early retirement incentive program. By approving the motions, the Court likewise approved the District's establishment of its desegregation contingency fund designed to help the PCSSD survive the loss of state settlement monies. The stream of payments from the State expired during the 1995-96 school year. In each order, the District Court included language, as requested by the PCSSD, exempting the savings from certain teacher salary requirements under Act 34. Act 34 was declared unconstitutional in the Lake View case and it was replaced with Act 917 of 1995 which contains new and different requirements concerning teacher salaries, including an amendment to the minimum salary law. By this motion, the PCSSD seeks clarification as to whether and to what extent the 1993 orders 1 - should exempt the savings generated by the Court approved plans from the operation of the new Act 917. The savings It is reasonably clear that the savings generated from these two court approved programs are earmarked substantially, it not exclusively, for the District's desegregation activities. It is reasonably clear that the Court did not intend for these savings to be used for increases in teacher salaries and it is reasonably clear that the District told the Court in 1993 that they would not be used to fund increases in teacher salaries. The savings are nonrecurring revenues and the District Court has admonished all three school districts against using nonrecurring revenues to fund recurring expenses. The New Law Ark. Code Ann.  6-17-1001 is the minimum base salary law as enacted by the Arkansas Legislature. Section 8 of Act 917 of 1995 amended the statute to require a minimum salary of $20,000 for employees holding a bachelor's degree with no experience and $23,000 for employees holding a master's degree and no experience. The Act further specified minimum salaries for these categories for each year ranging up to employees with 14 years or more experience. Further, the Act specifies minimum increments of $400 annually for teachers with between one and thirteen years of experience. If the PCSSD were to literally comply with these new statutory requirements, it would require an expenditure during 2 - 1996-97 of approximately $1,375,000 in additional funds for an average across the board raise for certified teachers only of 2.84%. The minimum salary law was part of Act 917, the principal feature of which was to provide the new state funding program to replace the system declared as unconstitutional in the Lake View case. Dr. Benny L. Gooden in his paper \"Arkansas School Funding Plan, An Analysis and Opinion\", dated June, 1996, has observed as regards these provisions that: In most cases, Act 917 expenditure requirements appear to be the result of a mathematically derived assumption regarding the level of expenditure which may be appropriate to support certain purportedly desired activities.  Unfortunately, there is probably little sound or reasonable basis for the expenditure levels which are contained in the act. Analysis at page 25. When the distribution of revenue earmarked for salaries was not part of the final provisions in the act, an expenditure requirement of the type found in Act 917 was retained. It is clearly inappropriate and will prove problematic if not impossible to evaluate for many school districts. In its present form, the provision is virtually meaningless and certainly bears no relationship to its purported purpose. It is clear that the salary provisions contained in this act are based upon objectives other than the equitable distribution of school funds and appear to transcend reason in an attempt to restrict the ability of local school districts in managing revenues and expenditures. Analysis at page 26. 3 The History On April 1, 1993, the PCSSD filed its motion seeking the court's approval of its early retirement program and a major restructuring of its bonded indebtedness. That motion stated at page 8 that: PCSSD needs to shield the savings in column 4 from the 56% clause in Act 34. It needs to use these savings instead as an additional source of funds to help compensate for the loss of settlement funds. At page 9 of the motion, the PCSSD promised the Court that: The money from the early retirement program and the savings from restructuring of the debt would be placed in a desegregation contingency fund to help PCSSD survive the loss of the settlement monies. on June 28, 1993, the PCSSD submitted a business case to the Court in support of the early retirement program headed: - \"Program Analysis for the Early Retirement Incentive Program\". The opening paragraph of the analysis stated in part that: The Early Retirement Incentive Program is designed to reduce personnel costs to reduce recurring expenditures. In its \"Forcefield Analysis\" section of the Business Case, the PCSSD first noted who the forces would be that would support the plan. In discussing the forces which might oppose the plan, the PCSSD observed to the Court that: Some employees may oppose the plan to the extent that it precludes application of the savings to salary increases. The District Court approved the PCSSD plan to refinance its current bonded indebtedness on June 15, 1993. In that order, the Court found that: \" the savings the PCSSD realizes from 4 - refinancing are exempt from the new revenue requirements of 1983 (Ex. Sess.) Ark. Acts 34; Ark. Code Ann. S 6-20-301, et seq. The District Court approved the early retirement incentive program on July 14, 1993 and likewise exempted the savings to be realized from it from the same statutory provisions. The clear import of this exemption is to restrict the PCSSD's use of those savings and to protect them from the operation of Act 34 which required that 56% of \"new revenues\" be paid out as teacher salaries. Of course, the Arkansas Legislature has replaced Act 34 with Act 917 of 1995. While Act 917 no longer contains the 56% \"new revenue\" provision, it has replaced that with different directives regarding the proportion of State aid that must be paid toward teacher salaries and has further amended the minimum - salary law to impose the new unfunded mandates as described above. Requested Relief To the extent that Act 917 should now be substituted for Act 34 as specified in the June 15, 1995 and July 14, 1995 orders, the PCSSD seeks the Court's clarification as to the effects of Act 917 upon the \"savings\" which the PCSSD has realized and has segregated. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this court amending and/or clarifying the June 15, 1993 and July 14, 1993 orders given the passage of Act 917 of 1995. 5 Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 --..---7 ,,,---; ( ~ By ~'; 7 . . _,~-'(___ ~ M. Samuel Jones II (76060) Attorney , for Pulaski County s~~~School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August __2-_-- , 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons: Mr. John w. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 w. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen w. Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 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 323Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Sam el )Jones _, I I : __ / 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. 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; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS AUG 2 1996 CENTERPOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CLARENDON Off SCHOOL DISTRICT; COTTON PLANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; lCS of Dasegregaticn Monitoring CUTTER MORNING STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; - ~- -- DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOLLARWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; --~.-- ~ ,,.  ~... .,....,. ..,_, ~ 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; OZARK SCHOOL 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 RESPONSE OF PCSSD TO MOTION TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS 1 INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its response to motion to intervene states: 1. While the PCSSD could assert significant objections to and grounds to defeat the motion to intervene, it has elected to waive them. Accordingly, the PCSSD interposes no objection to the motion to intervene. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court which simultaneously grants the motion to intervene, designates the intervening districts as full-time defendants in this action, and which subjects the intervening defendants as appropriate to the outstanding and future orders of this Court. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ___ ?\"-_,,.----+--------- M. (76060) At ski County Sp col District 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On Au "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1649","title":"Court Filings: District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) separate response to the answer of intervenor school districts to the second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state","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":["1996-08-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) separate response to the answer of intervenor school districts to the second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state"],"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/1649"],"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":["92 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-82-866 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 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRINKLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT; AUG 2 1996 CENTERPOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CLARENDON SCHOOL DISTRICT; COTTON PLANT SCHOOL DISTRICT;  .; :, C-p,/'\\-f ~ : CUTTER MORNING STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; Office of Oesa~regat:on M01111or,n9 DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOLLARWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; FOREMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT; FOUNTAIN LAKE - - - -- ~- ---- - ... ,,--~~,._,_J \" 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; OZARK SCHOOL 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 INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S SEPARATE RESPONSE TO THE ANSWER OF INTERVENOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS I. TO THE SECOND MOTION OF THE PCSSD TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE INTRODUCTION As will be more fully explained below, the PCSSD will demonstrate how many features of the new funding system are neither fair, rational, nor of general application when applied to it and therefore violative of the Settlement Agreement. In their response to the PCSSD motion, the Intervenors ask that the U.S. District Court specifically find: \"[T)hat the features of the new funding formula of which the PCSSD is critical are fair and rational, of general applicability, and equitably afford equal oportunities to the students of the respective districts to which the state aid is or will be distributed; ... (Answer, at page 6). The PCSSD interprets the Intervenors request to include a court finding that the new funding scheme comports with the Settlement Agreement as well as with the equity requirements of the Lake View decision. For reasons which the PCSSD will review in some detail, the new funding scheme violates both of these provisions. In his definitive work, \"Arkansas School Funding Plan, An Analysis and Opinion\" (hereafter \"Analysis\"), Dr. Benny L. Gooden1 has effectively highlighted and explained the shortcomings of the new system of funding public education in 1Dr. Gooden is Superintendent of schools of the Fort Smith School District. His analysis was published in June, 1996 or some several weeks before the filing of the motion to intervene, and is attached as Exhibit A. The Fort Smith School District numbers among the 52 school districts seeking intervention. 2 Arkansas. Dr. Gooden's analysis centers around the State constitutional concepts of adequacy, equity and efficiency, concepts, as the Court will see, that are closely related to and intertwined with the settlement agreement tests of fair, rational, and of general application2  At page 29 of his Analysis, Dr. Gooden explains: In order to determine the actual increase in state aid for public schools, it is necessary to combine all the categories of funding distributed during 1995-96 and to compare this number with the appropriated and distributed amounts for 1996-97. The 1995-96 categories will include not only those funds distributed directly to local school districts but those transferred directly to other agencies on behalf of school districts for functions which will become a local responsibility during 1996-97 .... It is therefore conceivable that the actual difference in distributed state aid will be consumed within added categories as opposed to providing an increase in the state portion of the Base Local Revenue per student which is of benefit to all districts. Thus, in the PCSSD, the increases in formula funding projected by the State, when considered in conjunction with the unfunded mandates the State has imposed upon the PCSSD, cause the PCSSD to come out worse under the new funding scheme than the old when the entire picture is examined. In his summary, Dr. Gooden concludes as regards the new funding scheme that: It is conceivable that when this methodology is followed and new categories are analyzed for items such as debt service buy-out, facilities, student growth, etc., little or no real increase in revenue from state sources will be realized. 2The PCSSD still relies upon the provisions of the Settlement Agreement which obligate the State to continue the funding of certain programs. Certain of Dr. Gooden's factual conclusions are supportive of this proposition as well. 3 In view of the total analysis of school finance and in consideration of the issues of equity, adequacy, and efficiency, it appears that none of these essential components will be achieved through Act 917:  Adequacy appears unlikely in consideration of the declining commitment of state funds to support education with the subsequent loss of comparative school funds relative to neighboring states;  Equity appears unlikely in view of the failure of Act 917 to consider student needs and school district demographics;  Efficiency may be possible through a streamlined process which mathematically distributes funds by reducing categories and standardizing a means of calculating, but any system which requires \"Additional Base Revenue\" supplements to more than 200 districts to reach an arbitrary level can hardly be called \"efficient\". Gooden, at pages 35 and 36. These and other of Dr. Gooden's conclusions will be more fully explored below. Dr. Gooden has advised each school district to make its own analysis to determine just how it is affected under the new regime. The PCSSD has taken the following Gooden advice to heart: Comparisons of actual changes in state aid between 1995-96 and 1996-97 will be somewhat complicated and will require careful analysis on the part of each individual school district. It is clear that when a listing of state aid for each district is published for 1996-97 and a comparison is made to total state aid distributed to local districts during 1995-96, a large increase will be evident. However in order to determine the real difference, it is necessary to compute the payments which become the responsibility of local districts during 1996-97 in areas which were paid directly during 1995-96. Failure to fully describe all funds distributed for use by local schools in combination with school related payments made directly by the state will distort the 4 true picture. It is important for each local district to analyze required payments as outlined in Act 917 and to make a complete summary of categorical revenues received during 1995-96 in order to determine changes in revenue resulting from the implementation of the act. Gooden, at page 35. Act 917 contains provisions which dramatically change the foundation formula concepts which govern state aid and the treatment of revenue and expenditure responsibilities for each school district and for the state as a whole. Each of these conceptual changes has an overall and specific effect on Arkansas school districts, their programs, and their students. (Emphasis supplied.) Gooden, at page 9. II. TEACHER RETIREMENT At the time of the settlement, the State paid 100% of PCSSD's teacher retirement costs. That money was not, and has - never been, part of any kind of formula, never flowed through any formula, and therefore could never have been subject to any changes or revisions in any formula. On the other hand, if in fact the State calculated a sum of money to include in the new formula by utilizing students as compared to actual individual district costs3 , the PCSSD will demonstrate that this change is neither fair, rational nor equitable. Teacher retirement costs are calculated as a percentage function of district salaries. In districts such as the PCSSD which has high employee costs, basing teacher retirement funds on a per student basis cheats the PCSSD. Under this method, the 3Dr. Gooden confirms that the state in fact utilized this approach. See Exhibit A, page 15 (box). 5 PCSSD will receive approximately only 85% of its actual teacher retirement costs for 1995-96 and, in contrast, the Bryant School District, one of the intervenors, will receive approximately 122% reimbursement or a bonus of 22% more than its actual teacher retirement costs. It is important to note that the teacher retirement program has not been eliminated. The only thing that has been eliminated is the State's direct payment of the school districts' costs. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has already made the finding that the Pulaski County districts are \"employee heavy\" and \"employee expensive\". The comparisons the Intervenors seek to make are thus both irrelevant and, at least in the case of the PCSSD, wrong. The use of certified staff comparisons necessarily fails to take into account that some of the expensive desegregation programs utilized by the PCSSD employ non-certified staff such as the home school counselors. Dr. Gooden has addressed this phenomenon of the change in teacher retirement as well as others. As he states: Some of the major changes in the manner of funding Arkansas schools will require considerable adjustment and will similarly exert a major impact on certain school districts. However, the effects will not be uniform throughout the state as the staffing patterns, demographic makeup of student population, and other factors are considered. [Emphasis added.] Gooden, at page 15. The PCSSD submits that if the effects are not \"uniform\" they cannot be regarded as \"general\" either. 6 In a provision which also substantially affects the PCSSD, Dr. Gooden has identified yet another problem: A significant and unanticipated problem associated with teacher retirement lies in retirement contribution for food service employees, adult education staff, and others who function in programs with a limited revenue source. No appropriation increase was provided for adult education in order to fund the required retirement match which was previously paid by the state nor was a line item appropriation provided for separate contributions. School food service employees participating in the retirement system will result in a 12 percent increased labor expense which should appropriately be borne by consumers of school lunches. In view of the fact that a significant number of school lunches are served free or reduced with no means of increasing income, (federal reimbursement is set at a fixed rate per lunch) it appears unlikely that the increased cost could reasonably be recovered through increased charges for paid lunches. Gooden, at page 15. Further, the conclusion he reaches as regards the Fort Smith School District applies to the PCSSD as well: The projected cost for making payments for the retirement matching on Fort Smith Public School employees during 1996-97 is projected to be $4,736,000. It is reasonable to assume that the pro-rated share of the total amount currently being appropriated statewide for retirement matching divided by ADM will result in proportionally less for Fort Smith than for many other districts. This is due in large measure to the higher salary levels enjoyed by our staff in comparison to their counterparts around Arkansas. Gooden, at page 15. III. SPECIAL EDUCATION The elimination of the weighting system for special education students unfairly penalizes the PCSSD for several reasons. It has proportionately more special education students than the state average and, therefore, appropriately received 7 - proportionately more state aid for their education under the old formula. In addition, the special education program of the PCSSD is superior, and more expensive, than the special education programs in most other districts. The PCSSD provides a more intensive level of physical therapy, a more intensive level of occupational therapy, a more intensive level of speech therapy than the average district and, pays these specialists more than does the average district. Thus, the elimination of the weights does not affect the Pesso \"to the same degree\" as other districts. Dr. Gooden apparently concurs with the position of the PCSSD on this issue. As he explains: Funding for special education has been distributed based upon the sum of pupil weights generated by the various categories of student placement. Students requiring services of high intensity have provided greater weights and subsequently more funding than those whose disabilities require a less intense service level. Beginning in 1996-97, funding to support special education is included in the base equalization amounts distributed on the basis of ADM without regard to the special education population or the level of services required in any individual school district. The great diversity between the composition of a disabled population among various school districts makes this category a great contributor to inequities resulting from provisions of Act 917. Districts with high concentrations of seriously disabled students will be at a distinct disadvantage when compared to districts whose student population does not include such severe disabilities. Gooden, at pages 18 and 19. IV. NEED BASED AID VERSUS HEAD COUNTS Basing State aid almost exclusively on a head count of students ignores reality. Such a system benefits districts that 8 pay low salaries because they will receive more money for teacher retirement than they actually pay. Such a system benefits districts which manage to avoid providing health insurance to large numbers of their employees as they will be paid more than their health insurance costs. Such a program benefits districts which are not desegregating or which otherwise do not transport large numbers of children because they will be paid more than their actual transportation costs. The new system also benefits districts which make little local effort to pass maintenance and operations millages because under the new system the State will come in and \"make up the difference\" to squeeze them within the equity guidelines. The new funding system ignores the high costs of special - education, ignores the high cost of desegregation, ignores the wide disparity among districts in salary requirements and, because of these reasons and others, cannot be regarded as fair and rational even if it is general. As Dr. Gooden explains: The first item requiring a paradigm shift for Arkansas educators lies in the dramatic departure of the school aid formula encompassed by Act 917 from an earlier format. Specifically, the prior formula distributed school aid to school districts in a large number of categories including general Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA) based upon the weighted number of students; special education aid determined by the cumulative pupil weights reflecting the intensity of service requirement; transportation aid based upon a formula reflecting routes, students, and density; vocational aid reflecting the sum of pupil weights determined by the assumed relative cost of providing vocational programs; gifted and talented aid determined by the number of students served up to an established limit; and specific categorical aid for alternative programs, 9 summer school, limited English proficient students, and compensatory education. The school aid formula reflected by Act 917 in effect combines all the current aid provisions detailed above into one item of aid-per-student which is calculated based upon the simplest factor: Average Daily Membership (ADM). The concept of varying needs based upon the composition of the student population, the program of instruction provided, the geographic terrain, or other factors is not considered under the new formula. School districts with high wealth and/or high-cost students with regard to special education, limited English proficiency, costly vocational offerings, or extensive transportation systems may be expected to be adversely affected using this methodology. Gooden, at pages 9 and 10. Specifically, attempts to meet the Court-adopted standard of the Federal Range Ratio have led to an exacerbation of prior formula provisions contained in the \"second tier\" equalization funding. By including an additional funding category of \"Additional Base Funding\" supported by a line-item appropriation, the departure from an orderly formula distribution based upon wealth, student needs, and district characteristics has been lost. An additional problem associated with the implementation of this formula characteristic lies in the provision of a disincentive for local districts to increase millage rates when revenue increased through local taxation would be deducted from Additional Base Funding provided to more than 200 Arkansas districts. This unanticipated consequence is a serious defect which can only depress support for Arkansas schools by making it unlikely that many communities will tax themselves in order to supplant state revenue. one subtle yet significant effect of using simple ADM as opposed to Weighted Average Daily Membership (WADM) in order to adequately reflect the student need/service composition of each school district is that this procedure creates an illusion of greater wealth in those districts with extensive special education services and vocational programs. The effect of this phenomenon is not dramatically evident in school districts with only limited special education and vocational services. However, for demographically 10 complex districts with extensive offerings and student needs, there is a significant shift in apparent local wealth. Gooden, at page 10. V. LOSS FUNDING AND DECLINING ENROLLMENT The state's decision to eliminate loss funding from the new funding system came about after the State was ordered by the District Court to recalculate the method by which it paid loss funding to LRSD and PCSSD and to reimburse them for the shortages. As Dr. Gooden has observed: The most adverse effect of this methodology will be experienced by districts losing student population. Whereas the earlier method averaged daily membership for a three-year period to allow a gradual adjustment in funding if enrollment declined, Act 917 provides for no gradual reduction in aid. The effective result will be a loss of an amount equal to the Base Local Revenue Per student immediately when student enrollment declines. School districts in portions of the state losing enrollment may not survive this dramatic loss. Gooden, at page 10. Dr. Gooden concludes at page 37 that the elimination of averaging annual ADM in district's losing enrollment prevents gradual funding reduction and that a solution may be to provide ADM averaging for districts losing enrollment, a matter that should be given priority consideration. Gooden, at page 38. In sharp contrast to the elimination of loss funding is the fact that a form of student growth funding is retained by Act 917. As Dr. Gooden explains: The current formula provides for an adjustment during the current school year when enrollment has increased. Act 917 continues this concept by providing for an adjustment in aid from a categorical set-aside when the student popultion increases above that of the prior 11 year. The amount of of funding equals approximately $3,000 per student. This factor will be beneficial to rapidly growing school districts. Gooden, at page 21. Upon information and belief, the only school districts in Arkansas that are experiencing rapidly growing enrollment are either overwhelmingly white or are all white. On the other hand, and upon further information and belief, a statistically significant number of the districts that are experiencing enrollment decline are majority black or have substantial black populations including the PCSSD. Thus, in combination, the elimination of loss funding coupled with the continuation of growth funding has a racially discriminatory effect and cannot be said to be either fair or rational or of \"general\" application when the disparate impacts are demonstrated. For instance, as previously pointed out, the Bryant School District will receive a bonus of funds in excess of its actual teacher retirement costs. The Intervenors' contend that the PCSSD enrollment decline should result in less state aid because: \"This condition is no different in Pulaski County than throughout Arkansas.\" This ignores the fact that the PCSSD loses students to the Bryant School District. By paying the Bryant School District a bonus while at the same time penalizing the PCSSD, the new funding scheme simply better positions the Bryant School District to continue to attract and host families which move from the PCSSD or which elect to locate initially in the Bryant School District even when they work in Pulaski County. 12 VI. THE NEW FORMULA OVERALL In his introduction, Dr. Gooden posits the following: Should an orderly formula distribution not address the varying needs of Arkansas' school districts; should the means of distributing revenues not be simple and clearly understood by educators and the public; and should the level of combined local and state funds be less than is required to meet the educational needs of Arkansas students, the formula must be found inadequate and less than acceptable. Gooden, at page 7. Dr. Gooden has also found that: Although Act 917 includes references to \"Student Classroom Teacher Funding, Student Unit Funding, and student Needs Funding,\" the subtle wording effectively precludes the allocation of any state aid for these categories in the foreseeable future. The threshold of equity funding (Student Equalization Funding) which must be achieved is so high as to make it doubtful that any of these categories will be funded in our lifetimes. They were obviously added to the formula to confuse and/or calm those who were attempting to understand its provisions. [Emphasis added.] Gooden, at page 11. Another feature of the new funding scheme which negatively impacts the PCSSD is explained by Dr. Gooden as follows: While Act 917 provides assistance in the payment of bonded indebtedness to districts by utilizing a wealth index and provides for a line item appropriation for this purpose, the act also allows millage rates dedicated to the retirement of debt to be calculated in such a way as to reduce the minimum required level of local support below the stated 25 mill minimum. This formula provision excludes from consideration that portion of the school millage required to make annual payments on bonded debt after applying state debt service supplement payments. This characteristic creates an illusion of less wealth for those districts who have chosen to incur significant bonded debt and have dedicated major portions of local millage for these purposes. 13 This status is in sharp contrast to those districts whose voters chose to dedicate a portion of total millage for capital outlay purposes. Act 917 attempts to categorize capital outlay millage along with maintenance and operation millage and attempts to treat revenues produced as equals. This is a clear misrepresentation of facility funding plans adopted by local voters consistent with applicable statutes authorizing capital outlay taxes. Capital outlay millages approved prior to 1995 are restricted by statute for certain purposes and are not the equivalent of maintenance and operation revenues. Gooden, at page 12. Increases in the charged local millage under the old system were to the benefit, not the detriment, of the PCSSD. VII. COMPENSATORY EDUCATION/SUMMER SCHOOL The PCSSD is also adversely impacted in these areas as explairied by Dr. Gooden: Funding for compensatory education/summer school programs for 1996/97 and thereafter is included in the state equalization funding, distributed on the basis of ADM to all school districts. This is a departure from the previous method of distributing funds which considered the at-risk student needs reflected by the Title I formula as well as student achievement in basic skills. Gooden, at page 16. The Settlement Agreement provides that the ADE shall monitor the districts' implementation of compensatory education programs. The Settlement Agreement further provides at page 13 that: If necessary as a last resort, ADE may petition the Court for modification or changes in such programs being implemented by the Districts (but not for a reduction in the agreed level of State funding). The State has not sought the permission of the District Court to reduce the level of compensatory education funding previously paid to the PCSSD, which reduction is prohibited by 14 the Agreement in any event. Rather, as part of the changes it has enacted, it has simply included these funds as part of the ADM driven formula and will disburse certain funds to the PCSSD without regard to its needs. This will result in a reduction in the amount of money the PCSSD receives for compensatory education for which the State has neither sought nor obtained Court approval. VIII. VOCATIONAL AID Vocational education is a component of the PCSSD Desegregation Plan. The impact of the new system is explained by Dr. Gooden as follows: Funding to support vocational programs in 1996-97 must be derived from state and local funds realized by school districts as Base Equalization Revenues. Unlike student-enrollment-based funding in the past, districts will receive the same amount of funding regardless of the number of vocational courses offered or the number of students enrolled in them. The previous system of providing state foundation funds relative to the weighted-pupil factors determined by the various vocational courses was repealed by Act 917. Gooden, at page 17. IX. MINIMUM SALARY LAW The new minimum salary requirements substantially interfere with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate and the state provides no funds to fulfill this unfunded mandate. Dr. Gooden has observed that: In most cases, Act 917 expenditure requirements appear to be the result of a mathematically derived assumption regarding the level of expenditure which may be appropriate to support certain purportedly desired activities. Gooden, at page 25. 15 It is clear that the salary provisions contained in this act are based upon objectives other than the equitable distribution of school funds and appear to transcend reason in an attempt to restrict the ability of local school districts in managing revenues and expenditures. Gooden, at page 26. x. CONCLUSION Dr. Gooden has concluded that: The true measure of effectiveness in this funding formula revision will lie in analyzing the degree to which the tests of adequacy, equity, and efficiency are met. If all of these characteristics are not satisfied, the formula revisions contained in Act 917 are little more than an exercise in futility. Gooden, at page 7. The dramatic conceptual changes in the method of financing public education in Arkansas were enacted in haste and apparently without careful consideration of the three imperatives of educational finance: Adequacy, Equity, and Efficiency Act 917 of 1995 represents an exercise in cost-shifting and moves from a funding scheme based on needs to one which attempts to consider certain aspects of wealth without a balancing need--driven resource component. Gooden, at page 37. The cost shifting components of the new system violate the Settlement Agreement because these are programs for which the State provided funding in the past and for which the Intervenors acknowledge the State will provide no funding in the future. The State is obligated under the Settlement Agreement to provide funding to the PCSSD for these programs. The underlying basis of State aid, which simply distributes pro-rata based on numbers of 16 students, is not fair and rational, especially when applied to the PCSSD, because it ignores the substantially higher costs of the PCSSD in areas such as teacher retirement costs, special education, vocational education, and desegregation related expenditures. The defects identified in the new system as identified by Dr. Gooden are the reasons why the formula as a whole cannot satisfy the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court should declare that the new State funding formula violates those provisions of the Settlement Agreement which require the State to continue funding the PCSSD for the programs described herein, that the changes wrought by the new system are neither fair, rational, nor of general application, that, at a minimum, the PCSSD programs should be funded at the percentage levels of the highest funded programs in other school districts in the state under the new system, for its costs and attorneys' fees and all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By __ .....,..'---',,---F\"\"'-'\"\"--------- M. I (76060) At laski County S ecial Sc oo District 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 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 18 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 AR NSAS School Fun~ing _Plan __ ;;:~ .. ~ ... \":1..: 2.1 . :. ... l  l I I  EXHIBIT 4 Arkansas School Funding Plan An Analysis and Opinion by Benny L Gooden, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools June 1996 1 tForl ~mith Public Schools \"Iii\\-_~,~, ~~~~~~F~ort~S~mith~,A~rka~nsas~ _  V V .J Foreword Dramatic chl111ges in Arkansas school finance resulting from the passage of Act 917 of 1995 have gencr:ued considerable discussion regarding the overall concept of the acL its impact upon school districts of all sizes, and its potential to solve or cx.accrbatc the financial challenges facing Arkansas educators. In an anempt to analyu: the plethora of components contained in the act and in the incerest of identifying potential problems and possible solutions, I have prepared this opinion paper regarding Act 917 and its impact upon Arkansas sdlools. While the :ictual effecu arc different for each of Arkansas' schools distticts, I have utilized data for the Fon Smith Public Schools to illusauc the immedia1e impact of Act 917 provisions. ll is imponant to note uw the impact upon an urban school district With a significant industrial w: base will be dramatically differcru than the impact upon rural school disuicL~ with an a~cullur~l or eitc::iusively residential taX base. I..ikcwise. the student demographics and district financial mucturc will affect tllc ultim:ite outcome. ~b school district must thoroughly analyze its own !iituation utilizing and interpreting the financial data provided by the Ark.in.sas Department of Education as well as other local daia. This position paper is intended only for infonnation purposes and will hopefully provoke discussion lo encourage improvements to the financing of schools in Arkansas for the benefit of :ill students. Benny L. Gooden I. II. Conceptual Chaages ,-------------------9 Need-Based vs. Equal Aid Equity Comp~ ADMvs. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1650","title":"Court Filings: District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors opposing the Little Rock School District's (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. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-08-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School districts"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors opposing the Little Rock School District's (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/1650"],"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":["71 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    {.- I .., 0 1 'C06  \\J - ' - .- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO~t:~S 1,: '..:~CC F.HP..C!\\. CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS p 11. WESTERN DIVISION ~, ------;:c;,\"E'':?:''orcTi:_'~;: :.:::..:7\u003c: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-~-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. . I~ i YO f ;-,,., Olt1ce of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS  .... . ~ ---~---- ....~ ~\"'l' .. - i -~.. . -. ~-~ .... ..,,~ ....... ~  Memorandum of the Joshua Intervenors Oppos.thg the LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction A. Introduction The LRSD seeks an order \"which withdraws federal court jurisdiction of this case and dismisses this case with prejudice.\" Motion, 5\\17\\96, at 2. This motion rests on a series of baseless assertions and otherwise unsound premises. It should, therefore, be denied. More specifically, LRSD first contends that the district agreed to implement the provisions of the settlements for only six years, absent a demonstration by the Joshua Intervenors of a failure of the system to comply with a term (or terms) of the settlement agreements. Motion, at 1; Memorandum, 5\\17\\96, at 1, 9, 16-17. Then, reasoning that \"[t]he Tri-District Plan was essentially the (settlement] Plans modified to address the constitutional infirmities identified by (Judge Woods], and that 1 constitutional infirmities identified by (Judge Woods], and that - \"LRSD implemented the Tri-District Plan during the 1990-91 school year,\" LRSD further contends that this six year period ended at the end of the 1995-96 school year. Motion, at 1; Mem., at 10-12. Lastly, LRSD argues that it has \"substantially (complied]\" with the settlement provisions. This assertion is based on what is termed an \"exhaustive audit of LRSD's desegregation obligations\" and a discussion of particular areas such as student enrollment and racial disparities in achievement. Motion, at 1; Mem., at 12- 13, 17-32. This memorandum addresses these and other premises of the LRSD submission. B. The Assertions About A Six-Year Plan The district asserts at page 9 of its memorandum that \"(u]nder the terms of the Settlement Agreement, LRSD agreed to implement the plans for six years. 111 The problem with this assertion is shown by the fact that there is no citation to any provision of the Settlement Agreement. Nor is there a citation in the memorandum, at any point, to a provision of any of the settlement documents limiting implementation to six years (absent noncompliance) . 2 1 LRSD refers to the \"Settlement Agreement\" of March 1989, as revised on September 28, 1989. See Mem., at 9. 2 The Settlement Agreement includes payment schedules and related criteria, applicable to LRSD, and covering various periods of time with various termination dates. These are (i) 1989-90 through 1998-99 (to LRSD) (at 15); (ii) 1990-91 through 1995-96 (to LRSD) (at 16); (iii) December 31, 2000 (period through which LRSD may show that composite test scores of bl_ack 2 I J LRSD asserts that at the hearing on May 13, 1996, this court - \"acknowledged that the Plans were to be implemented for a period of six years.\" Mem., at 14. This assertion, as shown by the transcript, is erroneous. Indeed, the court, after alluding to provisions referencing six years, welcomed motions to perfect the decree. 3 -  To be sure, the \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\" contains the following provision: \"There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years ... (at 3).\" However, this language appears in a paragraph titled \"III. Incentive Schools\" -- one of 19 separately numbered paragraphs, in an \"Overview,\" each paragraph having a separate title. Id., at 2-6. In brief, the six-year provision refers to the incentive schools; it is not set forth as a general limitation on the duration of the entire plan. Moreover, intervenors' argument is consistent with the treatment of the six-year period by the Court of Appeals in its 1990 opinion considering the overall settlement. With respect to the LRSD plan, the court alludes to what it terms \"the initial six-year period\" only with reference pupils are 90 percent or more of scores of white pupils) (at 17). 3 See Tr., 5\\13\\96, at 6-7 (\" .... The reason for this hearing is that we are now in the sixth year, depending on how you count it, of the settlement of this case. And there are several places in the Consent Decree that mentions six years, although there is nothing in the decree that says that after six years the Court shall review the settlement and its effectiveness. But I have chosen to do this. [) I've invited the parties to ask the Court to modify the decree in areas in which . the parties believe it's not working or cannot work .... \") 3 I  to the incentive schools. 4 Lastly, the court states with regard - to the case generally: \"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\" (emphasis added). Little Rock School District. supra, 921 F.2d at at 1383. LRSD's reliance on United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir. 1987) is unavailing. See Mem., at 14-15. There, as the opinion shows, the parties dealt explicitly with the duration of the overall decree, first by specifying a three-year period, absent objection, and then, in resolving objections, by specifying a set date, or, alternatively, the date of the completion of a construction project. Id., at 1173-74. Overton is thus distinguishable by reason of the differences in the terms of the settlement. The Court of Appeals' characterization in Overton of the alternative formulation as one which \"left the decree open until certain other conditions were met, which were\" (834 F.2d at 1174) is relevant here. This, we submit, parallels the situation in this case. The agreements deal with certain subject matter areas, such as student enrollment and disparitities in achievement; they set forth goals of the remedial process, such as targets for the racial make-up of various categories of schools and \"the 4 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski county Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1386 (8th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). 4 elimination of educational achievement disparities between black - and white students\"5 -- the \"certain conditions\" in Overton terms; and they describe manifold actions to be taken to achieve the goals. The focus here with regard to termination of jurisdiction is not on a particular date; it is on the adequate implementation of the agreed upon actions to attain the goals, including any revisions adopted by the court, 6 and the attainment of the goals (the \"certain conditions\") to the maximum extent practicable. 7 c. LRSD Has the Burden of Establishing Compliance with the Settlement Terms Turning to standards external to the settlements, LRSD contends that in the context of determining the duration of court 5 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, at 4. 6 See Little Rock School District. supra, 921 F.2d at 1394 n. 8 and Order, July, 10, 1992 (adopting ODM recommendations). 7 The follow portion of the \"Introduction\" set forth in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan (at 1) is relevant: \"The goals of school desegregation planning must be clearly focused and well understood. It is insufficient to establish as a single goal the physical movement of bodies and the rearrangement of boundary lines. An educational environment which encourages and provides academic and human growth for all students based upon their individual needs and talents must also be a goal of any adequate desegregation paln. (] The parties hereto seek to ensure that the schools and learning experiences throughout the school system are organized so that school practices, policies and procedures prevent unfair treatment or denial of opportunity for any child because of his or her racial, economic status or cultural identification. (] Immediately following this introduction, the parties have included an overview which sets forth the basic tenets and bases of compromise they consider essential to an interdistrict desegregation plan .... \"[The aforementioned \"Overview\" addressing 19 topics follows the Introduction.] 5 I  jurisdiction, the Joshua Intervenors have the burden of - establishing noncompliance with the settlement agreements. Mem., at 16-17. The district's reliance on Hazen v. Reagan, 16 F.3d 921, 925 (8th cir.1994) is unavailing. That case, and the earlier Eighth Circuit case on which it relies, address a special situation;~, a party seeks an adjudication that its adversary's performance is so deficient that it constitutes civil contempt. A far more appropriate approach to fill the void left by a gap in the agreements, and one consistent with the overall approach of the LRSD submission, 8 is to rely upon the standards normally applicable when this particular issue regarding burden arises in school desegregation litigation. This approach also finds support in the fact that the Court of Appeals described this court's responsibilities and authority in monitoring the agreements in traditional, and even expansive, terms.~, 921 F.2d at 1386, 1394 paras. 4, 8 (\"and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require\"), 9. The general rule is that a school district has the burden of establishing the predicate for the termination of court jurisdiction in one or more areas of the case. Freeman v. Pitts, 118 L.Ed.2d 108, 137 (1992);9 see also United States v. Fordice, 8 See Mem., at 17-32 (citing many federal court decisions addressing the duration of decrees in desegregation cases). 9 \"The school district bears the burden of showing that any current imbalance is not traceable, in a proximate way, to the prior violation.\" 6 I ,i ... 120 L.Ed.2d 575, 599 (1992) (higher education) . 10 More generally, - assignment of this burden to LRSD is consistent with the standards for allocation of the burden of proof set forth by the Supreme Court in Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 208-10 (1973). In Keyes, a school desegregation case in which segregation had not been required or permitted by state law, the Court identified instances in which Denver school authorities had the burden of proof. For example, proof of intentionally segregative actions in a substantial part of the system was held to establish a prima facie case that actions having a segregative effect in other parts of the system were also motivated by race. See 413 U.S. at 208-09. 11 The Court explained the basis for this rule as follows: \"This burden-shifting principle is not new or novel. There are no hard-and-fast standards governing the allocation of the burden of proof in every situation. The issue, rather, 'is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.' 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence S 2486, at 275 (3d Ed 1940).\" See 413 U.S. at 209. The court then cited a variety of situations in which considerations of \"policy and 10  \"Brown and its progeny, however, established that the burden of proof falls on the State, and not the aggrieved plaintiffs, to establish that it has dismantled its prior de jure segregated system. Brown II, 349 U.S. at 300 .... \" 11 \"In that circumstance, it is both fair and reasonable to require that the school authorities bear the burden of showing that their actions as to other segregated schools within the system were not also motivated by segregative intent.\" See 413 U.S. at 209. 7 I ' J fairness\" had been held to support a requirement that school - authorities explain actions or conditions. See 413 U.S. at 209- 10. Two considerations of \"policy and fairness\" warrant allocating to LRSD the burden of showing the requisite compliance with the terms of the settlement before the termination of the court's jurisdiction in one or more areas. First, the school district obviously has superior access to data and greater resources in terms of personnel. Second, both this court and ODM, the monitoring body which the Court of Appeals directed the court to establish, have repeatedly documented poor compliance by LRSD with the terms of the court-approved settlement. The court summarized its view in its Memorandum and Order of March 11, 1996. 12 See also Joshua's Enclosure One to this memorandum (containing the court's statement of March 1993, as well as other statements by the court regarding LRSD's poor compliance). ODM's documentation of ongoing poor compliance regarding the incentive schools -- where the Court of Appeals stressed the need for scrupulous compliance (921 F.2d at 1386) -- was recently summarized in the \"Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief 12 \"The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreement (although some improvements have been made). Therefore, the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years, the logistics and complexity of this case are such that this Court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering an order of dismissal at this time.\" At 8-9. 8 /  Concerning the Incentive Schools\" (May 31, 1996), at paras. 2- 4  13 In conclusion, LRSD should be required to demonstrate, in a meaningful manner, compliance with the court-approved settlement terms. D. LRSD Has Not Established that It Implemented the Settlement in 1990-91 LRSD's contention, tied to its \"six years argument,\" that it should be credited with implementing the settlement in 1990-91, should be rejected. 14 In the first place, the Court of Appeals did not direct approval of the settlement \"[i]n general\" and \"also make certain other directions for the future of the case\" (921 F.2d at 1376) until December 12, 1990, several months into the 1990-91 school year. Joshua Intervenors should be held to be - entitled to a period of implementation during which all of the officials and agents of the LRSD were aware that the settlements had been approved by the courts. More significantly, LRSD relies basically on simply asserting that it implemented the Tri-District Plan in 1990-91. Mem., at 11-12. LRSD does note that the earlier plan included \"six Incentive -Schools\" (Mem. at 11), and suggests, implicitly, that its \"implementation\" of the Plan included this feature. 13 The motion also relied on the Joshua Intervenors' own monitoring reports which were provided, upon their completion, to LRSD officials. 14 Given our contention that the \"six years argument\" is baseless, this section of our memorandum sets forth an alternative position. 9 I  . ... However, Judge Henry Woods noted in an order of December 11, 1989 that LRSD's noncompliance regarding \"virtually every educational component\" which would justify the existence of all-black schools touched the \"approved portions of (its] own plan for the proposed 'incentive Schools.' ... \" (at 16, footnote omitted); and, as we have shown, ODM and the Joshua intervenors thereafter documented ongoing deficient compliance regarding the incentive schools. Surely such a skimpy showing would not support loping a year from the six year period -- even if this period had the significance asserted by LRSD. E. LRSD Has Not Established the Requisite Implementation of the Court-Approved Settlement LRSD contends that its internal audit and the analysis which it sets forth in its memorandum regarding particular areas of its operation demonstrate that it has substantially and in good faith complied with its desegregation obligations. These assertions are groundless. Preliminarily, Joshua Intervenors reiterate their reliance upon the statements by the court rearding the case generally, and ODM and Joshua findings regarding the incentive schools, one pivotal element of the approved settlement. Moreover, Joshua intervenor's \"Motion ... for the Implementation of recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring\" (July 2, 1996) (at para. 7) identified scores of ODM recommendations predicated upon findings of LRSD's inadequate compliance in many areas. 10 / .I . ... (1.) The LRSD Audit The LRSD audit15 is unpersuasive for many reasons. First. The audit relies heavily on \"Primary Leaders\" identifying the status of the implementation of obligations within their respective domains. At 6. It is only common sense that too many negative answers would jeopardize a leader's tenure in his\\her position. Second. The audit relies on making a dot with a pencil on an \"obligations scan sheet\" (at 6) -- a technique not suitable for addressing more complex obligations, or obligations affecting multiple schools. Third. The description of the asserted steps to move beyond the \"scan sheets\" (at 11) is far too sketchy to permit an assessment of its reliability. Were the \"committees\" composed of \"primary leaders\" called upon to scratch each others' backs -- so to speak? There are no more detailed descriptions of how this process worked regarding some significant obligations, showing how much time was taken, by whom, what evidence was reviewed, etc. Fourth. The audit does not deal in depth with significant areas of the case by advancing evaluations conducted in a professionally sound manner, or affidavits. These areas could have been identified by reference to Court of Appeals' 15 See \"Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations,\" May a, 1996, Exhibit 4 to the memorandum. 11 I J  opinions, 16 ODM reports pointing out compliance problems in - particular areas, or the court's statement about poor compliance in March 1993. How can the audit be viewed as significant, if it does not reflect the LRSD's coming to grips with the many findings of noncompliance by the court's monitoring body, and attempting to document a basis for favoring LRSD's conclusions. Fifth. The audit does not discuss comprehensively the \"Not Begun\" category (at 14), to explain, for example, how its existence is consistent with the request that the court's jurisdiction be terminated in its entirety. Motion, at 2. In the end it must be said that the audit provides little to help decide in a reliable manner whether LRSD representatives \"scrupulously and dilgently carry out the settlement plans and the settlement agreement (as relevant to LRSD) .... 11 Little Rock School District. supra, 921 F.2d at 1394. (2.) The Particular Areas of the System's Operation The district elects to discusss for many pages \"how LRSD compares to school districts [which) have already achieved unitary status or to the nation as a whole.\" Mem., at 17. There are at least two problems with this approach. LRSD is silent about the extent to which any of these systems were by court order or voluntary agreement subject to the full panoply of provisions to which the LRSD is subject. Secondly, LRSD cites a sentence from Freeman v. Pitts. supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 124, 16 See Little Rock School District, 921 F.2d at 1386 (programs in the incentive schools); Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991} (seven areas). 12 I j . .... regarding \"a critical beginning point .... \" Mem., at 17. However, - LRSD should also have cited the preceding sentence, which reads as follows: \"Proper resolution of any desegregation case turns on a careful assessment of ITS facts. Green. supra, 391 U.S. at 439 .... \" Freeman, supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 124 (emphasis added). The point is that in assessing whether a system has \"eliminated [the vestiges of past discrimination) to the extent practicable\", 17 the focus is on what is practicable in view of the facts in that school district. Under the standards which Little Rock cites, the system is not entitled to be excused on the issue of student enrollment because fewer of its schools are outside the applicable guidelines for measuring compliance than was the case in Savannah, Georgia if it is feasible in Little Rock to achieve compliance as to all (or additional) schools, or meaningful implementation of plan provisions designed to achieve compliance has not been attempted. (a.) Student Assignments LRSD devotes seven pages to this topic without identifying the schools in the district which are outside the applicable guidelines, or discussing other opportunities to enhance desegregation. Mem., at 17-24. It does not identify any plan provisions applicable to such schools or discusss the degree of their implementation. In short, LRSD does not show that it has achieved as much as can practicably be achieved. 17 Freeman v. Pitts, supra, 118 L.E.2d at 139, quoting Board of Education of Oklahoma City v.Dowell, 498 u.s. 237, 249-50 (1991). I j I 13 LRSD notes that it \"has successfully recruited white - students and desegregated Rockefeller Incentive School.\" Mem., at 24. It ignores, however, the fact that the exhibit cited with reference to Rockefeller (Exhibit 5), shows that the other four incentive schools had the following proportions of black students in 1995-96: Franklin (93%), Garland (92%), Mitchell (97%), Rightsell (96%). Our motion of May 31, 1996 concerning the incentive schools supported, by reference to deficiencies in implementation documented by ODM, the view that this segregation was \"an entirely predictable result given the overall deficient implementation of the plan and the nature of the deficiencies \" See Joshua motion, at paras. (3.), (4.) (a.) through (f.), (o.). The district does not discuss whether efforts have been made to promote desegregative transfers from the area elementary schools with the highest proportions of black students to the area schools with the highest proportions of white pupils. Given the current state of implementation of provisions regarding the incentive schools, an area where the Court of Appeals noted expressly the need for strict compliance with the agreements, LRSD is not entitled to entry of the order sought regarding student enrollment, whatever the number of indices it cites. (b.) Faculty and Staff As with other areas, the district's presentation does not confront ODM's findings regarding racial make-up and other staffing issues in LRSD. This is not consistent with the model 14 I .I for monitoring identified by the Court of Appeals in 1990. In its report of September 15, 1995 addressing the issue of the composition of teaching staffs at the elementarylevel in the three systems , ODM's recommendations included the following provision (at 11): 4. The districts should examine the distribution of black and white teachers in each grade level category in order to improve student access to classroom teachers of both races. As we have noted in this report, staff racial balance is not simply a matter of the total number of black certified employees in a building. The idea of racial balance must also encompass the distribution of those individuals within that building. The staffing of classrooms at each grade level category should reflect a conscious effort to furnish students with the greatest possible probability of experiencing teachers of both races throughout their school years. This recommendation rested, in turn, on ODM findings that there were (at 10): few black teachers at the early childhood level in all three districts. The distribution of black teachers across grade levels at some individual schools caused concern. Some schools lacked a significant number of black teachers to provide most students opportunities to have them as classroom teachers. While other schools had a larger number of black teachers, most were usually concentrated at the intermediate level. This pattern of racial representation can preclude large numbers of students from access to a black classroom teacher for a number of years. Regarding LRSD, ODM noted that the teaching corps included the following proportions of black faculty by level in 1994-95: early childhood (27%), primary (33%), and intermediate (44%). At 31. ODM also raised issues regarding particular Little Rock 15 I  schools. 18 The ODM report of May 10, 1996 detailed serious problems of staff turnover, both faculty and principals, at the incentive schools, a focal point of both the remedies and the courts. See ODM report, at 6-10. For example, of the 87 classroom teachers at the schools in 1995-96, 27 (31%) were new to these schools, although only five new classes had been added. At 6. ODM also questioned the assigning of five first-time principals to the incentive schools since 1990-91. At 9-10. ODM noted that the level of instability identified can not be squared with the governing standards. At 6. 19 Again, LRSD is silent on these issues raised by ODM. Also, 18 For example: Badgett (sharp disparity in the make-up of the staff at the different levels); Baseline (sharp disparity in the make-up of the staff at the primary and intermediate levels); Carver (same); Chicot (no black teacher at early childhood level for three years); Forest Park (same); Franklin (early childhood and primary levels are heavily white, and intermediate level identifiably black; \"staff remains predominantly white\"); Jefferson (no black teacher at early childhood level for three years); McDermott (\"staff remained predominantly white\"); Meadowcliff (no black teacher at the early childhood level for three years; black teachers concentrated at the intermediate level; \"staff remains predominantly white\"); Pulaski Heights (no black teacher at early childhood level for three years; sharp disparity in composition of teachers at the three levels); Rightsell (\"the staff has remained predominantly black\"); Rockefeller (decreasing number of black teachers over three year period; only 3 of 27 teachers were black persons in 1994-95); Terry (\"staff remained predominantly white\"); and Watson (no black teacher at early childhood level for three years; \"staff has remained predominantly white\"). 19 See also Morgan v. Kerrigan, 509 F.2d 580, 598 (1st Cir. 1974), cert den., 421 U.S. 963 (1975) (noting \"a rate of faculty turnover at predominantly black schools far higher than than that at white schools\" contributing to a denial of equal educational opportunity). 16 I  while LRSD touts its inclusion of black persons in the governance of the system, It does not address the fact that seven of the eight elementary schools west of University Avenue have white principals. 20 We respectfully submit that it is these matters, and not the situation in Dallas, etc., which LRSD must address in this context. (c.) Racial Differences in Student Achievement The LRSD made an unambiguous commitment -- in 1989 and at later times, not 1954 (compare Mem., at 27) -- to eliminate the \"achievement disparity between black and white students on normreferenced and criterion-referenced tests. 1121 The superficial presentation made by LRSD on this \"crucial\" aspect of the settlement22 does not approach the showing required to warrant the termination of the court's jurisdiction. See Mem., at 27- - 29. 23 20 These schools are Fulbright, Jefferson, McDermott, otter Creek, Romine, Terry, and Williams. Brady does have an African American principal. Addressing such patterns is an important part of the task of eliminating forever the notion of a \"disfavored race.\" Freeman. supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 131. 21 See LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, at 1., para. B.; Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, at 4 (Part XII). 22 See Appeal of Little Rock School District, supra, 949 F.2d at 256 (Court of Appeals identifies \"the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races\" as one of the \"crucial\" elements of the settlement as to which \"no retreat should be approved\").; Order, May 1, 1992, at 6 (\"However, certain modifications the Court finds substantive and unsupported in light of two of the primary goals of the case, i.e., racial integration and student achievement.\") 23 Assuming arguendo that there is room for lower courts to take a different view on the impact of desegregation than Brown, 17 I J Consider a hypothetical school district seeking the - termination of court jurisdiction over the issue of student enrollment despite the fact that it has not achieved the goals of its plan, and in the face of monitoring reports showing that it has neither complied with provisions of its plan, nor exhausted the posibility of modifications to better attain its objectives. It is obvious that this district's actions would not warrant a holding either that it had achieved maximum practicable desegregation, 24 or substantially complied with governing standards. LRSD's position on this issue is no better. The following are among the many factors\\reasons further showing that LRSD's effort to end jurisdiction on this point must fail. First. The district's presentation is entirely devoid of a proposition which we doubt, particularly in this case, this record does not support the broad contentions advanced by LRSD. First. Doctors Walberg and Armor acknowledged that 52 social scientists had joined a statement filed with the Supreme Court, taking a more positive position, than the one taken by them, on the impact of degregation on achievement. See Tr. , , May 13, May 15, 1996. Second. Dr. Walberg agreed that he has~times expressed his view of the impact of desegregation on achievement as follows: sometimes it helps, and sometimes it hurts, and sometimes it doesn't do anything. Tr. , May 13, 1996. He has not studied whether these differences are due to differences in the quality of the implementation in the different instances. Id. Third. Dr. Orfield testified that Dr. Walberg has done no original research on the impact of desegregation, and that Dr. Armor has done little such research. Tr. , May 30, 1996. Dr. Orfield also testified about scholars who take a positive position regarding the impact of desegregation, including with regard to its role in providing a path into the mainstream of society. Id. 24 See Swann v. Charlotte Meklenburg Board of Educ., 402 u.s. 1, 26 (1971); Davis v. Board of School commissioners of Mobile County. 402 U.S. 33, 37 (1971). 18 I J  facts, except for Exhibit 12, which is not cited in the - memorandum, and undermines one of the system's principal arguments. See discussion, infra. There is, for example, no data on racial disparities in achievement in 1990-91 and 1995-96, allowing some conclusion as to the relative size of the gap \"then and now.\" There is no indication of any effort to determine whether some schools show greater progress in addressing the gap; or whether any such schools have been studied in depth to identify positive elements of their programs which could be replicated in other schools. There is no discussion of any effort to determine the impact of participation in early childhood programs. There is no evidence of any study to identify the specific areas of knowledge and skills which lead to the gap and the causes of these differences. There is no evidence of any effort to organize regular classroom instruction; extended day, week and year programs; or tutoring efforts to address the specifics of the achievement gap. There is no indication of any effort to comply with the promise regarding criterion referenced assessment. 25 25 Such an effort could include: identification of a body of knowlege and skills which this district desires that all students master, an effort to insure that all students are exposed to instruction allowing them the opportunity to master this material, and assessment, of various forms, determining students' mastery of this material. This differs from norm-referenced testing where a student's score is compared to the scores of the sample of students from throughout the country who were tested during the process of standardizing a test used throughout the nation. See also the testimony of Dr. Gary Orfield, Tr. , May 30, 1996 (need for broader forms of assessment; need for-longitudinal data following students over a period of years)~ 19 I  Second. In its Order of May 1, 1992 addressing the parties' - proposed amendments to the initial versions of the settlement, this court repeatedly considered the potential impact of actions with regard to improvement in the relative performances of black youth and reduction in the achievement gap. Order, at 10, 15, 16, 21-22, 23, 24, 30. The district ignores entirely this obvious starting point. Third. In Freeman. supra, cited by LRSD, the Supreme Court noted the f "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1647","title":"Court Filings: Court of Appeals, brief for appellant Little Rock School District (LRSD)","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1996-07-19"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","Cleaning"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: Court of Appeals, brief for appellant Little Rock School District (LRSD)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1647"],"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":["10 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2047EALR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES Appeal From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLANT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. APPELLANT APPELLEE Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I summary And Request For oral Argument This appeal arises from the Pulaski County, Arkansas school desegregation case. The two issues presented by this appeal concern the district court's March 11, 1996 Memorandum and Order. The first issue concerns enforcement of the 1989 Settlement Agreement among the parties. The Settlement Agreement requires dismissal of this case with prejudice except that the district court may retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the desegregation plans presently being implemented by the Pulaski County school districts. The district court declined to issue an order dismissing this case. The second issue concerns a contract between the Little Rock School District and Servicemaster Management Services. The Little Rock School District challenges the district court's finding that a clause in that contract violates public policy. The Little Rock School District requests oral argument. i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table of contents Summary and Request For Oral Argument. Table of Contents .. Table of Authorities Preliminary Statement Statement of the Case Summary of Argument Argument Conclusion Addendum Order, March 11, 1996 Release of All Claims Against The LRSD. Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua and the Districts .... Order, December 11, 1995 Relevant Excerpts From Pulaski County Desegregation . i ii iii . 1  2  6 . 7 13 . 1 12 24 25 Case Settlement Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table of Authorities cases Continental Bank \u0026 Trust Co. v. American Bonding 630 F.2d 606, 608 (8th Cir. 1980) ..... Klein v. Arkoma Production Co. 73 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 1996) Liddell v. State of Missouri 731 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir. 1984) LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) . Thornton v. Carter, 109 F.2d 316 (8th Cir. 1940) Page   9 9, 10  .     9 . 1, 2, 7 1, 6, 7, 9, 10 10 Union National Bank v. Federal National Mortgage Association 860F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988) ........... 1, 12, 14 28 u.s.c. S 1291 28 u.s.c. S 1331 28 u.s.c. S 1343(3) 28 u.s.c. S 1343(4) 28 u.s.c.  2201 28 u.s.c. S 2202 statutes iii . 1 . . 1 . 1 . . 1 . . 1 . 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Preliminary Statement The decisions below were rendered by Judge Susan Webber Wright, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas. The jurisdiction of the district court was invoked under 28 u.s.c.  1331, 1343(3) and (4), 2201 and 2202. This Court's jurisdiction is invoked under 28 u.s.c. S 1291. The orders from which these appeals have been taken are final. The district court's order of March 11, 1996, by which the district court (1) refused to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice according to the tei;:-ms of the Settlement Agreement among the parties and (2) invalidated a provision of the contract between the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Servicemaster Management Services ( Servicemaster) , was appealed by LRSD by Notice of Appeal filed on April 9, 1996. 1. 2. Issues Presented on Appeal Did the district court err by refusing to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice as required by the Settlement Agreement approved by this Court? LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) Did the district court err in finding that the \"pending litigation clause\" of LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster violates public policy? Union National Bank v. Federal National Mortgage Association. 860 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988) 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I statement of the Case This appeal concerns two separate issues: The district court's refusal to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice in accordance with the Settlement Agreement approved by this Court; and the district court's finding that the \"pending litigation clause\" of LRSD's contract with Servicemaster violates public policy. These issues will be addressed separately in both the Statement of the Case and the Argument. I. Dismissal With Prejudice This Court approved the Settlement Agreement among the parties to this case on December 12, 1990. LRSD v, PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). The purpose of the Settlement Agreement was to end the litigation among the parties. That intent, inherent in any settlement, is clearly expressed in the provisions of the Settlement Agreement which require release of all claims against the school districts and the provision regarding litigation among or between the Joshua Intervenors, the Knight Intervenors and any of the school districts. Attachment B to the Settlement Agreement is a \"Release of All Claims Against The LRSD\" which contains the following requirement: 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 v. 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, Cooper v. Aaron, Norwood v. Tucker, and Clark v. Board of Education of the Little Rock School District) (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the LRSD and 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the former and current members of its board of education 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. Pulaski County Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2 (Add. p. 13). The Settlement Agreement also requires that this case be dismissed with prejudice with respect to the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. Settlement Agreement, Attachment c, p. 2 (Add. p. 17) and Attachment D, p. 2 (Add. p. 21). Finally, the Settlement Agreement contains the following \"Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua And The Districts\": Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further litigation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans. The requirement of the releases that this case \"is to be dismissed with prejudice\" has never been implemented. LRSD filed a motion on November 30, 1995 asking the district court to enter the required order. Even though the ; district court found that \"the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter, 11 that court refused to enter an order 3 I I dismissing this case. 1 Memorandum and Order, March 11, 1996 (Add. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8-9). II. The Servicemaster contract On September 20, 1995, LRSD entered into a five year management agreement with Servicemaster Management Services. LRSD App. p., 69. While the agreement was being negotiated, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") filed a motion to enjoin LRSD from entering into an agreement with Servicemaster. Docket No. 2506. The District Court had taken no action on Joshua's motion by the time an agreement was reached between LRSD and Servicemaster, and accordingly, the following clause was included in the September 2 O, 1995 agreement: 14.12 Pending litigation. Each of the parties agrees that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement, a motion to enjoin School from entering into this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled \"Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County School District No. 1, et al.\", No. LR-C- 82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge school from any and all actions, causes of action, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereinafter have arising out of or in any way relating directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this Agreement. School is under no obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, the school's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the court or otherwise) of that litigation. LRSD App., p. 84. (\"Pending Litigation Clause\"). 1The district court apparently misread LRSD's motion as seeking an order \"dismissing this case without prejudice.\" The Settlement Agreement requires, and LRSD sought, an order dismissing the case with prejudice. 4 I I I I I I I I I On December 4, 1995, Joshua purported to accept a proposed settlement offer2 made by LRSD related to Servicemaster. LRSD App. , p. 2 06. The settlement agreement recognized that substantial questions existed as to the legality of LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster. LRSD App., p. 200. On September 29, 1995, Arkansas Attorney General Winston Bryant issued a formal opinion finding that LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster violated state law and was void. App., p. 195. At the October 28, 1995, hearing, the District Court commented that she believed LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster violated state law. Hearing Transcript, October 28, 1995, p. 140. Accordingly, the settlement terminated LRSD' s agreement with Servicemaster. LRSD App., p. 203. On December 11, 1995, the District Court rejected the settlement agreement finding that the Pending Litigation Clause of LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster violated public policy. Add. p. 30. In a Memorandum and Order filed March 11, 1996, the district I I court denied Joshua's motion for reconsideration of her December I 11, 1995 Order. Add. p. 5. From this order, LRSD appeals. I I I I I I I 2LRSD denies that a settlement offer was made to Joshua. Even so, LRSD is pursuing this appeal to maintain its right, as established by the Pending Litigation Clause, to enter into a settlement agreement which would effectively terminate its agreement with Servicemaster. The District Court declined to rule on the issue of whether a settlement was actually reached. LRSD Add. p. 29. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Summary of Argument I. Dismissal With Prejudice The 1989 Settlement Agreement among the parties to this case waw designed to end this litigation. The Settlement Agreement requires that this case be dismissed with prejudice and also provides that the district court may retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the terms of the desegregation plans adopted by the three Pulaski County school districts. This Court approved the Settlement Agreement in its entirety as written by the parties and, in a case directly on point, directed the district court to implement the entire agreement. LRSD v. PCSSD. 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) .The district court has declined to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice as required by the Settlement Agreement. II. servicemaster Contract LRSD contracted with Servicemaster to provide certain management services. Pending at the time of the contract was the Joshua Intervenor's motion to enjoin LRSD from entering the contract. LRSD and Servicemaster therefore agreed upon contract language which recognized the pending litigation and protected LRSD against liability to Servicemaster if the pending litigation resulted, whether through settlement or otherwise, in the termination or modification of the contract. The Pending Litigation Clause was agreed upon following arms length negotiations between LRSD and Servicemaster. The district court improperly voided the Pending Litigation Clause, concluding 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \"that it would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to a contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party.\" The district court's conclusion is incorrect and should be reversed. Arkansas law, as interpreted by this Court, recognizes the validity of a contract provision permitting unilateral termination of the contract without cause. I. Argument The District court Erred In Refusing To Enter The order Of Dismissal Required By The settlement Agreement. This Court approved the parties' Settlement Agreement on December 12, 1990 and directed the district court \"to approve the parties' Settlement Agreement as written by them.\" LRSD y. PCSSD. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). On January 18, 1991, the district court ordered that \"[t]he parties' settlement agreement is hereby approved as written by them.\" Docket #1418. According to the terms of the Settlement Agreement set forth in the Statement of the Case and reproduced in its Appendix, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD were entitled to an order of dismissal with prejudice upon the district court's approval of the Settlement Agreement. 3 The question of whether a particular component of the Settlement Agreement should be implemented has arisen once before 3The order of dismissal with prejudice required by the Settlement Agreement will not affect the district court's authority under the Settlement Agreement \"to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans\" (Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2) (Add. p. 13) or to preside over \"proceedings to enforce the terms\" of the Settlement Agreement or the desegregation plans. (Settlement Agreement, p. 19 (Add. p. 24). 7 I I in this case. In LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992), this Court confronted the issue of whether the district court was I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I required to extend certain millages in accordance with Item M of the Settlement Agreement. The district court had \"thought it 'unwise to infer from the court of appeals' approval of the settlement agreement that [the district court was] required to extend the omitted millages.'\" Ig. at 164 (emphasis in original). This court said: What the district court failed to recognize is that we directed it to \"approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" \" [A] s written by them, \" the settlement agreement included Item M, which corrected the problem of the omitted millages. The extension of the omitted millages is therefore settled as law of the case. .Ig. at 165 (citations omitted, emphasis in original). One of the reasons the district court had given for declining to implement Item M was that, even though this Court had approved the Settlement Agreement in its entirety, it had not specifically mentioned Item Min its opinion. Id. at 164. This Court made it clear that the parties are entitled to implementation of all of the terms of the settlement Agreement: The Special Master approved the agreement, including Item M, as did the district court. Most importantly, when the matter came before this Court on appeal from the district court, we held that the settlement agreement as drafted by the parties met constitutional standards and directed the district court to approve the settlement agreement as submitted by the parties. We do not, therefore, agree with the district court that it is necessary to infer an approval of Item M from our earlier opinion. Our language was clear in its 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I approval of the entire agreement, including Item M. lg. at 165 (emphasis in original) This Court's decision requiring the district court to recognize and uphold each component of the Settlement Agreement was based upon the law of the case doctrine. ,lg. at 165. That doctrine \"prevents repeated litigation of . the same issue and promotes uniformity of decision.\" Liddell v. state of Missouri, 731 F. 2d 1294, 1304-05 (8th Cir. 1984). This Court has held that it \"will reconsider a previously decided issue only on a showing of clear error and manifest injustice,\" .i,g., or if the facts of the case have changed substantially since the first appeal.~ Continental Bank \u0026 Trust co. y. American Bonding. 630 F.2d 606, 608 (8th cir. 1980). When a case has been decided by this Court and remanded to the district court, every question which was before this Court and disposed of by its decree is finally settled and determined. Klein v. Arkoma Production Co., 73 F.3d 779, 784 (8th Cir. 1996). In rejecting LRSD's effort to secure an order of dismissal with prejudice, the district court did not find either that this Court's previous opinion approving the Settlement Agreement resulted in clear error or manifest injustice or that the facts of the case have changed. The only question, therefore, should be whether this Court has previously ordered that this case be dismissed with prejudice. LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160, 165 (8th Cir. 1992). The language of the court-approved Settlement Agreement makes it clear that this case \"is to be dismissed with prejudice\" and that the \"dismissal is final for all purposes except that the 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation\" of the desegregation plans agreed upon by the parties. Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2 (Add. p. 13). The parties further agreed that there would be \"no further litigation\" among them other than proceedings to enforce the Settlement Agreement or the desegregation plans. Settlement Agreement, p. 19 (Add. p. 24). This Court approved the agreement. It is the law of the case. In accordance with the law of the case doctrine previously applied to this Settlement Agreement by this Court, the district court should be directed to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the settlement Agreement. LRSD v. Pesso. 971 F,2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) . The district court offered no persuasive justification for declining to enter the required order. The court said that \"no useful purpose would be served by entering an order of dismissal at this time.\" Memorandum and Order, March 11, 1996, (Add. p. 8). Once the entire Agreement has been approved and established as law of the case, it is not necessary for a party seeking to secure the benefits of the Agreement to convince the district court that each particular component of the Agreement serves some useful purpose. Id. The district court is bound by this Court's decision and must carry it into execution according to the mandate. Klein v. Arkoma Production Co., 73 F.3d 779,784 (8th Cir. 1996). \"It may not 'alter it, examine it except for purposes of execution, or give it any further or other relief or review it for apparent error with 10 I I respect to any question decided on appeal.'\" lg. (quoting Thornton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I v. carter, 109 F.2d 316, 319-20 (8th cir. 1940). If, as the district court found, \"the claims involved in this on-going litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter,\" there should be no impediment to formalizing that dismissal as required by the Settlement Agreement. The district court also criticized LRSD's implementation of its desegregation plans and found \"that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to insure compliance with the plans and the agreement.\" This argument completely ignores the language of the Settlement Agreement which authorizes the district court to \"retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation\" of the desegregation plans. Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2 (Add. p. 13). The Settlement Agreement precludes further litigation among the parties except for proceedings to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the terms of the desegregation plans. Settlement Agreement, p. 19. (Add. p. 24). The Settlement Agreement provides for both dismissal of this case with prejudice and for continued district court enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and the desegregation plans. It is not necessary for the district court to defer an order of dismissal in order to ensure compliance with the plans or the agreement. 4In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the State of Arkansas has been dismissed as a party to this case. Order, January 18, 1991 (Docket #1418). The district court nevertheless continues to monitor the State's implementation of its obligations under the Settlement Agreement and to enforce the Settlement Agreement against the State. The district court's January 13, 1995 decision, which was affirmed in part and reversed 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II. The District Court Erred In Litigation Clause\" of LRSD's Violates Public Policy. Bolding That contract With The \"Pending Servicemaster A. Pending Litigation Clause Does Hot Violate Public Policy. The district court, citing no authority, concluded that \"it would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to a contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party.\" Add., p. 5. The district court's conclusion is incorrect and should be reversed. In Union National Bank v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 860 F.2d 847, 853 (8th cir. 1988), this Court, applying Arkansas law, held that a contract provision providing for the unilateral termination of the contract without cause did not violate public policy. 5 The Pending Litigation Clause cannot be considered more offensive to public policy than a provision permitting unilateral termination without cause. The clause merely anticipated the possibility that substantial questions would be raised as to the validity of the agreement. In that event, LRSD wanted to be able to take whatever action was necessary without incurring liability to Servicemaster, and it negotiated at arms in part by this panel on May 15, 1996 (83 F.3d 1013), provides a recent example. 5The district court attempted to distinguish Union National Bank stating that the present case \"involves a purported settlement between a contracting party and a third party allowing the contracting party to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the non-settling party.\" LRSD Add., p. 5. The district court does not explain how these facts distinguish Union National Bank from the present case. None of the facts noted by the district court require an outcome in the present case different from Union National Bank. 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I length for that right as embodied in the Pending Litigation Clause. B. The Pending Litigation Clause Expressly Contemplates Resolution By settlement. As an alterative basis for rejecting the settlement agreement, the District Court found that: (T]he parties to this case intended that the contract would be performed in good faith unless this Court issued an Order allowing the LRSD to escape liability pursuant to 1 14.12 of the contract. The Court has not and will not at this time issue such an Order allowing the LRSD to escape liability under the contract. LRSD Add., p. 6. The district court's statement of the parties' intentions contradicts the express language of the Pending Litigation Clause. After stating that LRSD will incur no liability if the District Court terminates or modifies the agreement, the Pending Litigation Clause provides, \"Further, the school's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the court or otherwise) of that litigation.\" LRSD App., p. 84 (emphasis supplied). Thus, the Pending Litigation Clause expressly permits LRSD to reach a settlement without incurring any liability to Servicemaster. conclusion The 1989 Settlement Agreement was intended to end this litigation. The parties agreed that the case would be dismissed with prejudice. This Court and the district court have approved the settlement. It has become established as the law of the case. This court has previously held that the parties are entitled to all of I the benefits of the Settlement Agreement. The district court should I I I 13 I I I therefore be directed to enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice. LRSD and Servicemaster negotiated at arms length in agreeing to the Pending Litigation Clause. LRSD expressly reserved the I right to resolve the pending litigation with Joshua by way of I settlement. That the settlement calls for termination of LRSD's agreement with Servicemaster does not make the Pending Litigation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Clause violative of public policy. See Union National Bank, 860 F.2d at 853. The District Court's finding to the contrary should be reversed and the case remanded for hearings to determine whether a settlement has been reached. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. 14 Attorneys for Little Rock School District I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief for Appellant, Little Rock School District has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 8th day of July, 1996: Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. 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 Bldg. Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 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 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept. of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John c. Everett 3822 N. Parkview Drive P.O. Box 1646 Fayetteville, AR 72702 Mr. Josephs. Mowery 111 Center Little Rock, AR 72201 ~\" 15 I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I ADDENDUM  I I I I I I I I I I I I II ,.1,r.,_~ US OIS7i-iCT COURT !;ASTERN DISTRICT ARt\u003cANSAS MAR 1 1 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMcS WESTERN DIVISION By:_~.i...,..~l,J!,,,J,...l,L..ll~~ 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 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court are a number of motions (listed in the order filed) which the Court now addresses: (1) motion of the Pulaski county Special School District (\"PCSSD\") to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [doc.#2481); (2) motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for partial unitary status (doc.#2483); (3) motion of the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of Joshua [doc.#2506); (4) motion of PCSSD to I clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan (doc.#2520); (5) motion of I I I I I I Joshua for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation (doc.#2544); (6) motion of PCSSD for an Order regarding portable buildings (doc.#2546]; (7) motion of LRSD for an Order dismissing this case without prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD, and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") (doc.#2573]; (8) motion of Joshua for reconsideration of 1 2 6 40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, and for completion of the hearing [doc.#2594]; and (9) motion of PCSSD regarding the replacement of portable buildings with permanent construction, dated October 25, 1995 (doc.#2612). I. The Court first addresses PCSSD's motion to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan (doc.#2481) and LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483). The PCSSD states that it has substantially complied with plan provisions regarding library media services, staff development and counseling services, while the LRSD states that it has substantially complied with LRSD plan provisions regarding Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youngsters (\"HIPPY\") , Rockefeller Early Childhood Program, Parkview Science Magnet Program, and Job Training Partnership Act/Summer Learning Program (\"JTPA\"). Both the PCSSD and the LRSD argue that the Court should withdraw supervision from these areas of the respective plans. The PCSSD's and LRSD's motions were both filed on August 23, 1995. on February 9, 1996, the parties entered into a Stipulation whereby it was agreed that the PCSSD, LRSD, and NLRSD should be released from court supervision and monitoring in certain discrete areas of the desegregation plans. The parties further stated that they are in the process of assessing what additional areas of the ctesegregation plans are ripe for release from Court supervision and monitoring and to identify what areas of the desegregation plans -2- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I remain deficient in terms of compliance. The additional hearings that were scheduled to address the motions to withdraw were cancelled at the parties' request as a result of the Stipulation. In light of the Stipulation and subsequent cancellation of the hearings, the Court finds that both the PCSSD's motion to withdraw (doc.#2481) and the LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483) have both been superseded by the Stipulation. Accordingly, these motions are denied as moot. II. On August 31, 1995, Joshua filed a motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506). In its motion Joshua argues that ( 1) the LRSD had not discussed the proposed management services contract with the Joshua Intervenors, (2) the proposed management contract has a potential adverse racial effect and impact, (3) the proposed management contract has not been let for bids and is not a part of the program, research and evaluation instrument for the next five years, (4) the proposed management contract has potential adverse monetary effects upon financial resources of the district and has the potential for adversely affecting the ability of the school district to meet its desegregation obligations, and (5) the proposed management contract was not negotiated at arms' length and was designed to provide special favor to some unknown person in the school district. -3- 3 I I I I The Court held a hearing on Joshua's motion on Saturday, October 28, 1995, and again on Friday, December 8, 1995. At the hearing on December 8th, counsel for Joshua tendered into evidence a document entitled \"Settlement,\" which Joshua maintains constitutes a settlement offer by LRSD that was accepted by Joshua with respect to the ServiceMaster contract. Joshua claims that this constitutes an offer by LRSD to settle the matter with Joshua by having the Court enter an Order enjoining the LRSD from entering I I into the ServiceMaster agreement and terminating the district's I liability pursuant to Paragraph 14.12 of the contract. The LRSD, however, contends that this document was not intended as an offer I I I I I I I I I I I I to settle, in that it is stamped \"Draft\" and is not signed by any party or the attorney for any party. On December 11, 1995, this Court issued an Order in which it ruled as follows: This Court declines to rule on whether this 'settlement' constitutes a binding agreement on the district or on whether the board of directors delegated Mr. Malone the authority to enter into it with Joshua. The court finds that even if Mr. Malone had the authority and even if it was an offer to settle which Joshua accepted, public policy prohibits this type of settlement. This 'settlement' purports to create a situation in which this Court, by agreement of Joshua and  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1639","title":"Court of Appeals, appellant Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) appendix","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1996-07-19"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","Joshua Intervenors"],"dcterms_title":["Court of Appeals, appellant Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) appendix"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1639"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["154 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2047EALR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT R ,JIii_ 1 ~ 1996 Office of Desegregation Monitoring APPELLANT I v. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES APPELLEE Appeal From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge APPELLANT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S APPENDIX Christopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District 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 v. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES Appeal From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge APPELLANT APPELLEE APPELLANT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S APPENDIX Christopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I XNDEX TO APPENDXX Relevant Docket Entries . . . . . . . . i Motion To Enjoin The LRSD From Entering Into A Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests For Information And Without Prior Involvement of The Joshua Intervenors ......... . Brief In Support of Motion To enjoin The LRSD From Entering Into A Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests For Information And Without Prior Involvement of The Joshua Intervenors. Motion For Order of Dismissal ..... Brief In Support of Motion For Order of Dismissal order, December 11, 1995 The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition To The LRSD's Motion For An Order of Dismissal Memorandum and Order, March 11, 1996 ex 359 - LRSD Management Services Agreement With Servicemaster . . . . . . . . . . . . ex 364 - Opinion No. 95-294 .. CX 373 - Purported Settlement Between LRSD And Servicemaster . . . . . . . . . . ex 374 - Joshua Acceptance of Settlement . . . . 1 . . . . . 4 34 38 44 50 58 69 192 . . . 197 . 206 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8/31/95 2503 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's Program Planning and Budgeting Process (vjt) [Entry date 09/01/95) [4:82cv866] 8/31/95 2504 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1995-96 Budget/August Project Management Tool (vjt) (Entry date 09/01/95) [4:82cv866] 8/31/95 2505 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1996-97 Budget/August Project Management Tool (vjt) (Entry date 09 /01/95) ( 4: 82cv866) 8/31/95 2506: MOTION by Joshua to enjoin the LRSD from entering into. a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors (vjt) [Entry date 09/01/95) (4:82cv866] 9/1/95 2507 CLERK'S MINUTES: DAY THREE of hearings resumes w/Court taking up LRSD; after witness testimony and exhibits received, court instructs Joshua and Knight to file request for hearing to rebuts w/i 10 days and outline areas in which they want evidence presented; hearing will then be set; court adjourns (Waunzell Petre, court reporter) ( sc) [ 4 : 8 2 cv8 6 6 ) 9/1/95 2508 NOTICE of filing of exhibits (335-342) in open court (vjt) [Entry date 09/05/95) [4:82cv866] 9/5/95 2509 LETTER to court from PCSSD re their submission on the pooling issues (vjt) [Entry date 09/06/95) (4:82cv866) 9/5/95 2510 NOTICE of filing of PCSSD Submission Regarding \"Pooling\" Issues (vjt) [Entry date 09/06/95) (4:82cv866] 9/5/95 2511 NOTICE of filing of LRSD Pre-Trial Information Concerning Pooling of M-to-M Funds (vjt) (Entry date 09/06/95) [4:82cv866] 9/7/95 2512 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION by LRSD to release incentive school kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats (vjt) (4:82cv866) 9/7/95 2513 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting LRSD's motions to release incentive school kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats (2469-1) [2512-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 9/7/95 (vjt) (4:82cv866] 9/7/95 2514- RESPONSE by LRSD to Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9/7/95 9/8/95 9/8/95 9/8/95 9/8/95 9/14/95 9/14/95 9/15/95 9/15/95 9/15/95 9/18/95 following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [2506-1) (vjt) [Entry date 09/08/95) [ 4: 82cv866 J 2515 RESPONSE by PCSSD to LRSD pretrial information concerning pooling of m-to-m funds [2511-1) (vjt) [Entry date 09/08/95] [4:82cv866) 2516 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of Budget Hearing before the Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright on 8/1/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 2517 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of Budget Hearing before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 8/2/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866) 2518 CLERK'S MINUTES: HEARING before Judge Susan W. Wright re: M-M pooling as ordered by 8th Circuit on remand; PCSSD puts on evidence, calls Dr. Don Stewart to testify; exhibits received; hearings to continue at a later date (Debbie Petre, court reporter) (sc) [4:82cv866] 2519 NOTICE of filing of exhibits (343-358) by PCSSD and LRsD in open court (vjt) [Entry date 09/11/95) [4:82cv866] 2520 MOTION by PCSSD to clarify the PCSSD Desegregation Plan (vjt) [Entry date 09/15/95) (4:82cv866) 2521 SPECIAL STATUS REPORT of the PCSSD concerning its affirmative action transfer procedure (vjt) [Entry date 09/15/95) [4:82cv866] 2522 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of hrg before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 8/28/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866) 2523 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting PCSSD's motion to improve racial balance at Pine Forest Elementary School [2494-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 9/15/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866) 2524 STATUS REPORT by ODM on Staffing: Elementary Classroom Teachers in the LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD (vjt) [ 4: 82cv866) 2525 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting motion for partial release from court supervision (2486-1); the North Little Rock School District is hereby released from Court supervision on student assignments (cc: all counsel) (EOD 09/18/95) (jad) (4:82cv866) ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9/19/95 2526 NOTICE of filing by Joshua of response to the districts' motions for release of court supervision re the respective settlement plans (vjt) [Entry date 09/20/95) [4:82cv866] 9/20/95 2527 NOTICE by ODM of filing Replacement of Portable Classroom Buildings in the PCSSD {vjt) [Entry date 09 /21/95) [ 4: 82cv866) 9/22/95 2s2s{aRIEF by Joshua in support of motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors (2506-1) (vjt) [4:82cv866] 9/26/95 2529 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright re M-to-M Pooling, the hrg from 9/8/95 is scheduled to continue on Saturday, 10/28/95 from 9:00 am until noon and thereafter to continue on December 14th, 15th, 1995 at 9:00 am if necessary; a hrg is scheduled to begin Monday, 2/12/96 at 9:00 am re court withdrawal from certain aspects of the plan (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 09/27/95) [4:8;acv866) 9/26/95 2530 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright finding Joshua's motions for temporary restraining order, for preliminary injunction and to cite the LRSD for contempt of court moot [2477-1] [2477-2) [2477-3] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 09/27/95) [4:82cv866] 9/27/95 2531 NOTICE of filing of the Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Executive Summary and the Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan Study Demographic Survey (vjt) [Entry date 09/28/95) [4:82cv866] 9/28/95 2532 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1996-97 Budget/September Project Management Tool (vjt) [4:82cv866) 9/29/95 2533 NOTICE of filing of ADE's Project Management Tool (vjt) [4:82cv866] 9/29/95 2534 MOTION by Joshua for extension of time to file petition for fees and costs (vjt) [4:82cv866] 10/6/95 2535 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of hrg before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 6/23/95 (vjt) [Entry date 10/10/95] [4:82cv866] iii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10/6/95 10/6/95 10/6/95 10/6/95 2536 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of hrg before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 7/7/95 (vjt) [Entry date 10/10/95] [4:82cv866] 2537 LETTER to court from PCSSD re replacement of portables at Sylvan Hills High School and Elementary School and Robinson Elementary School (vjt) [Entry date 10/10/95] [4:82cv866] 2538 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting PCSSD's motion for permission to replace portables at certain schools [2429-1]; the PCSSD is reminded that under the Plan, all school construction is subject to prior approval by this Court (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 10/10/95] [4:82cv866] 2539 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting Joshua's motion for extension of time until 11/15/95 to file petition for fees and costs [2534-1] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 10/10/95] [4:82cv866] 10/24/95 2540 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of proceedings on 8/30/95 before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright (vjt) [4:82cv866] 10/24/95 2541 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of proceedings on 8/31/95 before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright (vjt) [4:82cv866] 10/24/95 2542 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of proceedings on 9/1/95 before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright (vjt) [4:82cv866] 10/24/95 2543 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of proceedings on 9/8/95 before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright (vjt) [4:82cv866] 10/25/95 2544 MOTION by Joshua for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the Little Rock School defts under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation (vjt) [Entry date 10/26/95] [4:82cv866] 10/25/95 2545 MEMORANDUM by Joshua in support of motion regarding faculty and staff assignment practices [2544-1] (vjt) [Entry date 10/26/95] [4:82cv866] 10/26/95 2546 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION by deft Pulaski Cty School for order regarding portable buildings (kayp) [Entry date 10/27/95] [Edit date 10/27/95] [4:82cv866] 10/27/95 2547 MOTION by ServiceMaster for leave to intervene (vjt) [Entry date 10/30/95] [Edit date 10/30/95] [4:82cv866) iv I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10/27/95 10/27/95 10/28/95 10/28/95 10/31/95 10/31/95 10/31/95 11/2/95 11/2/95 11/2/95 11/3/95 2548 BRIEF by ServiceMaster in support of motion for leave to intervene [2547-1) (vjt) [Entry date 10/30/95) [ 4: 82cv866] .2549.f RESPONSE by intv ServiceMaster to Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [2506-1) (vjt) [Entry date 10/30/95) [4:82cv866] 2550 'CLERK'S MINUTES: HEARING before Judge Susan W. Wright on mot by LRSD to prevent LRSD from entering into contract with Service Master; mot to intervene by Service Master granted; attys Joseph Mowery and John Everett present for Service Master; Joshua begins proof with certain testimony; exhibits received; Court will not rule at this time; hearing to be continued (Waunzelle Petre, court reporter) (sc) [Entry date 10/30/95) [Edit date 10/30/95) [4:82cv866] 2551 NOTICE of filing of exhibits (359-371) in open court (vjt) [Entry date 10/30/95) [4:82cv866) 2552 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright that the hrg re Joshua's motion to prevent LRSD from entering into a contract with ServiceMaster is now scheduled to continue on Friday, 12/8/95 at 9:00 am (cc: all counsel) EOD 10/31/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866) 2553 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1996-97 Budget/October Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 11/01/95) [ 4: 82cv866) 2554 NOTICE of filing of ADE's Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 11/01/95) [4:82cv866] 2555 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of budget hrg continued from 6/23/95 before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 7/6/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 2556 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of hrg on motion for TRO and preliminary injunction before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 8/25/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866) 2557 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting ServiceMaster's motion for leave to intervene in accordance w/ the Court's ruling from the bench during a hrg on 10/28/95 [2547-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 10/2/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 2558 MOTION by LRSD for extension of time to respond to Joshua's motion to set forth in detail the V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11/6/95 11/13/95 continuing obligation of LRSD under its desegregation plan with regard to faculty and staff (vjt) (Entry date 11/06/95] (4:82cv866] 2559 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting LRSD's motion for extension of time until 11/13/95 to respond to Joshua's motion regarding faculty and staff (2558-1] (2544-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 11/6/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 2560 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the Little Rock School defts under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation (2544-1] (bt) [Entry date 11/14/95] [4:82cv866] 11/14/95 2561 RESPONSE by NLRSD to Joshua's motion re faculty and staff assignment (2544-1] (vjt) [Entry date 11/ 15/95] [ 4: 82cv866] 11/15/95 2562 MOTION by Joshua for extension of time to file motion for an award of attys' fees and costs (vjt) [Entry date 11/16/95] [4:82cv866] 11/21/95 2563 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting Joshua's motion for extension of time until 11/22/95 to file motion for an award of attys' and costs [2562-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 11/21/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 11/21/95 2564 LRSD's 1995-96 FIRST QUARTER STATUS REPORT (vjt) [Entry date 11/22/95] [4:82cv866] 11/22/95 2565 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM by Joshua for an interim award of attys' fees and for costs for post-judgment monitoring (vjt) [Entry date 11/27/95] [4:82cv866] 11/24/95 2566 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright finding the following motions moot: for modification of desegregation plan by LRSD [2432-1] and for approval of new school sites by PCSSD (2443-1] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 11/27/95] [4:82cv866] 11/29/95 2567 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright that parties may file any objections to ODM's Proposed 1995-96 Budget w/i 15 days from the date of entry of this Order (cc: all counsel) EOD 11/29/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] vi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11/29/95 11/29/95 11/29/95 11/30/95 11/30/95 11/30/95 2568.~BRIEF by intervenor ServiceMaster in support of motion response (2549-1] (vjt) [Entry date 11/30/95] (4:82cv866] 2569 MOTION by intervenor ServiceMaster for leave to file amended answer (vjt) [Entry date 11/30/95] (4:82cv866] 2570 BRIEF by intervenor ServiceMaster in support of motion for leave to file amended answer (2569-1] (vjt) [Entry date 11/30/95] (4:82cv866) 2571 NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1996-97 Budget/November Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 12/01/95] (4:82cv866] 2572 NOTICE of filing of ADE's Project Management Tool (vjt) (Entry date 12/01/95] (4:82cv866] 2573 MOTION by LRSD for an order dismissing this case w/ prej w/ respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLSD as of 1/18/91 except to the extent the court retains jurisdiction to address issues re implementation of the plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or the desegregation plans (vjt) (Entry date 12/01/95] [4:82cv866] 11/30/95 2574 BRIEF by LRSD in support of motion for an order dismissing this case w/ prej w/ respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLSD (2573-1] (vjt) [Entry date 12/01/95] (4:82cv866] 12/1/95 12/4/95 12/5/95 12/6/95 12/6/95 2575 NOTICE of filing by ODM of Monitoring Report: The LRSD 1994-95 Incentive School Extended Year Program (vjt) [Entry date 12/04/95] [4:82cv866) 2576 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of Budget Hearing before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 4/10/95 (vjt) (4:82cv866] 2577 MOTION by LRSD and PCSSD to extend time to respond to Joshua's fee petition (vjt) [Entry date 12/06/95] ( 4: 82cv866] 2578 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting joint motion of LRSD and PCSSD to extend time until 12/18/95 to respond to Joshua's fee petition (2577-1] (2565-1] (2565-2] (cc: all counsel) EOD 12/6/95 (vjt) ( 4: 82cv866] 2579 MOTION by Joshua for continuance of hrg scheduled for 12/8/95 (vjt) [Entry date 12/07/95] [4:82cv866] vii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12/6/95 12/8/95 12/8/95 12/8/95 12/8/95 2580 FOURTH QUARTER STATUS REPORT by NLRSD re North Little Rock Plan Implementation in 1994-95 (vjt) [Entry date 12/07/95) [4:82cv866) 2581 CLERK'S MINUTES: HEARING before Judge Susan W. Wright continues re: Joshua's mot for preliminary injunction with respect to ServiceMaster contract; Court receives exhibits and rules from bench; order will issue (Debbie Petre, court reporter) (sc) [Entry date 12/11/95) [4:82cv866] 2582 NOTICE of filing exhibits (372-378) in open court (vjt) [Entry date 12/11/95] [4:82cv866] 2583 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting motion for leave to file amended answer by intv ServiceMaster (2569-1] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 12/11/95] [4:82cv866] 2584~AMENDED RESPONSE by intv ServiceMaster to Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [2506-1) (vjt) [Entry date 12/11/95] [4:82cv866] 12/11/95 2585 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright that Joshua's motion for continuance of hrg set for 12/8/95 was denied in open Court during hrgs conducted on 12/8/95 [2579-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 12/11/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 12/11/95 2586 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright finding that the purported settlement cannot be enforced against ServiceMaster [2506-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 12/11/95 (vjt) [4:82cv866] 12/12/95 2587 MOTION by Joshua for extension of time to file their response to the LRSD's motion for an order of dismissal (vjt) (Entry date 12/13/95] [4:82cv866] 12/12/95 2588 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting Joshua's motion for extension of time until 1/5/96 to file their response to LRSD's motion for an order of dismissal (2587-1] [2573-1] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 12/13/95) [4:82cv866] 12/14/95 2589 CLERK'S MINUTES: HEARING before Judge Susan W. Wright continued from 9/8/95 on M-M Pooling issues on remand from 8th Circuit; after Dr. Stewart testimony, County rests; LRSD calls Earl Jones to testify; certain exhibits received; Court directs LRSD and PCSSD to file briefs on pooling issue by viii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1/22/96; parties to contact Court if they want a hearing to take Ruth Steele testimony; Court adjourns (Waunzelle Petre, court reporter) (sc) [Entry date 12/15/95) [4:82cv866) 12/14/95 2590 NOTICE of filing of amendment to ODM's September 15, 1995 status report on staffing to add desegregation plan provisions (vjt} [Entry date 12/15/95) [4:82cv866) 12/14/95 2591 NOTICE of filing of exhibits (379-385) in open court (vjt) [Entry date 12/15/95) (4:82cv866] 12/15/95 2592 MOTION by LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD to extend time to respond to Joshua's fee petition (vjt) [Entry date 12/19/95] (4:82cv866] 12/20/95 .2593 -:\"0PPOSITION by Joshua to LRSD's motion for an order 12/22/95 - of dismissal (2573-1] (vjt) [Entry date 12/21/95] [4:82cv866] 2594-'MOTION by Joshua Intervenors for reconsideration of the court's order of 12/11/95 and for  completion of hearing (bt) [Entry date 12/26/95] [4:82cv866] 12/22/95 2595 BRIEF by Joshua Intervenors in support of motion for reconsideration of the court's order of 12/11/95 (2594-1] and for completion hearing (2594-2] (bt) [Entry date 12/26/95] [4:82cv866] 12/27/95 2596 ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting motion of LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD to extend time until 1/31/96 to respond to Joshua's fee petition (2592-1) (2565-1] (2565-2] (cc: all counsel) EOD 12/27/95 (vjt) [ 4: 82cv866 J 12/29/95 2597 NOTICE by plaintiff Little Rock School of filing 1996-97 Budget/December Project Management Tool (bt) ( 4: 82cv866 J 12/29/95 2598 NOTICE by defendant Arkansas Educ Board of filing Project Management Tool (bt) [4:82cv866) ix I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD ~ 12cv866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL LEAD APPEAL U.S. District Court USDC for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE#: 82-CV-866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Filed: 11/30/82 Assigned to: Judge Susan W. Wright Demand: $0,000 Nature of Suit: 440 Lead Docket: None Jurisdiction: Federal Question Dkt # in USCA 8USCA: is :00-96-02047 Dkt # in USCA8 : is :00-95-01481 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act 12/29/95 2597 12/29/95 2598 1/4/96 2599 1,d/96 2600 .- 1/8/96 2601?' 1/12/96 2602 1/17/96 2603 NOTICE by plaintiff Little Rock School of filing 1996-97 Budget/December Project Management Tool (bt) [4: 82cv866] NOTICE by defendant Arkansas Educ Board of filing Project Management Tool (bt) [4:82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright approving ODM's Proposed 1995-96 Budget in its entirety [2567-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 1/4/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] RESPONSE by intervenor ServiceMaster to motion for reconsideration of the court's order of 12/11/95 [2594-1) and for completion of hearing [2594-2) (bt) [Entry date 01/09/96) [4: 82cv866] BRIEF by intervenor ServiceMaster in support of response to motion for reconsideration and completion of hearing [2600-1) (bt) [Entry date 01/09/96) [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright that the hrg will resume re motion to withdraw court supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [2481-1) and LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [2483-1) at 9:00 on 2/12/96 (cc: all counsel) EOD 1/12/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] MOTION by Joshua for leave to file reply (vjt) [Entry date 01/18/96) [4: 82cv866] I 1/18/96 2604 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting Joshua's motion leave to file reply; a reply to the ServiceMaster submission dated 1/8/96 is extended to 1/26/96 [2603-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 1/18/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] for I 1/24/96 I 2605 TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of Budget Hearing before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 3/24/95 (vjt) [Entry date 01/25/96) [4:82cv866] I Docket as of May 2, 1996 10:28 am Pagel I X - ----- - - - - - - - ~ I I~P ~oceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD .2cv866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL 1/26/96 I 11/26/96 11/26/96 11/26/96 I l/26/96 I 1/26/96 I l/29/96 I l/30/96 I 1/30/96 I 1/31/96 I l/31/96 I 2/1/96 I 2/1/96 I 2/1/96 I 2/5/96 2/5/96 2606( 2607 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 REPLY brief by Joshua Intervenors to response to motion for reconsideration of the court's order of 12/11/95 [2594-1] (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96] [4:82cv866] NOTICE by defendant Pulaski Cty School of filing proposed conclusions of law (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96] [4: 82cv866) NOTICE by defendant Pulaski Cty School of filing proposed findings of fact (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96) [4:82cv866] SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF filed by defendant Pulaski County School regarding \"Pooling\" issues (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96] [4: 82cv866] NOTICE by plaintiff Little Rock School of filing findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding pooling agreement (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96) [4: 82cv866] NOTICE by plaintiff Little Rock School of filing depositions of Dr. Ruth Steele \u0026 Bobby Lester (bt) [Entry date 01/29/96) [4: 82cv866) Amendment to Supplemental MOTION by PCSSD regarding the replacement of portable buildings w/pe:cma.nent construction dated 10/25/95 (vjt) [Entry date 01/30/96) [4: 82cv866) MOTION by LRSD to extend time for the LRSD, PCSSD \u0026 NLRSD to respond to the Joshua fee petition (vjt) [Entry date 01/31/96) [4: 82cv866) NOTICE of filing by ODM of 1995-96 School Racial Balance Monitoring Report: LRSD \u0026 PCSSD (vjt) [Entry date 01/31/96) [4: 82cv866) NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1997-98 Budget/January Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 02/01/96) [4:82cv866) NOTICE of filing of ADE's Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 02/01/96) [4: 82cv866) MOTION by PCSSD to amend desegregation plan (vjt) [Entry date 02/05/96) [4: 82cv866) BRIEF by PCSSD in support of motion to amend desegregation plan [2617-1) (vj t) [Entry date 02/05/96) [4: 82cv866) NOTICE of filing of ADE's Semi-Annual Monitoring Report (vjt) [Entry date 02/05/96) [4: 82cv866J MOTION by Joshua for continuance of hrg set for 2/12/96 (vjt) [Entry date 02/06/96) [4: 82cv866)  WITNESS LIST submitted by LRSD for Unitary Status Hearings lnocket as of May 2, 1996 10:28 am Page 2 I xi I I I PToceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD ,2cv866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL 2/5/96 I 2/6/96 I 2/7/96 I I I 2/8/96 I 2/9/96 I I 2/12/96 I 2/13/96 I 2/14/96 I I 2/20/96 I 2/23/96 I :c. . .1.3/96 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 2627 2628 2629 2630 2631 2632 (vj t) [Entry date 02/06/96] [4: 82cv866] EXHIBIT LIST submitted by LRSD re Unitary Status Hearings (vj t) [Entry date 02/06/96] [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting motion to extend time until 3/1/96 for the LRSD, PCSSD \u0026 NLRSD to respond to Joshua's fee petition [2613-1] [2565-1] [2565-2] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 02/07/96] [4:82cv866] CLERK'S MINUTES: INFORMAL conference in chambers with attys and Ann Brown re: matters to be taken up at next week's hearing \u0026 Joshua's mot for continuance; Joshua's oral mot to extend time to respond to PCSSD's mot to amend granted to 3/1/96; no ruling on continuance; meeting adjourned (Waunzelle Petre, court reporter) (sc) [Entry date 02/08/96] [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan w. Wright granting Joshua's oral motion to extend time until 3/15/96 to respond to PCSSD's motion to amend desegregation plan [2617-1] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [4:82cv866] STIPULATION for Order by PCSSD, LRSD, NLRSD and the Joshua \u0026 Knight Intervenors re which areas of the Districts' respective desegregation plans can be released from Court supervision and monitoring (vjt) [Entry date 02/12/96] [4: 82cv866] Amendment to MOTION by PCSSD to amend desegregation plan (vjt) [4: 82cv866] MEMO TO FILE: finding the motion for continuance of hrg set for 2/12/96 moot [2620-1] (bt) [Entry date 02/14/96] [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright scheduling informational hrgs on the LRSD draft budget and budgeting process for 9:00am on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996; June 6 \u0026 7, 1996; and July 29 \u0026 30, 1996; board members of the LRSD are required to attend hrgs (cc: all counsel) (vjt) [Entry date 02/15/96] [4:82cv866] TRANSCRIPT (Volume I) of Budget Hearing before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright on 8/11/95 (vjt) [Entry date 02/21/96] [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright scheduling evidentiary hrgs for May 13-15 \u0026 May 30-31, 1996 to evaluate the success of settlement plans and desegregation remedies (cc: all counsel) (vj t) [Entry date 02/26/96] [4: 82cv866] LRSD'S SECOND QUARTER STATUS REPORT (vjt) [Entry date 02/26/96] [4: 82cv866] I Docket as of May 2, 1996 10:28 am Page 3 I xii I I Proceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD , 2cv866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL I 2/28/96 1 2/29/96 I 2/29/96 I 3/1/96 I 3/1/96 I 3/1/96 13 't:../96 I I I I I I 3/11/96 13/12/96 I 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 NOTICE of filing by LRSD of \"Little Rock School D~strict Facilities Master Plan Study Supplement to Executive Sununary\" (vjt) [Entry date 02/29/96) [4: 82cv866] NOTICE of Filing by plaintiff LRSD's 1997-98 Budget/February Project Management Tool (lb) [Entry date 03/01/96) [Edit date 03/01/96) [4: 82cv866] NOTICE of filing by defendant ADE'S Project Management Tool (lb) [Entry date 03/01/96) [4: 82cv866] RESPONSE by LRSD to Joshua's motion for an interim award of attys' fees [2565-1) and costs for post-judgment monitoring [2565-2) (vjt) [Entry date 03/04/96) [4: 82cv866] MEMORANDUM BRIEF by LRSD in support of motion response [2636-1) (vjt) [Entry date 03/04/96) [4:82cv866] RESPONSE by NLRSD to Joshua's motion for an interim award of attys' fees [2565-1) and costs for post-judgment monitoring [2565-2) (vjt) [Entry date 03/04/96) [4: 82cv866] Supplemental and Clarifying MOTION by PCSSD to amend desegregation plan (vjt) [Entry date 03/07/96) [4: 82cv866] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright denying as moot PCSSD's motion to withdraw court supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [2481-1); denying as moot LRSSD's motion for partial unitary status [2483-1); denying Joshua's motion for reconsideration of the court's order of 12/11/95 [2594-1); denying as moot Joshua's motion for completion of hearing [2594-2); denying w/o prej Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures [2506-1); denying w/o prej PCSSD's motion to clarify the PCSSD Desegregation Plan [2520-1); denying LRSD's motion for an order of dismissal [2573-1); denying w/o prej Joshua's motion for an Order setting forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegragation plan w/respect to faculty and staff [2544-1); granting PCSSD's motions for an Order regarding portable buildings [2546-1) [2612-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 3/11/96 (vjt) [4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright directing the LRSD to submit to the Court, ODM \u0026 parties by noon on March 18, 1996 all documents, budget material, business cases and any other info to be introduced at the hrg scheduled for 9:00am on March 26, 1996 (cc: all counsel) EOD 3/12/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] l\u003eocket as of May 2, 1996 10:28 am Page 4 I xiii I I I I I I P-oceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD ~ .2cv866 Little Rock School, et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL 3/15/96 3/18/96 3/26/96 3/26/96 I 3/26/96 I 3/27/96 I I I I I I I I I 3/27/96 3/27/96 3/29/96 3/29/96 4/1/96 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 MOTION by Joshua for leave to file reply (vjt) [Entry date 03/18/96] (4: 82cv866] NOTICE of filing of the Little Rock School District 1996 - 97 Proposed Budget and the Business Cases for Proposed Budget FY 1996-97 in accordance w/the Court's Order of 3/12/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] CLERK'S MINUTES: HEARING before Judge Susan W Wright re: budget of LRSD; testimony by witnesses \u0026 certain exhibits received; hearings conclude (Robin Johnson, court reporter) (sc) (4: 82cv866] NOTICE of filing of exhibits (386 - 389) in open court (vjt) [Entry date 03/27 /96] [4: 82cv866] FIRST QUARTER STATUS REPORT by NLRSD re North Little Rock Plan Implementation in 1995-96 (vjt) [Entry date 03/27/96] (4: 82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting PCSSD's supplemental and clarifying motion to amend desegregation plan; the Court authorizes a special millage election to be held May 7, 1996 and approves to convert Jacksonville Junior High North \u0026 Jacksonville Junior High South with one becoming a middle school hosting sixth \u0026 seventh graders and the other a traditional junior high hosting only eighth \u0026 ninth graders (2639-1]; finding PCSSD's previous motions to amend desegregation plan moot (2617-1] (2627-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 3/27/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright approving the stipulation for order filed 2/9/96 re areas in which the respective parties can be released from court supervision and monitoring (2626-1) (cc: all counsel) EOD 3/27/96 (vjt) (4: 82cv866) ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright granting Joshua's motion for leave to file reply to LRSD \u0026 NLRSD responses to their motion and memorandum for atty's fees \u0026 costs (2642-1] (cc: all counsel) EOD 3/27/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] NOTICE of filing of ADE's Project Management Tool (vjt) (4: 82cv866) NOTICE of filing of LRSD's 1997-98 Budget/March Project Management Tool (vjt) [Entry date 04/01/96) [4:82cv866] REPLY by Joshua to LRSD \u0026 NLRSD's response to fee petition (2565-1) (2565-2) (vj t) (4: 82cv866) I Docket as of May 2, 1996 10:28 am Page 5 I xiv I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I P~oceedings include events between 12/29/95 and 5/2/96. LEAD 32cv866 Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al EAL 4/4/96 4/4/96 4/8/96 4/9/96 4/16/96 4/22/96 4/26/96 4/30/96 4/30/96 2653 2654 ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright directing parties to file any objections on or before 4/15/96 to the Magnet Review Committee's request for approval of the interdistrict magnet school budget for the 1995-96 school year (letter request dated 3/13/96 attached) (cc: all counsel) EOD 4/4/96 (vjt) [4:82cv866] ORDER by Judge Susan W. Wright setting hrg on Joshua's motion for an interim award of attys' fees [2565-1) and for costs [2565-2) at 9:30 on 7/1/96 (cc: all counsel) EOD 4/4/96 (vj t) [4: 82cv866] 2655 NOTICE of filing of ADE'S Supplemental Report to the 2656 2657 2658 2659 2660 February 1, 1996, Semi-Annual Monitor "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1653","title":"Court Filings concerning ODM recommendations, ADE semi-annual monitoring report, PCSSD and LRSD settlement agreement, NLRSD motion to close Baring Cross School and to expand office complex at Redwood Elementary School, and PCSSD motion to modify desegregation plan regarding class sizes.","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":["1996-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Joshua Intervenors","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education, Elementary","School management and organization","School buildings","School facilities","School integration","Redwood Elementary School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","Baring Cross Elementary School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","School employees","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning ODM recommendations, ADE semi-annual monitoring report, PCSSD and LRSD settlement agreement, NLRSD motion to close Baring Cross School and to expand office complex at Redwood Elementary School, and PCSSD motion to modify desegregation plan regarding class sizes."],"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/1653"],"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":["72 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, two orders; District Court, motion of the Joshua intervenors for the implementation of recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring; District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors in support of their motion for the implementation of recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) semi-annual monitoring report; Court of Appeals, standard of review; District Court, motion to shorten time to respond to discovery; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, motion to intervene as defendants; District Court, brief in support of motion to intervene as defendants; District Court, answer of intervenor school districts to second motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, order; District Court, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion to close Baring Cross School and to expand office space at Redwood Elementary School; District Court, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) memorandum in support of motion to close Baring Cross School and to expand office complex at Redwood Elementary School; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to modify desegregation plan regarding class sizes; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to modify desegregation plan respecting class sizes; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing Little Rock School District (LRSD) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  ( \\ U.S. OIST:-ICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARl:ANSAS 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 RECEl\\'ED 'JUL 2 1996 JUL O 1 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES Office of D A Limited Partnership j esegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS ORDER Upon motion of the Joshua Intervenors, the Pulaski County Special School District, and the Little Rock School District, the time within which they must file their application for attorneys' - fees with respect to this Court's January 13, 1995 decision and with respect to the May 15, 1996 decision of the Eighth Circuit is hereby extended to thirty days after the mandate is issued by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. IT IS SO ORDERED this st- / day of July 1996. rl-115 DOCU:.1c:, i [::f n::r;:::0 c;~ DOCKET SHEET IN CC1MPUANCE WITH RULE 56 ANDiOR 79(a) FRCP ON 11119': --ev J;7\\:: -=s 270 3 ( IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS fiLEfD U.S. OISTi-lCT COURT [:ASTERN DISTRICT ARV.ANSAS JUL O 1 1996 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES r ~RMACK, CLERK By: \\ ' \\A}\\ AAO I:\"-:,, 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 OE? CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Upon motion of the Arkansas Department of Education, the time within which it must respond to the Pulaski County Special School District's, the Little Rock School District's, and the North Little Rock School District's pending motions to enforce the Settlement Agreement is hereby extended to and including July 22, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this ~ / day of July 1996. rHIS DOCUME ff [1-ffERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 56 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON /J It l9G BY tZJ: J I =t . 2704 u.foi\\bfJ~1RT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL O 2 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION By: -------;:;;:,;:;-;:;:;--;::-;:,;, DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL filSTRICT, ET AL. REC I MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JUL 2 1996 PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Office of Desegregation Monitoring MOTION OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OP- DESEGREGATION MONITORING (ODM) The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of orders, as described in greater detail in this motion, requiring the LRSD defendants to implement various recommendations previously made by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), including the recommendations which the court ordered these defendants to implement in an order entered om July 10, 1992. This motion is based upon the ODM reports which it cites, the \"law of the case,\" the record of the case generally, the accompanying memorandum, and the following allegations. (1.) In its court-approved desegregation plan (see amended version, April 29, 1992), the LRSD defendants agreed to undertake many actions for the benefit of the class of African-American students ( and their parents) , represented by the Joshua Intervenors. These actions were, among other things, to promote desegregation; to strengthen educational opportunities and outcomes 1 for African-American pupils; and to complete \"the transition to a system of public education freed of racial discrimination\" [Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299 (1955)] in a comprehensive and sensitive manner. (2.) In its opinion directing that various settlement agreements of the parties be approved and a subsequent opinion setting forth standards for the modification of those initial agreements, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit identified particularly important features of the settlement, including the LRSD desegregation plan. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F. 2d 1371, 1386 ( 1990) ( \"the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schools\"); 949 F.2d 253, 256 (1991) (including \"double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools; ... the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races; ... appropriate involvement of parents\"). (3.) In its 1990 opinion in this case, the Court of Appeals required the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) \"to be headed by a Monitor appointed by (this court], with such additional personnel as (this court] shall deem appropriate.\" See 921 F. 2d at 1388. The creation of ODM was to help insure \"that the parties' compliance with (the settlement agreements would] be carefully monitored.\" Id. The 1990 opinion also set forth the responsibility of this court to address inadequate compliance with the agreements and, at minimum, implicitly, the propriety of the court's relying upon the findings of its monitors as a predicate 2 for requiring remedial actions. 1 (4.) ODM has described in periodic reports many inadequacies in the LRSD defendants' implementation of their court-approved desegregation plan. Many have involved areas which the Court of Appeals identified as of critical importance. ODM has also set forth many recommendations for addressing the shortcomings in plan implementation which it found. These actions, if carried out in a meaningful manner, would strengthen the implementation of the plan, and thereby benefit the persons represented.by Joshua. (5.) Orders requiring the LRSD defendants to implement ODM recommendations constitute \"action (which] is appropriate ... to ensure compliance with the (LRSD desegregation plan] ... \" (921 F. 2d at 1394], so long as these defendants have an opportunity to demonstrate that the implementation of a particular recommendation should not be required. (6.) In an order dated July 10, 1992, this court adopted the recommendations made by ODM in its 1991-92 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report. However, the LRSD defendants have failed to implement these recommendations adequately. 1 See 921 F.2d at 1386 (\"It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to -- and here we have in mind especially the kinds 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.\"); ig., at 1390 (\"We accept these undertakings [to implement compensatory and remedial education programs], 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.\"); .ig., at 1394, para. 8. 3 (7.) It is appropriate for the court to order the LRSD defendants to implement the following recommendations, including those set forth in the ODM 1991-92 Incentive Schools Monitoring report, absent a satisfactory particularized showing of impropriety as to a specific recomme.ndation: (a.) 6/5/92 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report 1991-92 ( i) recommendation to assign students with sensi ti vi ty to the relationship between placement stability and academic progress (Summary at 2) (ii) five recommendations to improve student recruitment [Summary at 4-5; see also paras. 7-c. and 7-i.(i)] (iii) two staffing recommendations to improve quality of staff selections [Summary at 6; see also paras. 7-f., 7-h.-(ii), 7-k., 7- 1.] (iv) four recommendations to improve and implement staff development [Summary at 7-8; see also paras. 7-h.-(iii), (ix)-(xi), (xiii) , (xix)] (v) three recommendations to implement court orders and improve class sizes and three recommendations re student groupings (Summary at 10-11) (vi) five recommendations to improve implementation of the commitment to multicultural education (Summary at 13) (vii) three recommendations to improve instructional practices ( Summary at 14) (viii) four recommendations regarding materials and equipment which support the instructional process [Summary at 15; re science 4 program, # 4, see also para. 7-h.-(xi)] (ix) four recommendations re the Early Childhood program to improve its implementation [Summary at 17; see also paras. 7-h.( viii) ; 7-i.] (x) two recommendations re the Special Education program [Summary at 18; re gifted and talented program,# 2, see also para. 7-h.-(iv)] (xi) three recommendations to enhance supplemental programs, such as foreign language, Latin program, cl~ssics reading, African American studies and field trips [Summary at 18-21; re school themes, # 3, se also para. 7-h.-(x)] (xii) six recommendations to improve and implement discipline commitments in the plan [Summary at 23; see also para. 7-h.-(iii)J (xiii) five recommendations to improve implementation of the extended day, week, and year activities [Summary at 25; see also para. 7-h.-(xvi)-(xviii)J (xiv) recommendation to evaluate the relationship between the Homework Hotline and Homework Centers (Summary at 26) (xv) three recommendations re guidance counseling services [Summary at 27; see also para. 7-h.-(xxii)J (xvi) two recommendations to improve implementation of wellness program (Summary at 29} (xvii) three recommendations to improve implementation of mentoring program (Summary at 29-30; see also para. 7-h.-(xiv)] (xviii) 11 recommendations to help reduce achievement disparity (Summary at 31-32) 5 I I I I I I I I I (xix) two recommendations to help reduce student retention in grade (Summary 33) (xx) 12 recommendations to improve parental involvement through implementation of programs such as Parent council, parent workshop, home visits, PTA, etc. (Summary 37-39; see also para. 7- h.-(xxiv)-(xxv)] (xxi) recommendations to correct apparent physical facility problems . at each school (Summary at 43 (excluding Ish and Stephens); see also para. 7-h.-(v)-(vi)] (xxii) three recommendations to implement double funding (Summary at 47; see also para. 7-h.-j.J (b.) 11/16/92 Report on the Biracial Committees 21 recommendations designed to strengthen the operation of the biracial committee (see also, 1994-95 Incentive Schools monitoring report, at 62, # 38) (c.) 3/11/94 Recruitment Monitoring Report 12 recommendations to improve recruitment (at 12-13, 19-20; excluding# 11, at 19) (d.) 12/18/94 Report on the Alternative Schools 21 recommendations designed to strengthen each aspect of the LRSD alternative school program (at 14-17); (however, Joshua intervenors do not seek expansion of the alternative school program, at least until such time as the system demonstrates the ability to deal with black youth who are dropouts or potential dropouts in an evenhanded manner) (e.) 9/6/94 Involvement in the 1994-95 Selection of Principals 6 19 recommendations~ the principal interview and selection process, with an emphasis upon the effective involvement of parents (at 21-23) (f.) 12/2/94 Incentive Schools Staffing 1994-95 three recommendations to promote involvement of incentive schools staffing committees in the selection of all certified personnel (at 3, 4) (g.) 12/22/94 Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants four recommendations directed to the timeliness and quality of these activities (at 31-32) (h.) 5/17/95 Incentive Schools Mon. Report 1994-95 (and Incentive Schools Monitoring Reports for 1992-93 and 1993-941 (i) identify the actions that are working to make Rockefeller 4I a desegregated school and adopt or adapt them for the other incentive schools [1992-93, at 5; 1993-94, at 5] (ii) three recommendations designed to improve the assessment, on an annual basis, of the positions needed in each incentive school (1992-93, at 15; see also 1993-94, at 15] (iii) hold periodic meetings to discuss successful techniques for addressing disciplinary needs (1993-94, at 29] (iv) increase the amount of time the gifted and talented specialist spends in each incentive school to improve the quality of the program and the identification of youths who should be participants (1992-93, at 34; 1993-94, at 32] (v) develop a system of preventive maintenance which assures that each structure will be maintained in good working order and 7 have sufficient aesthetic appeal (cleanliness, fresh paint, landscaping, and other evidence of care and attention) to attract parents and students (1993-94, at 36] (vi) carry out any of ODM's other recommendations concerning facilities, which have yet to be carried out (see 1992-93, at 38; 1993-94, at 36; 1994-95, at 17] (vii) seven recommendations to improve the functioning of the Incentive Schools Parent Council (1992-93, at 41] (viii) two recommendations to improve ~he functioning of the Early Childhood Education Task Force (1992-93, at 43] {ix) recommendations to improve the abilities of teachers and administrators to implement the new curriculum (1992-93, at 45-46) {x) a total of four recommendations to improve the integration of the school theme in the various aspects of the program [1992-93, at 47-48, excluding recommendation re Ish; 1993-94, at 46) {xi) a total of three recommendations to insure adequate inservice training of science teachers, availability of adequate materials for science instruction, and humane treatment of laboratory animals [1992-93, at 49; 1993-94, at 47; 1994-95, at 36) {xii) a total of four recommendations to provide for the implementation of the foreign language program promised in the plan [1992-93, at 51; 1993-94, at 48) {xiii) provide in-service training to implement plan provision for criterion referenced assessment [1992-93, at 53] {xiv) three recommendations to increase the number of mentors and their skills [1992-93, at 61, 78; 1993-94, at 84] 8 (xv) allow three and four year-olds to use buses for field trips [1992-93, at 63) (xvi) a total of nine recommendations designed to increase the number of youth participating in the extended year program and to enhance its quality ( 1992-93, at 68; 1993-94, at 65-66] (xvii) a total of four recommendations to increase participation in and otherwise improve the extended week program [1993-94, at 60; 1994-95, at 36) (xviii) three recommendations re the extended day program (1992-93, at 72; 1994-95, at 36) (xix) two recommendations designed to improve coordination between teachers and teacher aides and to enhance the aides' skill levels (1992-93, at 76] (xx) two recommendations to increase the involvement in the schools of persons enrolled in pre-professional programs and employed in community agencies (1992-93, at 78) (xxi) recommendatf ons for standardizing the content of student profiles and insuring their preparation for each student [1992-93, at 85; 1993-94, at 70) (xxii) a total of eight recommendations designed to strengthen the provision of guidance and social work services in the schools, and to promote the comprehensiveness and the coordination of available services (1992-93, at 89, #'s 1 and 3; 1993-94, at 73; 1994-95, at 37) (xxiii) three recommendations re the incentive schools parent program (.i;:g parent job skills, providing requested help, and use of 9 community resources to meet parents educational needs) (1992-93, at 91-92] (xxiv) a total of four recommendations to improve parent workshops (coordinate training with other agencies, evaluate workshops in terms of their purposes, secure feedback from participants, try new approaches) (1992-93, at 97; 1993-94, at 79; 1994-95, at 62] (xxv) a total of five recommendations regarding the extent of parental involvement (standardize methods for recording contacts, develop transportation to increase parent involvement, promote increased use of parent centers and document their use, provide updated contracts for parents to sign) (1992-93, at 105; 1993-94, at 77] (xxvi) three recommendations to improve the programs for speakers bureaus and key communicators (1992-93, at 109; 1993-94, at 86; 1994-95, at 62] (i.) 5/26/95 1994-95 Four-Year-Old Program in the LRSD (i) three recommendations re improved recruitment (at 13) (ii) workshops for parents earlier in the school year (at 22) ( iii) strengthen tracking of youth attending programs to improve the ability to study the relationship of participation to later academic success (two recommendations, at 26) (iv) replace worn out consumable furnishings (at 28) (j.) 8/16/95 Double Funding of Incentive Schools budget annually an amount of money adequate to double fund the incentive schools without overspending that budget category (at 4) 10 (k.) 9/15/95 Staffing: Elementary Classroom Teachers - (i) develop policies on numerical ranges for black staffing at individual schools (at 11) (ii) develop specific methods to identify and address instances in which subgroups of staff are racially identifiable (at 11) 10) (1.) 5/10/96 Incentive School Staffing 1995-96 (i) conduct exit interviews of departing staff (at 8) (ii) develop support system for first year teachers (at 8) (iii) select experienced principals for incentive schools (at (iv) develop specific methods to identify and address instances in which subgroups of staff are racially identifiable (at 12) (see also 12\\22\\94 report on incentive schools staffing, at 6) WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the court order the LRSD defendants: ( 1. ) to implement each recommendation listed in paragraph ( 7. ) of this motion, as originally described by ODM, absent a satisfactory particularized showing of impropriety as to a specific recommendation; (2.) to report to the court and the parties 120 days from the date of the court's order re the recommendations, and at 120 day intervals thereafter until excused by the court, the system's progress in implementing each recommendation; and ( 3. ) to respond to any reasonable requests by the Joshua Intervenors to learn the system's progress in implementing a 11 particular recommendation(s). Respectfully submitted, ohn W. Walker# 64046 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 motion was sent via United States mail to all counsel of record on this ~ day of July, 1996. 12 RE UUL 2 1996 I JUL O 2 1996 / Office of Desegr:Hfli't\\{IJ!prmfil!'J'ED STATES DISTRICT COUR.l?\\MES W McCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By: WESTERN DIVISION -----~D~E=P~C~LE=R=K 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. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING (ODM) Joshua's motion for enforcement of ODM recommendations is straightforward. The LRSD defendants agreed in their desegregation plan to implement many actions for the benefit of the class of persons represented by the Joshua Intervenors . Beginning in 1992, ODM has documented these defendants' failure to fulf i ll, in an adequate manner, many of the promises which they made. ODM has also made a large number of specific recommendations for remedial action, many set forth more than once. An order requiring implementation of these ODM recommendations is in keeping with the guidance provided to this court by the Court of Appeals, and earlier action by this court. In its opinion at the end of 1990 directing appr oval of the various settlements, the Court of Appeals provided for the creation of ODM; stated that this court was responsible for the careful monitoring of the systems' compliance with the agreements 1 (obviously with considerable reliance on the work of ODM); and identified \"the job (of this court]\" as involving the framing of remedies in the event of the \"flout(ing] 11 of \"desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans .... \" See Little Rock School District v. Pulaki County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1386, 1390, 1394 (8th Cir.). The Joshua Intervenors proceed in accord with these principles. Joshua's motion provides, in effect, that a prima facie case is established by an ODM finding of non-compliance with a particular provision of the desegregation plan. That is, the ODM finding establishes the predicate for the court's requiring compliance with the corresponding ODM recommendation (or a variant deemed to be more appropriate), absent a particularized showing by LRSD that it is not appropriate to require compliance with a particular recommendation. See Motion, at paras. 5., 7. We submit that the Court of Appeals sanctioned this approach. In three instances, the Court's articulation of this court's obligation to monitor compliance with the agreements was immediately followed by the identification of this court's responsibility to take appropriate remedial action in the event of noncompliance. 1 This language either states or clearly implies that the results of monitoring -- otherwise determined by the Court of Appeals to be the task of ODM -- provide one basis for requiring further remedial action. It would be senseless to provide for a separate monitoring 1 See Little Rock School District, supra, 921 F.2d at 1386, 1390, 1394 at para. s. 2 office at considerable expense, and then to limit the impact of its actions to providing notice of problems only. In an order entered on July 10, 1992, this court after a hearing \"adopt[ed) the recommendations of the ODM contained in the (1991-92) Incentive Scho~ls Monitoring Report.\" To be sure, the court there noted the absence of objections to the report. While that may not be the case here, again, Joshua's motion recognizes the right of LRSD to seek to show that a recommendation or recommendations should not be adopted. Thus, fairness to the LRSD defendants is guaranteed. Because there has not been adequate compliance with the court's order of July 10, 1992, the current motion requests the court to reiterate the requirement to implement the recommendations set forth in the 1991-92 Report. There is an obvious relationship between the current motion and Joshua's earlier motion seeking the appointment of a wellqualified educator independent of the LRSD to direct the implementation of the incentive schools provisions of the agreements. Compliance with the current motion, if granted, will require, among other things, fact gathering; assessment of facts; policy development; implementation of policies; program devlopment; designing and carrying out training programs; and reaching out to staff and parents, including those serving on various committees. Granting of the earlier motion will mean that new leadership will lead and oversee these endeavors. The facts set forth in the earlier motion establish the need for the change in leadership. See also \"Monitoring Report: The Little Rock School District 1994- 3 95 Incentive Schools Extended Year Program,\" ODM Report, Dec. 1, 1995, at 12 (\"While we have noted pockets of excellence many times, never have we seen the top-level commitment and consistent effort that would yield the superior quality of education envisioned in the 1992 Desegregation P_lan. The extended year program in 1995 is no exception.\") The relief sought by Joshua requiring periodic reports of compliance and Joshua's ability to secure additional information is appropriate. Compare Louisiana v. United Sates, 380 U.S. 145, 155- 56 (1965) (monthly reporting); and Vail v. Board of Education, 354 F. Supp. 594, 604 (D.N.H. 1973) (right of plaintiffs' counsel to inspect records to insure compliance with court's order). Lastly, it is again appropriate to note that the LRSD - defendants have had more than enough time to comply with the promises which they made to the class represented by Joshua. Thus, one finds Judge Henry Woods in his order of December 11, 1989, 4 lamenting, i nter alia, LRSD's failure to implement its own proposals regarding the incentive schools, a continuing problem. 2 Walker# 64046 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 Ment via United States mail to all couns of record on this day of July, 1996. 2 Judge Woods wrote, in part: \" .... The LRSD apparently intends to continue its course of complying only with court orders it likes. Once again the areas of non-compliance concern the all-black schools. The LRSD ignored and failed to implement virtually every educational component which would justify the existence of the allblack schools. This includes approved portions of their own plan for the proposed 'Incentive Schools.' ... \" (at 16, footnote omitted). 5 IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. . NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ..... JUL ~) 1996 Office of DeseQregation Monitoring ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUl O 3 1996 PLAINTIFF  DEFENDAN1S INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors shall be allowed 30 additional days to respond to the discovery request of the Little Rock School District conerning the Joshua fee petition. Therefore, a response shall be served not later than July 29, 1996. fHIS DOCUM~NT ENTcRC:D O~J DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 5tl AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 1Li/9.b BY_.lj,_ ----=--- 2707  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 FILED U.S. DIST~ICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL t 2 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has previously scheduled hearings for July 29 and 30, 1996 to consider Little Rock School District (LRSD) budget matters for FY 1996-97. Also on those dates, the Court intended to review the 1996-97 budgets for the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). Due to scheduling conflicts on the Court's docket (primarily as a result of an ongoing criminal trial), the Court will be unable to hold budget hearings on the dates scheduled. Those hearings are therefore canceled. In lieu of budget hearings, the Court orders the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD to submit to the Office of Desegregation monitoring (ODM), on a date and time to be determined by them, any information ODM deems necessary for an adequate review of each district's budget. The Court expects the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD to cooperate in good faith with ODM 2709 regarding submission of any requested information so that further - orders of the Court are unnecessary. Also before the Court is the Joshua Intervenors' motion for an interim award of attorney's fees and costs (doc.#2565] . 1 The Court hereby schedules a hearing on this motion to begin at 9:30 a.m. on July 29, 1996, in room #305, 600 West Capitol Avenue, U.S. Courthouse, in Little Rock, Arkansas. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of July 1996. TE:S-- D:tSTicT JUDGE 1 A hearing on this motion had previously been scheduled for July I , 1996, but had to be cancelled due to an ongoing criminal trial. -2- Atkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division July 15, 1996 John W. Walk~r, Esq. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 M. Samuel Jones III, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Boatmen's Bank Building Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. First Federal Plaza 401 West Captiol Avenue Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Counsel of Record: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge, \u0026 Clark First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3401 Ann S. Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. TCBYTower 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECE!V~D ;!c,,,, c'  ,J,; .. ,,., ,, t d JUL 1 5 199/, c;: ::,-i' 4 ..... Office of Desegregation Monitoring ' -- - -- -- -- -- .. -  --   - - - -. -- --_,..,,  .4 Please find enclosed a copy of the Arkansas Department of Education's Semi-Annual Monitoring Report. If you need any additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, J ilMa/41/4 , ;li~~th Turner Enclosure --STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chairman - RICHARD C. SMITH~ JR .. McGeheo  Vice Chairman - WILLIAM 8 . FISHER, Paragould Members: CARL E. BAGGETT, Rogers  GARY BEASLEY. Crossett  LUKE GORDY. Van Buren  MITCH LLEWELLYN, JR. , Fort Smith JAMES McLARTY III, Newport  RAE RICE PERRY, Arkadelphia  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  ELAINE SCOTT, Little Rock SHERRY WALKER, Little Rock  JAMES WHITMORE, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employor UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL.,----- MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., LR-.C,....-. 82-866 RECEIVED )/lf,,.J- J)e/, ,,,4., c.,!_ DEFENDANTS , 1111 1 5 1996 INTER VEN ORS 7 ! .)d\"~ Olfic8 ot Desegregation Monitoring INTER VEN ORS THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S  SEMI-ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (J:fc.J ,,, ,.-1. .. ,,. .. y) In compliance with this Court's Order of December 10, 1993, and the Department's Implementation Plan filed with this Court, the Arkansas Department of Education submits its - Semiannual Monitoring Report to the parties and the Court. The Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee met on July 8, 1996, and discussed this report. The Committee noted no representatives from the parties or the Office of Desegregation Monitoring attended. The Committee invites the parties and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to attend committee meetings and offer comments and suggestions on the semi-annual monitoring reports. Respectfully submitted, ELIZETHTlJRNER, Bar I.D. # 90-181 Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 401A Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Elizabeth Turner, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing response by hand delivering on this A.day of July 1996, to: John W. Walker, Esq. John W. Walker, P.A. 1 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1661","title":"Court Filings: District Court, depositions of Dr. Ruth Steele and Bobby Lester","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":["Steele, Ruth","Lester, Bobby"],"dc_date":["1996-01-26"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Education--Arkansas","School superintendents","School management and organization","Education--Finance","Little Rock School District","School integration","Educational planning","School districts"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, depositions of Dr. Ruth Steele and Bobby Lester"],"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/1661"],"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":["137 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Steele, Ruth","Lester, Bobby"],"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, 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. NOTICE OF FILING OF DEPOSITIONS OF DR. RUTH STEELE AND BOBBY LESTER PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Little Rock School District, for its Notice of Filing, states: 1. The following documents are being filed and made a part of the record in the above-styled case: (a) Deposition of Dr. Ruth Steele, taken December 8, 1995; (b) Deposition of Bobby Lester, taken December 8, 1995. (:lbomolfoadloy\\lnd\\lnd-pul- Respectfully submitted, Christopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 501/376-2011 Attorneys for LRSD By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE served on the following counsel on this zJet1. day of ..,. _____,. ,-/ I certify that a copy of the foregoing pleadinFasbe en 19 tj(, Y Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 (:lbomo\\fcndloy\\lndllnd-pw.- ,. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et. al. V. No . LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA, et.al. KATHERINE w. KNIGHT, et.al.  DEPOSITION OF DR. RUTH STEELE TAKEN IN LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1995 AT INSTANCE OF DEFENDANTS ********** APPEARANCES ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF : CHRIS HELLER, ESQ. CLAY FENDLEY, ESQ. Friday, Eldredge and Clark 400 West Capitol AV Little Rock, AR 72201 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: M. SAMUEL JONES, ESQ. Wright, Lindsey and Jennings 200 West Capitol AV Little Rock, AR 72201 ********** copy GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r so 1 , 224-6409 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS CONTENTS APPEARANCES STIPULATIONS WITNESS SWORN EXAMINATION BY MR. JONES COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE (SOIJ 224-6409 PAGE 1 3 4 4 27 2  3 STIPULATIONS The deposition of DR. RUTH STEELE, produced, sworn and examined in the offices of Wright, Lindsey and Jennings, 200 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas, commencing at 10:10 a.m. on Friday, December 8, 1995 in the captioned cause at the instance of the counsel for the Defendants, said deposition being taken according to the terms and provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is stipulated and agreed that all forms and formalities in the taking, transcribing, forwarding and filing of said deposition are hereby waived by the parties, the right being expressly reserved to object to the testimon of the witness at the time of trial as to responsiveness, competency, relevancy and materiality, other than those with respect to the form of the questions as propounded to the witness . GIBSONBRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE r so 1 J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THEREUPON, DR. RUTH STEELE having been called to testify, was duly sworn and testified as follows : EXAMINATION BY MR . JONES : Q A Q Who are you? Ruth Steele. Ruth, help me. Can you give me the dates in which you 4 became the Little Rock superintendent, and the date that you left? A Q A Q In July of 1989 and to June 30, 1992. And I trust Chris has told you why you're here? Yes. Okay. Before I get into the obvious questions, have you had occasion to review anything in writing to help you get ready for the deposition today? A A little bit of the settlement agreement, and some factual information that showed some budget . figures, and things of that nature. Q A Can you be more specific on the latter? I think it was a work-up sheet that was produced by someone at the Pulaski County School District, showing a scenario of M to M payments , and that sort of thing. Q Before you reviewed that recently, had you ever seen it GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE (501 J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or something like it? A Q No, I had not seen anything like that. Okay. Anything else that you can recall that you reviewed? A Q A Q A No. Any -- did you review anybody's testimony? No. Did Chris or anyone else summarize that for you? He talked a little bit about the - - no, I don't think not about anybody's testimony. Q A Or anybody's position, or anything like that? We just reviewed some general types of ideas, thoughts, 5 comments from -- that Don had made, that Chip had made just to kind of help me to recollect some of the things that were occurring around the time frame that we're talking about . Q What I want to ask you to do -- understanding that we're going to get down to late September of 1989 -- can you capsule for me your recollection of what was still an issue regarding the financial settlement with the state as we entered those hearings before Mr . Mccutcheon in late September of '89? A One of the issues had to do with the methods of funding for the interdistrict schools, and the problems about the actual payments, and how those would be handled. There had been a lot of prior issues over the release o GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE (S0IJ 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - 6 funds whether or not there was actually an agreement that could be acted upon, based on the problems with the -- that we had with the legislature first approving it, and then the appropriations bill being struck, and then Nap Murphy losing his key, and then the third and final decision from the legislature about the capping the amount of money, and not really agreeing in substance to anything other than a cap, in terms of the money, except for those things which had already been agreed to, like the M to M money, and transportation, and that kind of thing. Q And as the hearings began, do you have a recollection of any issues that were still out there between the parties -particularly the county and Little Rock? A The discussions about the interdistrict schools. That was one of the things discussed. And then the discussion with the -- with Mccutcheon over whether or not there was an executable agreement, it seems to me were -- those were primarily the things that I remember being an issue then. Q Do you remember anything occurring during the course of those hearings that prompted the parties to engage in furthe negotiations? A I remember there was a -- there was a room that we -- several of us were coming in and out. There was an issue over the funding of the interdistrict schools and the poolin of the -- how that would work. And there were some GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - discussions between Chris and you, and others that you were engaged in some discussion around, around that. And the -- primarily that's what I recall was going on at that particular time. Q Do you recall any specifics at all about pooling -where the term came from, what it meant -- anything like that? 7 A What I understood that it meant was that the money would be -- that would be forthcomi ng from the state in terms of the sending and receiving districts, and the amount that would be contributed, that would be pooled; and that that would be used -- that pooled money would be used for the education of students attending the interdistrict schools. And that's what -- and that the amount that would be spent would be equalized so that no students from either district would be penalized in terms of a per pupil expenditure that would be identified for them as they attended those schools, in the event that two were eventual! established one in Little Rock and one in Pulaski County . Q Do you have any recollection of why pooling came into existence? A It's -- my recollection is that it came into existence because we were attempting to establish, based on the magnet school model, that there would be an equitable, same amount of money that would be spent in the interests of furthering GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE ( 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 desegregation to those types of schools. That's what I recall. Q- I take it, then, that you do not have any recollection 8 that would involve settling an issue, like who got what part of the funds the state was willing to provide? A Well, the sending district was to receive -- or was to contribute half its table rate. And the host district was to receive the full cost of educating the child, is what I remember about the distribution of the money; and that the $200,000 per year that Pulaski County was going to get for a five - year period would be contributed toward that pool. Q Do you have any recollection of why the county was going to contribute $200,000 a year? A The only thing that I remember is that there were some difference in the amount of money per pupil that the county expended in educating its students, as compared with what Little Rock was spending to educate students; and that that amount of money was perhaps going to be used for that purpos to equalize all of that, as a 'part of that . Q Let me just try kind of a general question . Is there anything else that you can recall being either debated or resolved in that room outside of the court room during the course of those hearings? A There were, as I recall from the discussions, there wer there was agreement as to the fact that the interdistrict GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 schools would be funded along the same general types of procedures as the magnet schools. There would be a per pupil amount established. There would be equalized funding, which would come from the pool that was generated through funds from Little Rock and from Pulaski County. And that the application of that would be for all of the students that were attending the interdistrict schools, not simply those sent or received; but that that would apply to the total student population in the interdistrict school. And I think that's reflected in the subsequent paragraphs that were added to the September version of the settlement agreement, which I think is dated a day or so after the hearing that we had with Mr. Mccutcheon. Q And I didn't bring the thing with me. But -- is that it, Chris? MR. HELLER: Yeah. BY MR. JONES: Q Ruth, may I just look at that, and identify it, for the record the paragraph that you're referrlng to. A I think they're on pages 11 and 12. They're paragraph '0' and 'P' of the revised agreement. Q Let me just glance at that. After these hearings ended, do you have any recollection of reducing to writing yourself anything that was discussed or agreed to in those negotiatin sessions that took place during the hearings? GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 A Are you asking if I wrote anything, or if I have any recollection of anyone writing anything? Q A Yes. I don't recall when that was done, or how that was done. I did not write anything. Q Okay. Do you recall if you took any notes during those negotiating sessions? A I probably did because I usually always did . But I don't have any idea where they are. But I'm just sort of a note-taker, so I probably wrote some things down at some point. But I don't have them, as far as I know because I've gone through a lot of files since then. Q That would have been the kind of thing that you would have left at the district, or taken with you -- if you know? A I don't know. I took a lot of things home. And -- but there were just volumes and tons of stuff, as you know. And I have no idea where any of that might be -- probably in my rough notes that I took with me. But I wouldn't have any idea whether I saved them or not. Q After those hearings concluded in September of '89, do you have any recollection of the pooling matter coming to your attention or being anything that you were working on, o directing anyone to work on any time before you left in June of '92? A There were some discussion about that with Chip Jones GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE f 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 and Herb Cleek. And I did not work directly with that, except to -- my concern was always that you make sure that the students who move from our district to Pulaski County are not shortchanged in terms of any per pupil expenditure that were being spent for them; and that the pattern of funding for the interdistrict schools would be similar to that of the magnet schools, not necessarily in terms of the exact amount, but that there would be an amount identified that would be spent for the students who attended those schools. And my concern was that we would not want our kids to be going to the Pulaski County School District, and receiving less per pupil in any kind of significant way, other than what they had received and would have received had they stayed with us. Q Other than that recollection, do you have any recollection or knowledge of any work or analysis that Mr. Cleek or Mr. Jones may have done, . either during your tenure or thereafter? A I don't recall seeing anything in writing that they produced. Q We can look at some of the language -- the paragraph '0,' page 12 of the agreement, the particular sentence that says, 11The instructional budgets of the interdistrict school will be equalized.\" Let me ask you first, in 1989, if I had GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE f 50 I J 224-6409  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 asked you in that room what an instructional budget was, what would you have told me? A I would have told you that that included, to my knowledge, everything except transportation and capital outlay. That's generally what I think the state understood a per pupil expenditure to mean. That would have been instructional costs, excluding generally those two items building buildings and transportation. Q Since we all know that at one time you headed the State Department of Education, could you direct me at all to any document or book, or anything like that, out there that woul use the term 'instructional budget;? A I don't think that that term was used, though I think the term 'per pupil expenditure' was used, which has typically been understood to be synonymous generally with th term 'instructional budget.' And that appears, as I recall, in the document that's produced yearly by the state that compares districts throughout the state in a number of ways. And one of those is on the basis of per pupil expenditure. And I think that that term is defined perhaps in the front o that book, or somewhere. Or it's been generally understood to mean instructional costs, or the cost of educating the child that's spent on a district basis. Q Do you have any idea, then, why the settlement GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE ( 50 I J 224-6409 ]. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 J.0 ]. ]. J.2 J.3 - J.4 J.5 J.6 ]. 7 ]. 8 J.9 20 21. 22 23 24 25  J.3 agreement used the expression 'instructional budget,' rather than 'per pupil expenditure'? A No, I don't know why that term would have been used particularly. I can't really say other than to limit it from capital outlay and transportation, which were of course big issues to the state in terms of not being included in the calculation of that cost. Q One of the things Chris and I have been puzzling over is trying to figure out who wrote this language. Do you know? A No. Q Do you recall being shown it during, or shortly after the conclusion of the hearing? A I don't recall when I saw it first. You know, we went over the settlement agreement several different times, and under several different -- for several different reasons. And I don't really recall the first time that I saw the language. Q Do you recall reviewing it before your board president signed off on it? A I don't recall. Q Do you believe that the language in paragraph '0' is inconsistent with your recollection of what was agreed to an anticipated? A No, I don't think that it's inconsistent with what I agreed to at all. GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 Q Does the term 'operating budget' mean anything to you? A Yes. Q What does that mean? A Well, it means that that's the budget that's used to pay for the day to day operations -- general types of operations -- of the district. It would not include, as I recall -- and again, I'm talking from memory here. It would not include perhaps some fixed categories of funds that woul be set aside for various purposes that would not be considered as part of the day to day operational needs of the district. Q So then, operating budget or operations budget would not be equivalent to per pupil expenditure? A However, I think it's very much included in a per pupil expenditure. Per pupil expenditure would be a part of, I would think, the operating budget of the school district . Q But an operating budget is something that is more inclusive than per pupil expenditure? A It might, but I don't know how to -- I don't recall ho to break down the category exactly. But it might be more tha that. But I don't -- I'd have to give that some thought in terms of what specific categories might be included. I just haven't thought about it in awhile . Q Other than your recollections, have you been asked to give any kind of professional opinions in this hearing? GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 A No. Q You did review some work sheets that you understand were prepared by someone at the county. Do you have any reaction to those? A The reaction that I had was that the work sheets as I viewed them were not consistent with what I understood to be the intent of paragraphs '0' and 'P' from the September version of the settlement agreement. Q Okay. Chris, I'll need to explore that if you're going to really get into that with Ruth -- if you're going to get into methodology, and all that . MR. HELLER: I did not inten? to get into methodology with Ruth, other than her understanding of what the terms of the settlement agreement meant . I'll probably talk to Don and Chip about the methodology, and whether or not that reflects our position on what the settlement agreement means. But I don't expect to have Ruth work through the work sheets and talk about methodology . BY MR. JONES: Q Then let me just ask her this question. What was it as you reviewed those that seemed to be inconsistent with pooling? A The inconsistency, seems to me was that the calculation did not reflect attention to all of the students in the interdistrict schools, but only those who were M to M GIBSON-BRANTON RE PORTING SERVICE r so 1 J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 transfers, so that what you would have would be a situation where an amount of money would be spent on some students that would not be spent on others in the pool. The intent of the pooling, as I understood it, was to make sure that all the students who attended the interdistrict schools, whether M to M transfers or not would be given the same amount per child -- per pupil expenditure per child in those schools . Q Let me ask you this. What's the state of your knowledge about how those interdistrict schools are being funded today , and what has been spent at the schools? A I don't know, because I don't know Apart from the agreement to -- for the sending district and the receiving district, and the amount that's contributed, and the $200,000 per year by Pulaski County, I have to assume that that's par of the issue . So I don't really know exactly how they're being funded at this particular time. Q I want to make sure that I understand your testimony. Let's take Crystal Hill Elementary School . . Do you have any information that any child at Crystal Hill that may from the county is having more or less spent on his or her education there than a child that transferred to Little Rock. A I don't have any information about that. I would have to look at a school budget to see, I suppose, how that would work. GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE (501 J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q If you've got 340 kids from Little Rock there, and 380 kids from the county there, and they're all in the same programs, would you give me a hypothetical about how more might be spent on the county kids versus the Little Rock kids? 17 A Well, the issue, I think has to do with the kids who are there who are not M to M transfers, but who would be attending the school anyway, so that the amount per child would be equalized for all of the kids who are in attendance at the school. And that I think is one of the issues, is that we didn't anticipate in the agreement that there would be a difference in the amount per child in a school so that the pool would be created by virtue of the process of sendin and receiving districts, and the pool of money from Pulaski County. I may not be answering your question. MR. HELLER: Sam, maybe I can help. Ruth's testimony wasn't that the problem might be that different amounts would be spent on Little Rock kids versus Pulaski County kids in a Pulaski County school; but that less might be spent on all the kids in a Pulaski County school versus a Little Rock school. MR. JONES: Yeah, and I thought she said both . That's why I was exploring the form of it. If you will stipulate that's not what she was trying to tell me, I'll ge GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE fSOIJ 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 on to something else. MR. HELLER : Well, you can probably ask her that, but that was my understanding of the testimony. THE WITNESS: Yes, that's right. BY MR. JONES: Q So what Chris said is right? You'll have to say, \"yes,\" for the record . A Yes. Q All right . Let's go, then, to comparing any county school, interdistrict, to any Little Rock school , interdistrict. Do you have any information or knowledge that any of the county interdistrict schools are spending less than any one of the Little Rock interdistrict schools? A I don't have information about that. I ' ve not looked at anything that would show any kinds of comparison. Q We introduced quite a few exhibits in the on the first day that we had of the pooling hearing . To your knowledge, with the exceptions of work sheets of the county, have you seen any of those? A Now, when you're talking about the pooling hearing, which one are you referring to? Q Well A Date-wise? Q Well, the one we had a couple of months ago. A So your question is what, again? GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q To your knowledge, except for work sheets from the county, have you been shown, or have you seen any of the exhibits that were introduced at that hearing? A No. Q I take, then, you have not seen any correspondence or 19 memoranda that may repose in a file of the Little Rock School District? A No . Q I'll have to ask Chris. Do you anticipate between now and -- when do we go back -- Thursday? MR. HELLER: Thursday. MR. JONES: Showing her any of that? MR. HELLER: Well, as I recall, Sam, none of that correspondence was directed to her. MR. JONES: after she left. MR . HELLER: Oh no, she -- I think it all started I don't anticipate doing that. But if there's something that you want to ask her about correspondence -- MR. JONES: MR. HELLER: Well, I hate to drag it all out. Well, I think beyond the types of things she's testified on here already, there's nothing that correspondence that I would ask her about that is beyon the opinions that she has given so far this morning. [Whereupon parties went off the record.] GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r so 1 J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [Back on the record.] BY MR. JONES : Q We can go back for a few minutes to the negotiations 20 that were occurring in September of '89, and I want to rule out some things unless some of this jogs your memory . I take it you have no recollection of the county and Little Rock being involved in a scenario where there was two million dollars left that the state was going to provide. And the issue came down to who's going to get what part of that. Let's stop right there. Does any of that ring any bells? A In terms of the discussion that went on at that time about that? Q Yeah. A I don't recall except that it was there. And no, I don't recall any detailed discussions about that at all. Q Do you remember the figure two million dollars being mentioned? Is that a yes? A Yes sorry. Q And this may not be important, but do you remember who on behalf of the Little Rock district agreed to the pooling concept? A I can't recall exactly how that came about. I think there was some. discussion of that with Herb Cleek, with Chip, with the state, with you and Chris. But where the idea GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE (SOIJ 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - 21 originated in whose head -- I really don't recall. Q Yeah. Right now I'm beyond that and asking you when it was on the table, after it had been discussed, do you recall who on behalf of the Little Rock School District approved it? A No, I don't remember. Q Could it have been someone other than you? A I doubt that anyone on my staff -- I'm certain that if the idea originated from Herb or from James Jennings, or fro Chip, or from all three, that they would have communicated it to me, explained it to me, and that I would have agreed to it. But in terms of anything beyond that, I don't recall. Q I'm just kind of curious. You include both paragraphs '0' and 'P,' as being somehow pertinent to the pooling issue. What does 'P' have to do with it? A It's just one of the ones that got added, that was not in the March agreement. Q Okay. A It really doesn't have any relevance, other than it was just one of the ones that was added that made that document little different from the earlier document. Q I've never gone back and compared them. Do you even have old drafts? MR. HELLER: I've got the March agreement. And I can tell you that the last paragraph in that section in the March agreement was probably 'M,' rededicated millages. GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JONES: 22 Ah, yes . What I -- I don't think this really matters. But it looks to me like section '0' was probably just added to. It looks like this first part was probably agreement. probably it had to have been in the original MR. HELLER : I don't think so. MR . JONES: Yeah, you're right, because that's wha that was one of my fusses. THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. BY MR . JONES : Q Ruth, I think you touched on this. And you may have answered it fully and I've just forgotten. Do you have any recollection during those hearings -- before those hearings -- of the county taking the position that the receiving district for an M to M student should receive state payments that would be made to the sending district? A What I recall is that the sending district would receive half the table rate. The receiving, _or host district would receive the full cost of educating the child. That's what I remember. Q Well, do you remember the county taking the position that that ought to change? A No. Q Okay. So I take it, then, having no recollection of th county taking that position, that you do not have a GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE (501 J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 recollection that one of the reasons pooling came about was to resolve that issue? A Well, my recollection about pooling is that it was done to create just simply that -- a pool of money through which spending could be equalized for the students in the interdistrict schools. That was the purpose of it, as I understood it and as I recall it. But I don't remember the county taking a position about that particular part of it . Q Understanding that, do you have any recollection or explanation of why something like section '0' was not in the original agreement? A Well, other than the fact that it hadn't been fully determined how this was going to work at that point. And that was one of the things that, I suppose, we had not come to agreement on fully at that point, or it had been overlooked - - one or the other . Q And I had forgotten this. I guess when we started that process, you were representing the state . And when we ended that process, you were representing Little Rock. A Yeah, things were on kind of a fast track there for awhile. Q Do you have any recollection of any time of instructing Chip Jones to evaluate the settlement agreement with the state for any possible changes to propose? A To negotiate with the state? GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE ( 501 J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 Q Or to even just think about it, to make a recommendation to do that? A I think that there was some -- some feeling at some point -- and I'm trying to recall the sequence of dates. When we got the approval from the Eighth Circuit -- the final approval -- was it December of '90? Q Right. A That there was some suggestion again, this is very far back in my memory -- that there might be the opportunity to talk about with the parties some changes that might make the plan more workable. And I don't remember issuing Chip a directive to do that. But I remember talking about certainl exploring whatever avenues we could to make sure that we had a workable agreement. I don't recall suggesting any kinds o changes in the agreement with regard to the interdistrict school. Q I understand you're doing consulting-type work these days? A [witness nods head up and down.] Q Just out of curiosity, can you give me some examples of what you're doing and for whom? A I'm primarily working in the area of curriculum development, and in grant writing -- school districts and co-ops -- ranging all the way from early childhood education to professional development, and helping districts write GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r so 1J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 curriculum based on the requirements of Act 236. And that's primarily what I've done. Some staff development, and some areas like authentic assessment and dimensions of learning -- things like that. Q I think this happened after you left, but let me ask you anyway. Do you have any recollection of being involved in appointing people to any committees that may have been set up to consider curriculum themes for interdistrict schools? A No. Q Do you have a recollection that that was to be done at some point in time? A I think it -- I think yes, I can say that. I don't recall exactly when or how, but we did that with regard to there was a lot of discussion, for example, with regard to themes in the incentive schools. So it would make sense tha at some point there was some discussion about that with regard to the interdistrict schools. Q I think I asked you if you talked to Chris, or anyone else -- I just want to make sure. I take it you have not discussed the pooling issue with Chip Jones? A No. Q Did Chris ask you to look through anything -- A Wait, let me back up. Do you mean in relationship Q Recently? A No. GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q 26 Has Chris or anyone else asked you to look through your papers to -- to look to see if there is anything about pooling in your papers? A Not that I recall, no. Q And I think I asked you this, and just out of your own curiosity, have you looked through any of  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1652","title":"Court Filings concerning incentive school funding \"pooling\" issue, fact finding and conclusion of the law, and portable buildings motion","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":["1996-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School buildings","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning incentive school funding \"pooling\" issue, fact finding and conclusion of the law, and portable buildings motion"],"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/1652"],"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":["101 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; District Court, motion for leave to file reply; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' reply brief; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) proposed findings and fact and conclusions of law regarding the pooling agreement; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) second submission regarding ''pooling'' issues; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) proposed findings of fact; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) proposed conclusions of law; District Court, amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplemental motion regarding portable buildings; District Court, motion to extend time; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  RECEIVED JAN 5 1995 FILED a of Desegregahon Morn1orm~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN O 4 1996  JAMES w. M~ORMAC_K, CLERK By: .(, ~ \\.t,\\ y,Q f\u003e,, -- v DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plainrifl: vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL.       LR-C-82-866          Intervenors,   KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL.   lntervenors.  ORDER The Court has received the proposed 1995-96 budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). See docket entry# 2567. Having carefully reviewed the budget, and there being no objections by the parties, the Court finds that the proposed 1995-96 budget for ODM should be and hereby is approved in its entirety. SO ORDERED this 4th day ofJanuary 1996 . fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH Rl,JLE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON I It/ 9? sv_v_1 --- 2 5 9 9 Cht.c k O YJ J;;''1 . \u0026'/ ;41 / _fc,6m1JS1 b l1_ ----------- ----------------- Ji\\N 1 9 ,996 FILED EAS-H/N ~1 1ffl','tt- CAAOURT KANSAS JAN 1 7 199' . t oeseQregation Monitonn~ o Office o JAMES W M ---- ___.. .......... IN---THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~T  cCORMACI(, JLERK ----- EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 0PClRlt 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. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership MOTION POR LBAVB TO FILE REPLY PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENOR The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to afford them any opportunity to respond to the submission filed herein on behalf of Servicemaster Management Services dated January a, 1996. The response raises and addresses several cases which were not raised and discussed in our brief and motion for reconsideration. There is no prejudice to the Little Rock School District or Servicemaster by allowing such a submission. We also note that the LRSD has taken no position regarding wither the position of Servicemaster or Joshua. We further request five days beyond the date of an order granting permission to submit a reply in which to file our response. ,I I' Undersigned counsel is authorized to say that counsel for LRSD and Servicemaster have no objection to this 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 via U.S. mail to all counsel of record on January, 1996. was delivered day of  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN 1 8 1996 JAMESjW. Mrf\\ORMACK, CLERK By: ',Ir 0\\,__/( \\\\,') u.-Q-. .'- \\.. \u003c. OEP Cl.fRJ( PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1 1 ET AL R~ ~ ~ij\\\\/~\" DEFENDANTS g;.~~~ ~j ' MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL .lt.\\N 1 f 1996 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Offi A Limited Partnership ice of Do.se~regation iv.or.itor;l1JNTERVENORS ORDER Upon motion of the Joshua Intervenors, and there being no objections, the time for filing a reply to the Servicemaster submission dated January 8, 1996, is hereby extended to and including January 26, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of January 1996. rHIS DOCUME;tlT r.:rriSRED ON DOC:(ET SHEET IN .,;{)MPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP aN -t/lo/'?L ~v t1==- fim _ T JUDGE 2604 ,. . .. -- . . ,. . : . . .. .. - ... : ...... ... . . . . . . . , . . ~ -:. - ... ... : . .  f ilED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF .ARKANSAS JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DISTRICT By: ------\"\"'!:O~EP,-C-LE-RK-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. PLAINTIFFS v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. REce,,,eo--. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. .ltlN 3 0 1996 KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET. AL. Office of Desegr . ti SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, ega on Monitoring A Limited Partnership - ~----- __ ...... - --......,.._ , .. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REPLY BRIEF INTERVENORS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENOR The Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion and a Brief in Support of Reconsideration and Completion of Hearing regarding settlement between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and Joshua Intervenors. ServiceMaster has intervened in the matter as a party of interest since its contract with LRSD is involved. A hearing was held in December of 1995 and the Court issued a subsequent Order on December 11, 1995 in which it refused to rule on the merits of whether a settlement between LRSD and Joshua Intervenors existed. Instead the Court ruled that a provision in the contract between ServiceMaster and LRSD was against public policy and could not be enforced. Joshua Intervenors then filed its Motion for Reconsideration. ServiceMaster responded that the provision was not a termination clause and the Court should examine the intent of the parties as to the provision in question. The provision in question, Section 14 .12 entitled Pending Litigation, reads as follows: Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement a motion to enjoin School from entering this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County School District No. 1, et. al., No. LR-C-82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereafter have, arising out of or in any way relating, directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this Agreement. (emphasis added) School is under no obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, the School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the Court or otherwise) of that litigation. The Court stated this ~revision allowed one party to unilaterally escape its obligation without a similar provision to the other and was against public policy. The Court did not address the merits of whether there was a settlement between LRSD and Joshua Intervenors. Joshua Intervenors have requested that the Court reconsider its ruling on the grounds that the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that clauses in contracts that allow termination without cause are not against any established Arkansas public policy. ServiceMaster responded that Joshua Intervenors analogized the case improperly. Review of Joshua Intervenors' Brief in Support of the Motion for Reconsideration will show that Joshua cited the case for the law and not for the facts. The law was simply that a party may unilaterally terminate a contract and it does not go against any established Arkansas public policy. Union Nat. Bank v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n, 860 F.2d 847, 853 (8th Cir. 1988). The termination without clause did provide for a termination fee to be paid to Union. Union, 860 F.2d at 849. Next, ServiceMaster argued the intent of the parties was to be bound to the contract. The dominant rule is that the interpretation of a contract is controlled by the intention of the parties, and it is the duty of the courts to ascertain and give - effect to the meaning and intent of the parties as expressed in the language used. Les-Bil v. General Waterworks, 256 Ark. 905, 511 S.W.2d 166 (1974). The express language used in the provision made \"the School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the Court or otherwise) of that litigation\" --namely the motion in the school case concerning the ServiceMaster contract. When ServiceMaster entered into this Agreement it was fully aware of pending litigation. With full knowledge, ServiceMaster expressly agreed to be bound until a settlement or Court order terminated the contract. It is clear that ServiceMaster intended to be bound until a settlement or Court order terminated the contract. The Arkansas Court of .Appeals has held that parol evidence is .. . ... - . .. not admissible to show subjective intent of the parties. ThT rule does not allow a party to prove by oral testimony that clear and unambiguous words were subjectively intended to have a meaning not fairly attributable to them. Martin v. Martin, 6 Ark.App. 18, 637 S.W.2d 612 (1982). ServiceMaster cited a case which held that\" [i)t is a wellestablished principle of law that, in the interpretation or construction of the contract, the construction the parties themselves have placed on the contract is entitled to great weight, and will generally be adopted by the courts in giving effect to its provisions. This is especially true in cases of ambiguity in the written contract.\" Worthen Bank \u0026 Trust Co. v. Adair, 15 Ark .App. 144, 151, 690 S.W.2d 727, 731 (En Banc 1985). There is no ambiguity in the provision. The intent of the parties is clearly expressed in the provision, Section 14.12. The construction is that settlement or an order from the Court will terminate the contract. The objective manifestation of intent, not subjective manifestation, is what the court examines. The Court ruled that the provision, Section 14.12, was against public policy and refused to rule on the merits of the case. Joshua Intervenors motion that, in light of case law stating a provision which allows termination, even by only one party, is not against any established Arkansas public policy, the Court reconsider its ruling. In addition, Joshua Intervenors request that the Court determine whether LRSD and Joshua Intervenors entered - into settlement which serves as grounds for termination ot the contract between LRSD and ServiceMaster. In addition, since ServiceMaster was not a party to the litigation when the contract was entered, it is unreasonable to interpret the last sentence of 14.12 to include ServiceMaster as a party involved in any settlement. For the foregoing reasons, the reasons advanced by Servicemaster in oposition to reconsideration should be rejected. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 BJryiCW:a~lkeru !~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing d, delivered to all counsel of record via U.S. mail on this _ _____. ___ day of January, 1996. ~id~~ iiw.walker JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 . l~M 3 0 ,996 Oflice ot Desegregation Momtcring ENCLOSURE MEMORANDUM DATE: January 26, 1996 TO: Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry Malone, Esq. c/o Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam .Jones, Esq. \\Nright, Linrlsey \u0026 JAnnings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 FROM: John W. Walker, Esq. Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell \u0026 Streett 401 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 504 Little Rock, AR Ms. Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim Humphries, Esq. Attorney General's Office 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, Ar 72201 RE: LRSD, et al. v. PCSSD, et al.; NO. LR-C-82-866 - ENCLOSURES: Joshua lntervenors' Reply Brief HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (11221114) ROBERT V. LIGHT, r . A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, ,.A . JAMES W . MOOIU I - YRON M . EISEMAN , JR . ,, . A . OE 0. BELL, ,, .A. OHN C . ECHOLS, ,,.A . JAMES A . BUTTNY . ,, . A . FREDERICKS . UNSERY. , . A . H . T. LARZELEIH,. ,,.A . OSCAft E. DAVIS, JR . f' . A . JAMES C . CLARK, JR . , , . A . THOMAS r. LEGGETT, t' . A . JOHN DEWEY WATSON, ,, ,A. PAUL I . BENHAM Ill, ,, . A. LARRY W. BURKS , r . A . A . WYCKLIFF NISBET, Jft., ,,.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P. A . J . PHILllr MALCOM, r.A . JAMES M . SIMrSON, ,,.A . MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P .A. JAMES M . SAXTON , P . A. J . SHE,,HERD RUSSELL Ill, P . A. DONALD H . IACON , ,,.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, , . A . WALTER A . PAULSON II, r . A . BARRY E. COPLIN , P . A . RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR , ,,,A. JOSEPH 8. HURST , JR ., , . A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, r . A . CHRISTOPHER HELLER . , . A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, , . A . ROBERTS . SHAFER , P . A . WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill, r.A. THOMAS N . ROSE , P. A . MICHAELS. MOORE. ,.A . DIANE S . MACKEY , P.A. WALTER M . EBEL Ill , P . A . KEVIN A . CRASS. P. A. WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR .  , . A . FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026, CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 5013782011 FAX NO. 601-378-2147 January 26, 1996 ,/AN 2 9 1996 Offic e of Desegregation M 0nlH.l1111g Hon. James W. McCormack Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 W. Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Re: Little Rock School District, et al vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack CLYDE TAI TUflNCR, P.A . CALVIN J. HALL. ~. A . ICOTT J . LANCAITEft, P. A . JERflY L. MALONE, P. A . M . GAYLE CORLEY, , . A . ROIERT I . BEACH, JPI . , P. A . J . LEE BROWN, P. A . JAMES C . IA~EII, Jft., r . A . H . CHARLES OICHWENO, JR . r .A. HARflY A . LIGHT, , . A . SCOTT H . TUCKER, r . A . JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH, r.A. GUY Al TON WADE, P . A . PfllCE C . GARDNER, P. A . J. MICHAEL riCKENS, r . A . TONIA r . JONES , r . A . DAVID 0 . WILSON, P. A . JEFFREY H . MOOIIE, P.A. ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M . GRAF CA\"LA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C . FENDLEY, JR . ALLISON O\"AVES JOHANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHIIISTOrHER LAWSON GREGORY D , TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRANC , HICKMAN IETTY J . DEMORY IARIARA J . RAND JAMES W, SMITH CLIFFORD W. P'LUNKETT WILL BONO DANIELL. HERRINGTON COVNlll WILLIAM J . SMITH WILLIAM A . ELOIIEOGE, Jft . , P.A . l,S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TEflRY, l\" . A . WILLIAM L. rATTON , JR ., P. A. WfUTflll ' I OIIUCT NO , (6011 370-3323 Enclosed herewith please .find an original and three copies of the Little Rock School District's Proposed Findings and Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding the Pooling Agreement with regard to the above-captioned matter. Please file same and return a file marked copy to us. By copy of this letter we are serving all counsel of record. JCFjr/cf Enclosures cc: Mr. John Walker (w/encl.) Mr. Sam Jones (w/encl.) Mr. Steve Jones (w/encl.) Sincerely, J~~f!~. ,er Mr. Richard Roachell) (w/encl.) Ms. Ann Brown (w/encl.) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger (w/encl.) Hon. Susan Webber Wright (w/encl.) 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 .IM.J 2 9 1996 Office of Desegregation Monau1 u 'Y LRSD'S PROPOSED .FINDINGS AND FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF- I;AW  - - -- .. REGARDING THE POOLING AGREEMENT INTRODUCTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS This action concerns implementation of the September 1989 Settlement Agreement (\"Settlement Agreement\") in the above-styled case. The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") moved for an order requiring the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") to pay PCSSD $167,113.00 in majority-to-minority (\"M-to-M\") payments received by LRSD from the State of Arkansas based on Section II, Paragraph o of the Settlement Agreement (the \"Pooling Agreement\"). LRSD responded to PCSSD's motion alleging that LRSD was released from its pooling obligations by PCS SD' s anticipatory breach. Based on the party's pleadings, this Court ruled that, even assuming PCSSD was in breach, the clauses of the Pooling Agreement at issue were unrelated and ordered LRSD to pay PCSSD $167,113.00. appealed. LRSD On appeal, the Eighth Circuit vacated this Court's order and directed it to \"take evidence regarding the purposes of the clauses at issue.\" See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 60 F.3d 435, 436 (8th Cir. 1995). The Eighth Circuit specifically identified the following issues to be addressed on remand: (1) Was the Pooling Agreement a means to facilitate equalization; (2) What was meant by the term \"equalize\"; (3) Whether the \"instructional budgets\" of interdistrict schools are equalized; and, (4) Why is there no central account into which pooled moneys are deposited? Id., at 436-37. Following hearings during which both parties presented evidence, this Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 52. Any other statement in this opinion which may be deemed a finding of fact is also adopted as such. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Background. 1. The Pooling Agreement resolved two disputes between LRSD and PCSSD. The first dispute concerned $2 million to be paid by the State of Arkansas as a part of the Settlement Agreement. The original version of the Settlement Agreement contained formulas by which the State would make payments to LRSD and PCSSD. The final version of the Settlement Agreement converted those formulas to a fixed stream of payments. This conversion resulted in $2 million in state settlement funds to which both LRSD and PCSSD claimed entitlement. 2 3. The second dispute related to M-to-M payments from the State. The M-to-M Stipulation provides, \"The state shall pay the costs for full-time equivalent students who have been transferred to the host district.\" (Docket No. 706). PCSSD argued that this provision required the State to pay the host district the home district's average per student cost. This would have increased the amount of M-to-M payments to PCS SD because LRSD' s average per student cost was greater than PCSSD's. 4. PCSSD's argument was inconsistent with the State's interpretation of the M-to-M Stipulation and its practice of paying the host district its average per student cost. (Transcript, v. I 1 , p. 114-15; Transcript, v. II, p. 125). Dr. Donald Stewart, PCSSD's Chief Financial Officer, testified: I supported Mr. Sam Jones' ... argument that we really should be receiving (LRSD's) average cost for educating a student because -- based on the theory -- well, I'm not sure based on what. It was a good argument because it would have given us more money. (Transcript, v. I, p. 115]. 2 5. The Pooling Agreement provides: 1) In any application for aid pursuant to Section 6 of 1The transcript of the September 9, 1995, hearing is cited as volume I, and the transcript of the December 14, 1995, hearing is cited as volume II. 2Dr. Stewart later offered as a basis for PCSSD's argument that LRSD students are more expensive to educate. However, Dr. Stewart admitted that he was not aware of any evidence that LRSD M-to-M transfer students would be more expensive to educate than PCSSD students. (Transcript, v. II, p. 123). Dr. Stewart further admitted that even assuming PCSSD was spending a little more on LRSD M-to-M transfer students, PCSSD was not spending as much per student as LRSD. [Transcript, v. II, p. 124). 3 Act 24 of the 1989 Regular Session of the Arkansas General Assembly, the receiving district for M to M students may include in such application any M to M students it hosts who are eligible for participation pursuant to section 6(A) of said Act. 2) The State shall continue to make payments under the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation so that the host district receives its average cost of educating a student for each M to M transfer student enrolled in the host district. 3) When at least one Interdistrict School is operating in LRSD and PCS SD, all M to M payments generated by Interdistrict School students paid by the state to LRSD and PCSSD (including payment to each district as sending district and receiving district), except transportation payments, will be pooled for the education of all Interdistrict School students. The instructional budgets of the Interdistrict Schools will be equalized. This provision does not change each district's obligation to construct and maintain the Interdistrict Schools within its boundaries. The State payments for M to M students not enrolled in Interdistrict Schools will continue in accordance with paragraph (2) above. 4) Beginning the first year an operating in LRSD and PCSSD, $200,000 per year for five years be used by both districts to Schools. (Settlement Agreement 2, 1 0). Interdistrict School is PCSSD will contribute to the pool of funds to operate Interdistrict 6. Both LRSD (Romine and Washington) and PCSSD (Baker) had interdistrict schools operating in the 1991-92 school year. (Transcript, v. I, p. 97). B. Was the Pooling Agreement a means to facilitate equalization? 7. Al though PCS SD originally contended that the sentences in paragraph three of the Pooling Agreement concerning pooling and equalization were unrelated and \"simply happen to appear in the same section of the Settlement Agreement,\" (Docket No. 2101], PCSSD's own witnesses testified at trial that the provisions are 4 related. Dr. Stewart testified: Q: And section 110 11 is all part of one agreement made to resolve those issues that arose after the March settlement? A. That is correct. Q. And the component parts of section 110 11 are all related to each other? A. Yes. [Transcript, v. II, p. 11). PCSSD Superintendent Bobby Lester's testimony was identical to that of Dr. Stewart. [Lester Depo., p. 6 J . 8. The fact that pooling and equalization are described in consecutive sentences in the same paragraph of the Pooling Agreement also indicates that the provisions are related. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the final sentence in that paragraph begins, \"This provision . ,\" referring to the entire paragraph. [Settlement Agreement II, 1 0(3)). 9. How the provisions are related was explained by Dr. Ruth Steele who was LRSD Superintendent from July of 1989 through June 30, 1992, [Steele Depa . , p. 4), and who was involved in negotiating the Pooling Agreement. [See Steele Depo., p. 6-7). Dr. Steele testified that the funds in the pool were to \"be used for the education of students attending the interdistrict schools\" and that \"the amount that would be spent would be equalized so that no students from either district would be penalized in terms of a per pupil expenditure . . . . \" [ Steele Depa. , p. 7 J . 10. PCSSD came forward with no evidence which contradicted the testimony of Dr. Steele. Even assuming such evidence exists, 5 - this Court finds Dr. Steele's testimony to be credible and gives it substantial weight. Accordingly, this Court finds that the Pooling Agreement was a means to facilitate equalization. B. What is meant by the term \"equalize\"? 11. Both LRSD and PCSSD agree (and this Court finds) that the term \"equalize\" means an equal per pupil expenditure. 12. The only contemporaneous explanation of the meaning of the Pooling Agreement was made by Chris Heller, Attorney for LRSD, during hearings before Special Master Aubrey Mccutcheon on September 26 and 27, 1989. [Transcript, v. I, p. 124; Transcript v. II, p. 14). 3 In explaining the Pooling Agreement to the Special Master, Heller stated: Another issue that has been resolved is that once interdistrict schools are operating in both Little Rock and Pulaski County, the state funding generated by those interdistrict[) students4 would be pooled and the operation budgets for those two schools or whatever number of schools would be equalized so that interdistrict students. whether attending school in Pulaski County or Little Rock. would have the same amount spent for their education. [Transcript, v. II, p. 13 (emphasis supplied)). 13. Dr. Stewart agreed that the Pooling Agreement, as explained by Heller, required an equal per pupil expenditure: Q. Now, if we assume that equalizing instructional 3At these hearings, the parties were seeking approval of the Settlement Agreement, and the Special Master was attempting to determine whether there was, in fact, an agreement among the parties. [Transcript, v. II, p. 12). 4LRSD and PCSSD agree that only M-to-M payments are to be pooled and not all state funding generated by interdistrict school students. [Transcript, v. II, p. 43-44). 6 budgets means that the same amount is going to be spent for the education of students, whether they go to school in the Pulaski County School District or the Little Rock School District, doesn't that mean you would have to build your budget based on an agreed upon equal per student expenditure? A. Under that assumption, yes. * * * Q. In order to have the same amount spent for their education, don't you have to develop a budget based on an equal per pupil expenditure? A. Technically, yes. [Transcript, v. II, p. 43-44). Dr. Stewart admitted that the \"assumption\" made in the above question was exactly what Heller reported to the Special Master was the intent of the Pooling Agreement. (Transcript, v. II, p. 43-44]. Dr. Stewart also admitted that a budget can be prepared based on a predetermined per pupil amount. (Transcript, v. II, p. 39). An interdistrict school's budget could then be calculated by multiplying the number of students by the established per pupil budget. II, p. 44-45). (Transcript, v. 14. The parties agree that the funds from the pool should be distributed on a per student basis but disagree as to which students should be counted for the purpose of distribution. (See Transcript, v. II, p. 41-42). PCSSD contends that only M-to-M transfer students attending interdistrict schools should be considered. LRSD argues that all interdistrict school students should be considered. The Pooling Agreement is unambiguous in this regard. It provides, \"[A]ll M-to-M payments generated by Interdistrict School students . 7 will be pooled for the education of all Interdistrict School students. 11 [Settlement Agreement  II, 1 O ( 3) ( emphasis supplied) ] . Thus, the plain language of the Pooling Agreement states that the relevant student population for distribution of the pool is \"all Interdistrict School Students.\" 15. Even assuming the Pooling Agreement to be ambiguous in this regard, the evidence presented a trial further supports the conclusion that the parties intended the pool to be distributed based on the total number of interdistrict school students. 16. In addition to resolving the disputes noted above, the Pooling Agreement served two additional purposes. First, both districts were concerned that the M-to-M Stipulation would work to the advantage of the other and viewed pooling as a hedge against this possibility. Depa. , p. 7 J . [Transcript, v. I, p. 10, 11 and 20; Lester Second, LRSD was concerned that LRSD students attending PCSSD interdistrict schools would not have resources spent for their education equivalent to what would be spent on the students if they remained in LRSD. 5 At the time of the agreement, LRSD was spending on average $800.00 to $900.00 more per student than PCSSD. [Transcript, v. I, p. 10). 17. Dr. Steele testified: [M)y concern was always that you make sure that the students who move from our district to Pulaski County are not shortchanged in terms of any per pupil expenditure that [would be) spent for them; and that the pattern of 5John Walker, attorney for the Joshua Intervenors, shared LRSD's concern because it would be his clients transferring from LRSD to PCSSD. [Transcript, v. I, p. 25-26). 8 funding for the interdistrict schools would be similar to that of the magnet schools, not necessarily in terms of the exact amount [spent per pupil], but that there would be an amount identified that would be spent for the students who attended those schools. 6 [Steele Depo., p. 11). Dr. Steele explained that the Pooling Agreement contemplated that \"[t]here would be a per pupil amount established\" to equalize funding for the education of \"the total student population in the interdistrict school.\" [Steele Depo., p. 9 (emphasis supplied); see also Steele Depo, p. 15-16 and 23). 18. Similarly, Earl Jones, who was LRSD Manager of Support Services from July of 1989 through June of 1991 and who was also present during the negotiation of the Pooling Agreement, [Transcript, v. II, p. 156 and 158), testified that the Pooling Agreement contemplated that LRSD and PCSSD would agree to a per - pupil budget . for all interdistrict school students. [Transcript, v. II, p. 159). Jones explained that the requirement that the budgets of the interdistrict schools be equalized was important to LRSD because LRSD was concerned that students would not \"enjoy the same type education\" in PCSSD interdistrict schools and that equalization was a means \"to help guarantee that that [would] happen.\" [Transcript, v. II, p. 178]. Jones noted that the 6Similarly, Dr. Steele testified that the funds in the pool were to \"be used for the education of students attending the interdistrict schools\" and that \"the amount that would be spent would be equalized so that no students from either district would be penalized in terms of a per pupil expenditure .... 11 [Steele Depo., p. 7). Dr. Steele stated that the Pooling Agreement was \"based on the magnet school model.\" [Steele Depo., p. 7; see also Steele Depo., p. 8-9). Finally, Dr. Steele testified that PCSSD's interpretation of the Pooling Agreement was inconsistent with the intent of the parties. (Steele Depo., p. 15 and 16.) 9  process by which the per pupil budget for the original magnet schools was established \"could easily be used\" to implement the Pooling Agreement. (Transcript, v. II, p. 159]. 19. PCSSD presented no evidence that the intent of the Pooling Agreement was to distribute the pool based on the number of M-to-M students in interdistrict schools. To the contrary, in a memo to Lester dated September 2, 1992, Dr. Stewart stated: I would suggest that the proper procedure (to implement the Pooling Agreement] would be to pool all funds, including PCSSD's $200,000.00 as called for in the agreement and then to divide these funds equally based on the number of students actually enrolled (three-quarter average daily membership) in all Interdistrict Schools. [Exhibit 343 (emphasis supplied); Transcript, v. I, p. 29]. With regard to Dr. Stewart's memo, Lester testified: Q. So if you're going to implement what Dr. Stewart said in [his September 2, 1992] memo, then we would take the total pool of M to M funds, plus the county's $200,000 and divide by the total number of interdistrict school students, third quarter enrollment, right? A. Right. (Lester Depa., p. 24 (emphasis supplied)]. Dr. Stewart agreed that his methodology fails to take into account two requirements of the Pooling Agreement: (1) that instructional budgets be equalized, and (2) that the funds be pooled for the benefit of all interdistrict school students. (Transcript, v. II, p. 42-43]. on the contrary, Dr. Stewart acknowledged that the interpretation of the Pooling Agreement urged by LRSD is entirely consistent with the language of the agreement. [Transcript, v. II, p. 44-45]. 20. On the bottom half of Exhibit 382, Dr. Stewart demonstrated the results if the pool was divided based on the total 10 number of interdistrict school students. Dr. Stewart conceded that the methodology applied on the bottom half "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1663","title":"Court Filings: District Court, affidavit of John W. Walker","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Walker, John W."],"dc_date":["1995-11-21"],"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","Educational law and legislation","Education--Economic aspects","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, affidavit of John W. Walker"],"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/1663"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["37 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Walker, John W."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,, I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. LR-C-82-866 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. WALKER STATE OF ARKANSAS ) )ss. COUNTY OF LONOKE ) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENOR$ Come now the affiant, JOHN W. WALKER, who submits the following affidavit under oath: A. Educational and Professional Qualifications 1. I graduated from Arkansas AM\u0026N College in Pine Bluff, Arkansas in 1958 with a major in Sociology. In 1960, I was awarded a John Hay Whitney Opportunity Fellowship which I used to obtain a Master's Degree from New York University in Education (Human Relations) in 1961. In 1961, I enrolled in the Yale University Law School from which I received my law degree in 1964. At Yale Law School, in 1964, I was a finalist in the Thunnan Arnold Appellate Moot Court Competition. I have studied further at Fisk University (the Race Relations Institute) and at many legal training seminars which focused upon the subject of civil rights law in particular. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 Court 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 District of Arkansas. 3. I completed a legal training internship in New York City with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) in September, 1965. In 1965, I opened a private general law practice in Little Rock which emphasized civil rights law. In 1968, Norman Chachkin (now of the LDF) and I opened one of the first integrated law firms in the South. That law firm has continued to be operated on an integrated basis since that time although it has undergone several name changes. My own work continues to emphasize civil rights legal activity. 4. I hold membership in the American and National Bar Associations, and the W. Harold Flowers and Pulaski County Bar Associations. From 1976 to 1982, I was a member of the Arkansas Board of Examiners. I have served as a member of the Federal Rules Advisory Committee of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am a member of the Board of Directors of the LDF in New York. 5. The following is a partial listing of major cases where I have been lead counsel: Employment Paxton v Union National Bank, 688 F. 2d. 522, 574 (8th Cir. 1982); Maney v Brinkley Municipal Water Works, 802 F 2d. 1073, 1076 (8th Cir. 1986); Rogers 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I v International Paper Co., 423 U.S. 809 (1975); Powell v Georgia Pacific Paper Company, Civ. Nos. 73-C-1 and E.D. 73-C-3 (Ark. 1993); Williams v Anderson, 562 F 2d. 1081 (8th Cir. 1977); Clark v Mann, 562 F 2d. 1104 (8th Cir. 1977); Parham v Southwestern Bell, 433 F 2d. 421 (8th Cir. 1970); Robinson v Klassen, Civ. No LR-C-73-301 (E.D. Ark. 1981); McFadden v Arkansas State Hospital, Civ. No. LR-C-78-153 (E.D. 1989; 1994); Taylor v Jones, 653 F 2d. 1193 (8th Cir. 1981); Hollowell v Gravett, Civ. No. LR-C-86-600 (E.D. Ark. 1989); and Perryman v Johnson Products, 698 F 2d. 1138 (11th Cir. 1983); Hollowell and Day v. Randy Johnson, E.D. Ark., October 30, 1995 .. Education Clark v Board of Education, 705 F 2d. 265 (8th Cir. 1983); Dowell v Oklahoma City Board of Education, 890 F 2d 1483 (10th Cir. 1989); Arvizu v Board of Education of Waco, Texas, 296 F 2d. 1309 (5th Cir. 1974); Kemp v Beasley, 389 F 2d. 178 (8th Cir. 1972); Raney v Board of Education of Gould, Arkansas, 381 F.2d 252 (8th Cir. 1967); Kelley v Altheimer, 378 F 2d. 483 (8th Cir. 1967); Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District , 839 F 2d. 1296 (8th Cir. 1987), cert den., 102 L. Ed. 2d. 146 (1988); Smith v Board of Education of Morrilton, 365 F 2d. 770 (8th Cir. 1966); and Sherpell v. Humnoke School Dist. No. 5.; Rusk v. The Stuttgart School District,_ F.Supp. _, E.D. Ark. (1994). Housing 3 I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Williams v Matthews, 499 F. 2d. 819 (1974). Criminal Justice Winters v Beck, 407 F 2d. 125 (8th Cir. 1969). Public Accommodations Daniel v Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969). Voting Rights Sherpell v Humnoke, __ F.2d. __ (8th Cir. 1989); Harvell v Ladd, 978 F. 2d. 226 (8th Cir. 1992); Harvell v Ladd, __ F. 3d. __ (8th Cir. 1994); Williams v City of Texarkana. __ F. 3d. ___ (8th Cir. 1994). 6. I have served as Chairman of the Board of the Arkansas Opportunities industrialization Center (OIC), the Center for Law and Education (Cambridge, Mass.). and the Leadership Roundtable (Little Rock, Arkansas). In 1968, I was a member of the Arkansas Constitutional Revision Study Commission. In the early 1970's, I was a member of the Land Use Study Commission of the Southern Governors Conference. I have served as a member of the Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education. I have spoken or lectured at several annual meetings of the National Bar Association; the American Bar Association; other bar associations; many public colleges and many high schools regarding many subjects but primarily upon the subject of Civil Rights Law. I have also received numerous awards for my representation of civil rights causes and cases. B. Prior Work in School Desegregation Litigation in Pulaski County 7. I have a very large amount of experience concerning issues of racial discrimination and segregation in the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I school systems. My activities began in 1965 with the preparatory work and the filing of Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock, in which I was lead counsel. This case was a successor to Cooper v Aaron which had become inactive. Desegregation litigation concerning the North Little Rock Schools, in which I was also lead counsel, was initiated in 1967 in the Graves case. The Clark case was very active through 1982, when the case of Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District was filed. There were many appeals in Clark. I also became involved in desegregation litigation in the Pulaski County Special School District in approximately 1969 in the Zinamon case which was settled. The North Little Rock case also involved considerable time through the early 1980's. The level of activity in Zinaman did not approach that of the other two cases. I filed for black citizens a motion to intervene in LRSD v PCSSD, which was pressed, and denie~ j'fler the district court ruled on behalf of the LRSD regarding liability. On appeal, the Court of Appeals recognized the right of the Joshua intervenors to represent the black parent and students in the three districts. This led to the renewal of my active role in school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County, which has continued to the present. C. 8. Involvement in This Case I was an active participant throughout the negotiations in 1988 and 1989, which produced the five agreements and the settlement of this case. 9. I have done some work on this case, in its post-judgment phase, on the majority of days since June, 1990. My work has included, inter alia, the following activities: 5  I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,, I I I I , (a) negotiating a series of modifications to the agreements which resolved this case, with the revised agreements denominated by the parties the \"May 1991 Plan\"; (b) negotiating a series of stipulations to resolve issues arising in the postjudgment phase of this case; (c) preparing for, attending, and participating (by argument, as well as crossexamination and presentation of witnesses), in approximately 55 hearings scheduled by the court (not including the hearings concerning the return of Arkansas officials as defendants and the election case); ( d) raising in the hearings many significant issues not raised by other parties; (e) calling problems/issues to the attention of the attorneys for the defendants and school officials, in each of the three districts, on many occasions; (f) meeting with counsel and school officials, with ODM representatives present at times, to gather information, to present concerns, and to seek to resolve issues regarding compliance with and modification of the court-approved agreements; (g) responding to proposals for plan modification in accordance with the courtapproved procedure (see Pulaski County Plan, at 104-05); (h) attending community meetings to brief the plaintiff class on the agreements, to answer questions and to discuss particular issues, and, generally, to secure the views of the class members on the direction of the case; (i) informing ODM of the concerns of the Joshua lntervenors and responding 6 I I I I ,, I I I .I I I I I I I I I I I to questions posed by ODM personnel; 0) overseeing the work of Ms. Joy Springer, members of my firm, and other persons who have represented the Joshua lntervenors in the post-judgment phase of this case; (k) overseeing the work of Ms. Springer and the other members of the Joshua monitoring team who prepared and disseminated to the parties, ODM, the Court and the public for a period of three school years, three lengthy reports setting forth findings and recommendations regarding the three school districts; (I) assisting individual class members - by responding to inquiries and more formal representation - who were experiencing problems regarding discipline, placement, and other matters; also assisting school district staff members who were experiencing problems; (m) studying the large volume of correspondence, pleadings, reports, court orders, and other documents generated in the post-judgment phase of this case, as well as internal memoranda prepared by Ms. Springer for my use; (n) determining the need for particular correspondence and pleadings and their content; ( o) drafting correspondence and pleadings; (p) speaking in public forums to support the desegregation plan; and (q) resisting efforts to undermine the plan and to diminish the constitutional rights involved. 7 I 1 I I I I l1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 10. The documentation of my work and that of Ms. Springer for the post-settlement period shows a very considerable emphasis on assisting individual class members and school staff. This emphasis is a result of my many years of experience in this type of litigation, as well as the experiences of others, discussed in articles and when counsel litigating these kinds of cases convene. It has been recognized that what have been termed \"second generation school desegregation problems\" have often worked to defeat the improved educational opportunities for black youth, which are the goal of school desegregation. We have, therefore, worked to apply provisions of the plans to particular instances of discipline, program placement, grading practices, participation in extracurricular activities, hostile faculty and staff attitudes, and adverse treatment of staff. It is our goal that each time we work in a particular school, we not only help the class member ( or staff member) involved, but also help to educate the school staff to be more sensitive to those we represent in the future. 11. It is apparent from our time records that much of the work which we have had to do in the post-settlement period has been attributable to the inadequate implementation of the Court-approved settlements, particularly by the Little Rock School District. The Court has often recognized these compliance problems. See, for example, the Court's 8- page written statement of March 19, 1993, identifying many problems and areas of noncompliance; see also; Tr., March 29, 1993, at 17 (\"[The LRSD Board] must be driven by this plan. The plan has to drive their actions and that has not been happening clearly.\"); at 19-20 (\"But [the LRSD defendants] 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.\"); 8 I 1- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Tr., June 7, 1994 ('Well, saying that you can do this and saying 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.\"); Tr., June 29, 1994, at 54-62 (court notes inadequacies in LRSD, in budgeting practices, program evaluation, communication with the Joshua lntervenors, and community involvement). 12. We saw the settlement agreements in their totality as designed to promote desegregation, much stronger educational outcomes for black pupils, and real efforts to eliminate harsh practices affecting black youth. We perceived these agreements to require actions bespeaking the equality of all citizens. We anticipated good faith, competent implementation of the agreements. However, we have often been disappointed. We have, therefore, used every available advocacy technique, in an effort to hold the defendants to the agreements which they made, to improve their performances. We provided three detailed monitoring reports to the systems. Our goals included strengthening cooperation and helping the defendants to identify the barrirs to full equality for black students. We offered models to produce effective results in the Incentive Schools. We have taken the lead, in dealing with the State, to protect (and increase) the financial resources available to the districts. We have been conscientious in terms of preparation for and participation in the budget (and other) hearings. We have sought to promote improved budgeting practices and to prevent the waste of resouces. We have opposed harmful budget cuts. We have emphasized that considerations of equity and equality in the provisions of resources require that some new facilities be opened in the black community ( opposing the pattern of merely closing schools in our class members' neighborhoods). The intervening class does not accept \"one way'' remedies - and we 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1, I I I I t I have made that point. We have addressed issues concerning staff hiring and placement, transportation, participation in extracurricular activities, and many others. Ms. Springer and I have been available to assist class members day after day, as evidenced to our affidavits. This description and others in my affidavit are, of course, only a brief description of our efforts and accomplishments. D. My Hours In the Post-Settlement Phase of This Case 13. The attachment to this Affidavit contains 97 pages, documenting my work in the post-judgment phase of this case. While the identification of my work is the product of a reconstruction of my efforts, I am confident that it is accurate. This is so because a variety of sources, containing overlapping information, including my memory, as well as records and court documentation were used to identify particular tasks. The identification of 1,798 hours, approximately 6.4 hours per week, is very conservative. I am certain that my actual time on this case greatly exceeded the number of hours claimed. 14. One basis for my confidence that the time claimed for me is conservative is a comparison of this time with the time for which counsel for the LRSD, the NLRSD, and the PCSSD have been paid in the post-settlement period . Analyses performed in my office, utilizing documents secured by invoking the State Freedom of Information Act, show the hours worked by opposing counsel to be as follows: LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 1995 (1-8/95) 1995 (1/4/95) 1995 (March) 1029.5 hrs. \"230.75 hrs. \"29.8 hrs.  128.7 per mo. *57.7 per mo. 10 I I' I I 'I I II I 1 I I I I I ' I I I f I 1994 1994 1994 (6-19/94) *1774.3 hrs. *668.75 hrs. *148.4 hrs. *147.9 per mo. *55.7 per mo. Note: Other bl/,. show ,,.yment for WOiie throughout the period since December 1990, but not the hours claimed. 1993 (8 mo.) 1993 *1465.5 hrs. *55.0 per mo. *122.1 per mo. (1-2, 7-12/90) 1992 1992 (11 mo.) *1256.5 hrs. 555.75 hrs. *104.7 per mo. 50.5 per mo. 1991 1991 (10 mo.) *1529 hrs. 814.25 hrs. *127.4 per mo. 81.4 per mo. 1990 (4-12/90) 1990 (5 mo.) *206.75 hrs. 372.5 hrs. 74.5 per mo. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 7261.55 hrs. 3301.8 hours Incomplete While this time does include some time which we have excluded in the current motion - for example, the time involved in seeking to require state officials to comply with the settlement agreement - it is to be noted that my work is directed to all of the school 11 I I J I -1 I, I ' I I I' I I I , , , I I I districts to a greater extent than counsel representing each district, E. The Reasonable Hourly Rate and Related Matters 15. The following factors establish, I believe, that the rate sought for my work in the post-settlement phase of this case, $250.00 per hour, is a reasonable rate: (a) I was described by Circuit Judge Richard Arnold in Taylor v. Jones as a member of the bar of the ''first rank.\" In 1995, in an order awarding attorneys' fees, Judge George Howard, Jr. of this Court wrote: ''The Court notes that Walker is one of the most preeminent civil rights attorneys in the State.\" See McFadden v. Arkansas State Hospital, C.A. No. LR-C-78-153, at 3. (b) I have very extensive experience in school desegregation litigation, both generally and in Pulaski County, as detailed in paragraphs 1 through 7 of this Affidavit. (c) I regularly charge fee paying clients $250.00 per hour when they are able to pay that rate. In most of the cases in which I have represented prevailing parties, I have settled my fee requests with the losing party at my regular rate in order to avoid the additional cost of litigating and preparing fee petitions. (d) On September 7, 1994, John Haley of the firm of Arnold, Grobmyer \u0026 Haley signed an Affidavit for use in the case of Leapheart v. City of Morrilton and Carl Gipson, C.A LR-C-91~96. Mr. Haley stated that his rate for \"a practice consisting mostly of commercial, corporate and bankruptcy law'' was then $225.00 per hour. He supported that rate for my work in Leapheart, which was for the period from October 12, 1992 through September 13, 1994 as \"consistent with fees charged 12 I 1' J I I I I I 1 I I I 'I I' I :I I by (him) and other attorneys in Central Arkansas with similar lengths of practice, standing, expertise, and ability'' (at 1-2). (e) I was awarded $175.00 per hour for work in the McFadden case, concerning employment discrimination, by Judge Howard in 1989. In the 1995 Order in McFadden to which I have referred, Judge Howard increased the rate for my work to $225.00 per hour (at 3). This year, in Ashford v. City of Hamburg. El Dorado No. 93-1032, I was awarded $225.00 per hour by the Honorable Harry Barnes. In that case, involving police brutality, Attorney John Hall reviewed my affidavit and time record for the defendant and agreed that $225.00 per hour was a reasonable hourly rate for my services. (f) The publication Arkansas Business sets forth in its November 13, 1995 issue, the results of a survey of 12 Little Rock law firms regarding their \"hourly fee range[s].\" Of 10 firms willing to furnish information, one identified a top rate of $250.00 hour, i.e., Jack, Lyon and Jones, and two identified top rates of $225.00 per hour. See Attachment Two to this Affidavit. (g) The counsel for the school districts have been paid regularly throughout the post-settlement period. In contrast, any comprehensive award to our firm will be delayed. (h) The volume of the work in this case and the unpredictable demands on my time have limited my ability to represent fee paying clients. (i) We seek the vast majority of the amount sought from the LRSD. Granting the requested rate would, hopefully, provide an inducement for those defendants 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I i 1 I I I l , , I, ' t i I I t I t I I to improve the poor quality of the district's compliance with the Court-approved settlements, about which the Court has frequently commented. 16. It is the practice in this market to bill a fee-paying client separately for the time worked by a paralegal. Our firm currently bills fee-paying clients $50.00 per hour for the work of Joy Charles Springer, given the level of her experience and the quality of her work. It is also worth noting that the assignment of considerable work to Ms. Charles, in this case, greatly reduces the defendants' liability for fees. 17. I have expended more than $150,000.00 in out-of-pocket monitoring costs over the course of this Settlement Decree. This includes time for Ms. Springer and the others who assisted with the undertaking. Her time is not separatelyclaimed except byher affidavit and time statement. Monitors Clementine Rouse (now deceased), Evelyn Jackson, Delores Sykes and Kirke Heman, are former school teachers in schools within this county. Debbie Parker is a former paralegal for Woodson Walker \u0026 Associates in Little Rock. She is a graduate of UALR. LaRhonda Pondexter is a graduate of Hendrix College. Pondexter and Parker worked frull-time in monitoring and in writing the report filed by Joshua herein. To my knowledge, both live outside the city; hence we only claim the actual payments made to them for reimbursement. The claim for monitors, except for Springer does not include their 1995 receipts (i.e., payments which I made to them for monitoring work). I expressly reserve the right to make a later claim for this time and/or expense. I seek reimbursement for the time and expense as verified by Ramsey Eddington, C.P.A. in the amount of $96,812.81. 18. Our motion seeks an apportionment of the award of fees and costs among 14 I I I I J I I t 'I j '' I I t 'l f t I the school districts as follows: Little Rock School District (75 to 85), Pulaski County Special School District (15 to 20 percent), and North Little Rock School District (5 to 10 percent) (total to be 100 percent). This reflects my assessment of the time spent litigating against the three systems, including reviewing information and filings, and their relative culpability. E. The Negotiation of and the Content of the Settlement Agreement 19. In the years 1988 and 1989, I represented the Joshua lntervenors in a series of negotiation sessions with counsel for the other parties which ended with the five agreements ultimately approved by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and this court. These agreements set forth desegregation plans for the LR, NLR, and PCSSD systems, an interdistrict plan, and the financial commitments of the state. Other participants in these discussions were counsel for the parties: Herschel Friday, Chris Heller and, Jerry Malone, for the LR school district; Alston Jennings and Sam Jones for the PCSSD,\" and Steve Jones and Phil Lyon, for the NLRSD; Walter Smiley, a local businessman, and Skip Rutherford, also a local businessman who was then a member of the Board of LRSD. 20. In the course of the discussions we addressed relief of benefit to the Joshua lntervenors and other students, which had definite financial implications for the districts and the state. The participants recognized explicitly, that in order to arrive at a meaningful desegregation plan, it had to clearly be undertaken in an arms length matter. We therefore separated those discussions from any discussion of an amount to compensate LDF and Joshua counsel for their time and expenses in litigating school desegregation issues 15 I ~ \\ J I I I' ''I I l ' ,, I I , , I I I through the years until the conclusion of the settlement itself. 21. Paragraph IV.B. of the settlement was agreed upon before we reached a substantive discussion of the topic of fees and costs. It does not refer to those subjects. There was no discussion of fees and costs in the context of this provision. This paragraph deals in its entirety with \"issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation . . . \" as of the time of the settlement discussions. This did not include a fee request for the monitoring phase of the case, the parameters of which could not be known at the time of the settlement discussions. 22. Paragraph V of the agreement on the state's liability reflects the parties' settlement of the issue of attorneys' fees and costs for LDF and Joshua counsel. It is limited to compensation for the work through the preparation of the settlement. It does not by its terms address fees for the monitoring period. Moreover, in the context of discussions regarding this paragraph, no one took the position either that the fee settlement included compensation for the monitoring period, or that Joshua and/or LDF counsel were precluded from securing fees for any part of the monitoring period. I have read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information. 16 ., -I I ) ,, , I' t fl I I J' \\ i I I ,'t , , I SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2 / day of November, 1995. MY COMMI. SION EXPIRES: ''/ /1 \"a'.' ~ NOTARY PUBLIC 17 I ,, I ! , , , , I I I t I l , , \\ I I. t r -I I I John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 In reference to: Little Rock School District, et al. v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al.; Lorene Joshua, et. al.; Katherine Knight, et al. (lntervenors); NO. LR-C-82-866 DATE 02/18/90 02/26/90 03/12/90 03/12/90 03/21/90 06/28/90 ACTIVITY STATEMENT OF JOHN W. WALKER 1990 ACTIVITY HOURS Talked to Mayor Smith about Reville's letter .3 Attended two school suspension hearings .5 Tim Montgomery preparation, consultation, re: hearing for 03/13/90 1.0 Met with Arma Hart, re: Incentive Schools and dictated letter to her 3.5 Spoke with Pat Scarborough about Central High problem regarding Magnet School; spoke with Herts about one race result in student elections . 75 Talked to C. Heller re: loan approval motion; signed motion; reviewed settlement agreement prior to signing; talked to Wiley Branton about agreement .8 SUBTOTAL 6.85 Activity Statement John W. Walker 1 I I I I , , I I I t., l 1 \\ I I I r \\I I I DATE 01/03/91 01/04/91 01/05/91 01/06/91 01/08/91 01/09/91 01/10/91 01/11/91 01/13/91 01/14/91 01/15/91 01/16/91 01/17/91 01/18/91 ACTIVITY HOURS 1991 Began implementation discussions with counsel Discussions with counsel continued 2.5 3.1 Meeting with office staff re: ways to assist in implementing plan and helping districts identifying problem areas 3.0 Continued meetings re: office monitoring and implementation assistance 1.0 Plan for and meetings with district counsel re: desegregation implementation 6.2 Plan for and meetings with district counsel re: desegregation implementation 7 .1 Plan for and meetings with district counsel re: desegregation implementation 8.0 Plan for and meeting with sam Jones re: desegregation implementation 4.0 Received mandate from 8th Circuit .1 Discussions with counsel about plan changes; conference with Springer re: Joshua monitoring instrument 6.1 Conference with Heller regarding plan modifications, Incentive School - Aerospace School 5.3 Conference with Steele and Heller re: plan implementation; review of plan 4.4 Reviewed extended day provisions of plan; talked with Steele, Jennings, Heller 2.4 Read Order denying motions for reconsideration .1 Activity Statement - John W. Walker 2 I t I I' f, I I t t, 1 t \\l I I I I t I, DATE 011/22/91 01/23/91 01/24/91 01/24/91 01/24/91 01/25/91 01/25/91 01/25/91 01/26/91 01/26/91 01/28/91 01/28/91 01/29/91 ACTIVITY HOURS Read part of Tri-District Plan; read part of LRSD Aerospace Magnet Plan; conference with Heller 3.5 Read 20 pages of Aerospace Magnet Proposal; conference with Heller and Steele 2.5 Prepare for Little Rock Hearing before Judge Wright on Aerospace Magnet School; conference with Heller and Paulson 3.2 Consideration of Magnet School Proposal; received fax from C. Heller regarding proposed stipulation; conferences with C. Heller; no agreement reached 1.2 Read letter to court from Burl lntervenors Prepared for Hearing before Judge Wright Preparation for and hearing before Judge Wright on Aerospace .2 1.1 Magnet School 3.0 Conference with Chris Heller about plan for the next day .3 Began review of QOM curriculum audit 1.2 Waited at Holiday Inn for Chris Heller who didn't show; read 40 pages of magnet application . 7 Met with Dr. Steele and Chris Heller about 2.0 gpa rule and Aerospace Magnet; telephone conferences with Heller and Jennings re: scholarship incentive 4.0 Called Dr. L.A. Davis to discuss his employment as expert, re: critique of Aerospace Magnet and to work with Angela Sewell to try to strengthen plan; Davis agreed to work for $45.00 per hour or $300.00 per seven hour day. He is to start at once; sent proposal to Pine Bluff by Vincent Maxwell; district is to reimburse costs; conferences with counsel 2.8 Obtained Little Rock Aerospace Project support - Mahlon Martin of Rockefeller Foundation; Dick Hulbert, Central Flying Service writings in support; conference with Heller; met with Activity Statement - John W. Walker 3 l ., , l ' , , I I \\ :I, t I' II I I I f I I I DATE 01/30/91 01/30/91 01/30/91 01/31/91 02/01/91 02/02/91 02/03/91 02/04/91 02/04/91 02/04/91 02/07/91 ACTIVI1Y HOURS ministers re: plan Spoke with Chris Heller by phone, re: Aerospace Magnet; telephone conference with L.A. Davis, re: Aerospace Magnet and met with Committee and Dr. A. Sewell who agreed to work for $45.00 per hour or $300.00 per seven hour day. He is to 4.0 start at once; Sent proposal by Vincent Maxwell 4.5 Met with Dr. Davis, re: Little Rock proposals for Aerospace Magnet; began revising and drafting formal document 6.5 Order granting motion of Knight lntervenors for order to substitute class representatives .1 Continued to work on Aerospace Magnet issue; conferred with C. Heller, Dr. Steele, and parents, as well as expert Lawrence Davis; additional drafting and editing of proposal 11.5 Drafting, editing and redrafting plan for Aerospace Magnet for finalization for filing with Judge; conference with Heller, Springer, et al. 6.0 Four telephone conferences with C. Heller; telephone conference with Dick Hulbert, re: revising Aerospace Magnet School settlement; revising same with Mark B. 2.5 Preparation 2.1 Returned Chris Heller's call regarding settlement approval; conference with Hulbert, preparation 3.1 Worked with Chris Heller, Richard Roachell and J.S. on Aerospace proposal 2.0 Read Stipulation \u0026 Consent Order finding that the LRSD's desegregation plan is modified to include the Aerospace Technology Magnet School; spoke with C. Heller, and district officials .5 Conferences with counsel re: stipulation and extended day problems 1.5 Activity Statement - John W. Walker 4 I - I , . I 'I I I I I , , t \\I '' I I, t l DATE 02/09/91 02/11/91 02/12/91 02/13/91 02/13/91 02/19/91 02/21/91 02/22/91 02/25/91 02/26/91 02/26/91 02/26/91 02/26/91 02/28/91 ACTIVITY HOURS Reviewed PCSSD's First Quarter Status Report for 1990-91 \u0026 Special Report concerning the J.C. Cook Elementary School .6 Reviewed Order granting motion of Burl lntervenors .1 Reaching agreement and entering Stipulation, filed by Joshua lntervenors, LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD \u0026 Knight lntervenors, for approval of substituting Bonnie Brown in place of Sara Matthews Facen as class representative .4 Reviewed Order granting stipulation of parties re: class representatives .1 Read Stipulation \u0026 Consent Order concerning Washington and four other topics .6 Reviewed Affidavit of Richard N. Hulbert re: Aerospace Magnet School .2 Read letter to Stephen Jones re: concerns on memo with appearances of plagiarism and racism; attended school board meeting 2.2 Read State's letter to court re: funding payments from Dept. of Educ. to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .2 Conference with Joshua monitoring team members to discuss monitoring LRSD schools 1.5 Review of letter from Sharon Street to Judge Wright .3 Received and reviewed letter to Chris Heller from Sam Jones; letter to Sam Jones .2 Review of letter from Sharon Street to Judge Wright .3 Received \u0026 reviewed letter to Chris Heller from Sam Jones; letter to Sam Jones .4 Read Order finding that the State is obligated under the terms of the settlement agreement to continue funding the ODM .1 Activity Statement - John W. Walker 5 1- 1 I I I ' II I I t i t I f '' f' I t 1 DATE 03/01/91 03/05/91 03/06/91 03/15/91 03/15/91 03/17/91 03/18/91 03/18/91 03/19/91 03/20/91 03/21/91 03/21/91 03/25/91 03/26/91 ACTIVITY HOURS Conference with Jennings, Matthis re: Incentive Schools 1.1 Meeting about plan m "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1640","title":"Court Filings: District Court, 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":["Springer, Joy C."],"dc_date":["1995-11-21"],"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","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, 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/1640"],"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":["116 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Springer, Joy C."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF 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. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER STATE OF ARKANSAS) SS) COUNTY OF PULASKI) Comes now the affiant, Joy c. Springer, who submits the following affidavit under oath: A, EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 1. I received a BSBA degree in three years from Henderson State University in Arkadelphia, Arkansas in 1977. I was also selected as a member of Who's Who Among American College and University Students in 1977. I was a member of the student Senate and served on one of the first Human Relations Committees at the University. I am currently enrolled at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock pursuing a master's degree in Elementary Education having completed approximately 40 hours. My post graduate work in education was necessitated by my current job 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I responsibilities and the need to become more familiar w~th educational terminology and concepts. In May, 1995, I was selected as a charter member of Alpha Sigma Lambda Honor Society with a GPA of 3.9. 2. In 1978, I was employed by Allstate Insurance Company as a telephone claims representative in the Little Rock, Arkansas claims office. This office concentrated on handling personal lines insurance claims. Having completed one year of employment, I was recognized as Employee of the Year. over the next several years, I received a number of promotions. Around 1985, I was promoted to Casualty Claim Manager for the State of Arkansas. I was responsible for the training and supervision of claim representatives for the entire state. This training included proper investigation of auto, homeowner and bodily injury claims. I was also a budget manager. I was responsible for reviewing and analyzing claim data (past and present) for use in the preparation of budgets from year to year. The office had a list of goals and commitments for which I was responsible for tracking and reporting to the Regional office. In addition to these duties, I was responsible for the assigning of complaints, which were in the form of lawsuits, to defense attorneys over the entire state for the purpose of providing proper defense to policy holders and the company. I worked closely with our defense attorneys by making periodic contacts with them to monitor the progress of the pending litigation. I was also responsible for maintaining a trial log. I provided monthly 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I reports to our Regional office. Having worked in a claims office for over ten years, I have extensive training and experience in procedure implementation and compliance, data analysis, time management, file organization, research, and investigations. 3. Most of my actual paralegal training has been on the job for the last five years. However, during my previous employment, many of my paralegal skills were developed. Because of my previous job experience, I was already very familiar with many of the tasks that I currently perform as a paralegal. B, OVERVIEW OF WORK IN THIS CASE 4. Around January, 1990, I went to work full time for John w. Walker, P.A. One of my assignments from Mr. Walker was the Pulaski County school desegregation case. I have attended all of the Court hearings in the Pulaski county school case for the last four years. My work on the school case has included the following tasks: a. reading and review of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the three districts' monitoring and status reports, and preparing position papers and memoranda for lead counsel for review and discussion; b. review of all pleadings and orders in this case, and preparing position papers and memoranda for lead counsel for review and discussion; c. overseeing the monitoring activities of the Joshua monitoring team during the 1990-1991, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993- 94 school years (see also paragraphs 4 - 11 below); 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I d. conducting monthly and bimonthly meetings with Joshua monitoring team members to discuss findings during scheduled and unscheduled monitoring visits; e. ensuring that monitoring teams visited every school in the three school districts during the 1991-92 and 1992-93 school years; f. review and discussion of monitoring reports prepared by Joshua team members with lead counsel and team members; g. dissemination of Joshua's monitoring reports to the parties, Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Court; h. initiating and scheduling of meetings and conferences with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to secure their monitoring schedules and areas of monitoring priorities for the school year; i. pre-hearing preparations which included interviewing of witnesses, preparation of exhibits, organization of exhibits, file organization and consulting with lead counsel on the issues to be presented at Court; j. abstracting of witness testimony during Court hearings; k. assisting lead counsel with exhibits during court hearings; 1. assisting lead counsel with witness testimony during court hearings; m. representing class members in the Little Rock, 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pulaski County and North Little Rock school districts to ensure implementation of plan provisions for nondiscriminatory practices with respect to discipline and educational placement (see paragraphs 12-18 below); n. contacts with district officials in the three districts to request information with respect to plan provisions and implementation; o. handling telephone calls from class members in the three districts with respect to educational placement, student rights, discipline and plan provisions; p. draft of motions and draft responses to pleadings; q. attending school board meetings and meetings between the parties with respect to plan implementation and proposed modifications; and r. management and organization of the case file, a significant task due to its volume and the need to draw upon its content. C. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MONITORING REPORTS 4. Since the settlement agreement, the Joshua Intervenors have completed three comprehensive monitoring reports for the years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93. I spent a considerable amount of time working on these reports and am familiar with the manner in which information was gathered, the content of the reports, and the roles played by the persons involved in preparing each report, whom it was my responsibility to supervise. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5. The first year of its monitoring, the team visited approximately thirty (30) schools in the Little Rock, Pulaski County and North Little Rock school districts. This report reflected findings at the Incentive schools, in the Little Rock School District, in the following areas: curriculum; student educational plans; discipline; recruitment; parental involvement; biracial committees; classroom findings; interim reports; budget management; staffing; and general concerns. The remaining schools which included elementary and secondary schools were monitored in the areas of: curriculum; discipline; staffing; and general concerns. of these schools. A team of at least three persons visited each One team member met with the principal to ask general questions about student enrollment by race and gender, staff makeup by race and gender, curriculum expectations, parental involvement, discipline expectations, etc. as contemplated by the respective desegregation plans. The remaining team members visited at least one classroom on every grade level, including resource rooms and specialty programs and made contact with the guidance counselor and other support staff in each of the respective schools. This Joshua report and the reports for the next two school years differed from reports later prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in that they were based upon visits to a more representative number of schools and contained more anecdotal information from students, parents and staff, including information secured during the school visits and in the course of day-to-day work in monitoring the 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I agreements. Much of the statistical data reflected in the report came from the school's profile. The final report for 1990-1991 consisted of 142 pages of Joshua's findings and recommendations. A copy was initially provided to the central administration of each school district. Later, based upon requests which we received, we provided full copies and/or excerpts to other persons including the representatives of the desegregation offices and individual schools who sought particular portions pertaining to their schools. 6. The other persons who participated in the preparation of the 1990-91 report were Kirke Herman, Evelyn Jackson, and Clementine Rouse, each of whom had a background of teaching in public schools in one of the three Districts; Opal Sims, who taught at the Little Rock Job Corp Center, substituted in the Little Rock School District for a year and monitored federal programs for ACTION, now referred to as Corporation for National Service; and named class representative Lorene Joshua. This report was written by Ms. Sims and me and reviewed by lead counsel, John w. Walker, who had also participated in defining the team's overall approach. 7. During the 1991-92 school year, Joshua's monitoring team members visited every school in the three districts. The team members decided to start with the Pulaski County School District during this school year since Little Rock was monitored first in 1990-91. Afterwhich, North Little Rock was monitored and finally Little Rock. once again, the areas addressed in the monitoring 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I report were: curriculum; discipline; parental involvement; staffing; and general areas of concern. The areas addressed in the Incentive school report for 1990-91 were discussed again. The same general approach was followed whereby a team visited certain schools with at least one monitor holding a conference with the principal and the other team members making visits to the other classrooms as previously indicated. In this report, the team members felt it necessary to indicate to the schools their areas of strengths along with their areas of concerns. Statistical data was gathered from the school's profile and from the school's principal. The team once again felt that it was important to include anecdotal findings from students, parents and staff members, drawn both from the monitoring visits and other work. The final report for the 91-92 school year was completed and filed with the Court on or about June 5, 1992 by LaRhonda Pondexter and myself. The document contained 328 pages of Joshua's findings for over 119 schools that were visited. It was shared with all parties and others, in a manner similar to the previous year. The report indicated that there was a substantial amount of noncompliance by each of the districts regarding their commitments to address achievement disparities, discipline disparities, integrated parental involvement, student assignments, integrated staffing, overrepresentation in special education and underrepresentation in gifted programs and advanced placement classes. 8. In addition to the co-author, LaRhonda Pondexter, the 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I persons who participated in the second year monitoring efforts were Kirke Herman, Evelyn Jackson, Lorene Joshua, Clementine Rouse, and a second new team member, Delores Sykes, a retired teacher from Rockefeller Incentive School of the Little Rock School District. This report was also reviewed by lead counsel, John W. Walker. 9. The last comprehensive report by the Joshua Intervenors was completed and filed with the Court on or about June 27, 1993. It consisted of 396 pages of the team's findings and recommendations to the three school districts, following visits to every school in the three systems. This report followed the same format as the two previous reports. The report reeked with continued noncompliance regarding desegregation commitments. Joshua Intervenors followed the same approach as the previous years in disseminating the report. 10. The third report was written by Deborah Parker and myself. Other team members were Kirke Herman, Clementine Rouse, Delores Sykes, and Lorene Joshua. Lead counsel, John w. Walker again reviewed this report. 11. Following each report, we received responses and feedback to what we had written. Persons who called and provided written responses were the assistant superintendents for desegregation in the Little Rock and Pulaski County districts (multiple occasions); principals from all of the districts (multiple occasions); members from the Incentive School Parent Council and Biracial committees; patrons of the Districts; as 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I well as representatives of newspapers and television stations who publicized on several occasions our findings of noncompliance and recommendations. A number of the school representatives thanked us for undertaking this work and stated that they would address the concerns in areas such as deficiencies in the Incentive school program, discipline, staff racial composition, student assignments, enrollment in gifted programs, participation in extracurricular activities, etc., which the reports by Joshua Intervenors identified. D. ASSISTANCE TO CLASS MEMBERS FACING DISCIPLINE 12. Each plan requires that discipline be carried out in a manner that is free of racial discrimination. See LRSD Plan, pages 33-34, PCSSD Plan, pages 73-76, and NLRSD Plan pages 41-42. Nevertheless, data reported for each system, during the period after approval the settlement, has repeatedly established that black students, particularly black males, are disciplined more frequently and severely than white students. During the 1990-91 school year, lead counsel, John W. Walker assigned me the task of representing class members threatened with discipline by one of the three systems, and their parents, in order to secure for them the benefits of the relevant plan's protection against racial discrimination in discipline. As shown by the attached summary of my work, this has been one of my significant activities since that time. 13. In the course of this work on discipline, I have represented at hearings a total of approximately 120 class 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I members. I have also assisted a significant number of class members experiencing discipline problems by a telephone call to the student's teacher, principal, or central office administrator. These discipline problems have also been resolved through appeal at the hearing officer level for the Little Rock School District, the Discipline committee level for the Pulaski County Special School District and the Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs level for the North Little Rock School District. I have assisted class members in all three school districts with approximately 75-80% concerning Little Rock schools. I have attended hearings at among other the following schools: Little Rock Elementary schools - Mabelvale, Washington, Franklin, Mitchell, Rockefeller, Ish, Rockefeller, Martin Luther King, Fulbright, Jefferson, Woodrow, Fair Park, Badgett, Baseline, Geyer Springs; Little Rock Junior High schools - Horace Mann, Dunbar, Southwest, Cloverdale, Henderson, Mabelvale, Pulaski Heights and Forest Heights, Cloverdale, and Mabelvale; Little Rock High Schools - central, Fair, Parkview, Hall, J.A. Fair and McClellan; North Little Rock schools - North Little Rock East and West campuses, Ridgeroad and Lakewood Junior Highs, Boone Park, Bellwood, and Rose City elementary schools; Pulaski County Elementary schools - Fuller, Bates, Sylvan Hills, Sherwood, Jacksonville, Homer Atkins, Baker, Lawson, Landmark, and Crystal Hill elementary schools; Pulaski county Junior High schools - Jacksonville North and south Junior High, Fuller, Sylvan Hills, Northwood, and Oak Grove; Pulaski County High 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I schools - Jacksonville, North Pulaski, Sylvan Hills, Mills and Oak Grove. Approximately 75% of the cases in which I represented students, class members were not excluded from school as had initially been proposed. Joshua Intervenors also used in another way the information learned in representing these class members. When there appeared to be a problem of racial discrimination in a particular school, we notified the Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent of the particular district. In some schools, as a result of my work, I have detected that class members are treated more fairly in the discipline process, although, there remains a need for improvement. 14. It is clear to me that racial discrimination affects the discipline process in these three school systems in a variety of ways. For example, there are instances of teachers and administrators being insensitive to the fact that a student acted out as a result of racial harassment, advocating exclusion from school and not proposing to utilize in-school suspension or other non-exclusionary placement, proposing harsh discipline for trivial conduct, etc . E. OTHER ASSISTANCE TO CLASS MEMBERS FACING DISPARATE TREATMENT 15. Each of the districts also requires that class members receive educational opportunities that they have previously been denied but for racial discrimination such as participation in extracurricular activities, participation in gifted and talented and advanced placement programs, etc. See LRSD Plan pages 39-40; 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NLRSD Plan pages 39-40; and PCSSD Plan pages 69-70. These plans also require that class member placement in special education programs be free of racial discrimination. See LRSD Plan pages 111-123; NLRSD Plan pages 16-23; and PCSSD Plan pages 44-52. 16. However, data reported from each of the three districts since the settlement agreement continue to show that black students are placed in special education programs more frequently and at a higher rate than white students. Black student participation in extracurricular activities such as Honor Society, Beta Club, Student Government Association, etc. remained predominately white. In addition, white students continue to be placed in advanced placement and gifted and talented programs at a higher rate than black students. As a result of these statistics, personal and telephone conferences with class member parents, lead counsel, John w. Walker also assigned me the task of participating in conferences with parents of students with concerns about educational placement. 17. I have participated in over 50 conferences over the last five years regarding educational placement. I have assisted class members in all three districts with approximately 75-80% concerning Little Rock schools. I have attended conferences in Little Rock Elementary schools - Mabelvale, Washington, Franklin, Mitchell, Rockefeller, Ish, Rockefeller, Martin Luther King, Fulbright, Jefferson, Woodrow, Fair Park, Badgett, Baseline, Geyer springs; Little Rock Junior High schools - Horace Mann, Dunbar, Southwest, Cloverdale, Henderson, 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~I Mabelvale, Pulaski Heights and Forest Heights, Cloverdale, and Mabelvale; Little Rock High schools - Central, Hall, J.A. Fair and Parkview; Pulaski Elementary schools - Fuller, Bates, Sylvan Hills, Sherwood, Jacksonville, Homer Atkins, Baker, Lawson, Landmark, and Crystal Hill elementary schools; Pulaski County Junior High schools - Jacksonville North and South, Fuller, Sylvan Hills and Oak Grove; Pulaski county High schools - Mills, Sylvan Hills, North Pulaski and Jacksonville; and North Little Rock schools - North Little Rock East and West campuses, Ridgeroad and Lakewood Junior High schools and Bellwood and Boone Park Elementary schools. I would say in 90-95% of the conferences held, the parent was satisfied with the outcome of the educational placement. Joshua representatives have employed the knowledge and information gained in these conferences to alert district administrators to perceived problems of racial discrimination. 18. In addition to the work previously outlined above, I had personal and telephone conferences with parents of class members to provide assistance and direction regarding student assignments, transportation, and general concerns about school operations. over the past five years, I have had over 500 conferences of this nature. I would estimate that approximately 85-90% of these had satisfactory results in that a resolution was reached satisfying the parent and class member. 19. Finally, I have also been instructed by lead counsel to conference with black staff members in all three Districts to 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I listen, assist and give direction regarding problems they perceive as violative of the Consent Decree herein. A number of these conferences have addressed disparate treatment of student and staff relating to the overall school operation. However, many have to do with perceived racial discrimination by the Districts with respect to their individual employment. I have had conferences with approximately 20 staff members in all three Districts. I have had conferences with staff from the following schools in Little Rock: Rockefeller, Wakefield, Garland, Mitchell, Gibbs, Franklin, Mabelvale, Parkview, Central, Hall, Pulaski Heights, Forest Heights, Southwest, Cloverdale and Mabelvale. I have given other assistance to staff member in the following schools in North Little Rock: West and East campuses, Alternative school and Ridgeroad Junior High school; and Oak Grove High, Sylvan Hills Elementary and Junior High, Fuller Junior High and Mills High schools in Pulaski County. l, HOURS CLAIMED, HOURLY RATE AND OTHER INFORMATION 20. Attachment 1 to this affidavit denotes 3169.1 hours which I have worked on this matter from June, 1990 to October 31, 1995 including time for preparation of this fee statement. I have worked closely with Mr. Robert Pressman and Mr. John Walker since September, 1995 regarding the compilation and preparation of this motion, memorandum, affidavits, fee petitions, expense statements and other related documents. With respect to the time expended by me regarding this massive undertaking, my actual time 15 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I ,, I I I records reflect that I have worked for more than 12 hours a day from November 8, 1995 to November 20, 1995 including Saturdays and Sundays. The time expended during this period of time is in excess of 150 hours. Because I had already reviewed and organized many of the documents used for the preparation of this motion, I only make claim for ~ hours. I believe this request is reasonable given the voluminous nature of this case file. No time is being claimed for orientation of Mr. Pressman. My time statement excludes time for the following matters related to this case: a. the Little Rock Rezoning case; b. fees already awarded by this court regarding the ADE matter in 1993; and c. fees related to the PCSSD reorganization in 1993. 21. I compiled from the check registers maintained by Mr. Henry Hall, office manager for John W. Walker, P.A. information showing the following total payments reimbursed to me for mileage costs and other monitoring expenses in the case of LRSD v PCSSD in the years 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995. The totals are: 1991 - $1669.29 1992 - $1523.97 1993 - $75.00 1994 - $1208.75 1995 - $265.00 Total - $4742.01 These payments are evidenced by the \"checks stubs\" maintained by Mr. Hall for the following checks. 1991 12022 12028 12253 12509 16 627.00 50.00 94.16 222.64 I I I 1 I I I I I ,, I I I I I I I I I 12573 173.64 12668 201.85 12994 300.00 $1669.29 1992 1797 66.19 1817 220.69 1879 1000.00 1935 53.28 2343 100.00 2369 150.00 $1523.97 1993 13599 75 . 00 $75.00 1994 1268 116.15 1439 92.60 15811 1000.00 $1208.75 1995 16457 65 . 00 16463 200.00 $265.00 The records also reveal a payment to Kirke Herman for expenses on February 8, 1995 in the amount of $100.00 (check number 14871). I have also compiled from the check register of Mr. Henry Hall other expenses related to this case such as witnesses fees and copying of the docket. These payments were as follows: ~ !:;hegt Number Pumose Amount 9/16/95 17121 copy of docket $ 60.00 6/23/95 16819 witness fee 40.00 3/3/94 14981 expert witness 215.00 2/15/94 14921 copy of transcript 39.00 'l'otal - $354.00 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 22. I am also in a position, based upon my work, to estimate the amount for facsimiles, postage, and copying costs which we have incurred for this case from the period of 1991 through October 1995, a period of 58 months. It is as follows: COPYING *average of 1500 copies per month multiplied by 58 months equals 87,000 copies; *cost at .15 cents per page equals $13,050.00; conservative estimate of cost for copying in absence of records equals $6500.00 (43,333 copies or 747 copies per month, 1 1/2 packages of copy paper). conservative estimate of cost for copying of Joshua monitoring report for years 1991, 1992, and 1993 would be 1000 pages at 10 copies (includes copies for Court, parties and file) equal 10,000 copies *cost of 10,000 copies at .15 cents per page is $1500.00 Total costs for copying - $8000.00 FACSIMILES average of 100 pages of faxed material per month multiplied by 58 months equals 5800 copies; cost at .10 cents per page equals $580.00; average of 1 case of facsimile paper per month at a cost of $33.18 by 58 months equals $1924.44 *conservative estimate of cost for faxing documents totals $2504.44 in absence of records equals $1250.00 Total fax costs - $1250.00 POSTAGB average of 25 letters to the eight counsel (two to LRSD and one for file) of record per month multiplied by 58 months 58 months equals 11600 letters; 18 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I average cost of postage per letter@ .55 equals $6380.00 *conservative estimate of cost for postage totals $3190.00 in absence of records Total postage costs $3190.00 23. My other work in the Walker firm includes personal injury claim handling, interviewing of potential clients for other cases being handled by the office, conferring with potential clients regarding other school matters across the state, and other duties as assigned by Mr. Walker for which the office currently bills my time at the rate of $50.00 per hour. It is the practice in the Little Rock area to bill paralegal time separately. 24. In the course of my employment at the Walker firm, I have also worked on the following cases: Robert Webb, et al v Missouri Pacific Railroad (employment discrimination); McFadden v Arkansas state Hospital (employment discrimination); Lou-Ease Simmons v Augusta School District (school case/tracking); Judy Smith v Harvest Foods (employment discrimination); Gay Rusk v Stuttgart School District (employment discrimination); Richard Day and Calvin Hollowell v Randy Johnson (employment discrimination); Angela Piggee v Hope School District (employment discrimination); Willie Ashford v The City of !fmburg, et al, (police brutality) and Gloria Leapheart v city of Morrilton (employment discrimination) to name a few. I was awarded a fee of $45.00 per hour in the case of McFadden, et al. y Arkansas State Hospital, Civ. No. LR-C-78-153 as recently as April, 1995 19 I I I I I ., I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I for my work. 23. My work as a paralegal in this case minimizes the fee liability of the districts by reducing the lawyer time expended on the case. I have read the foregoing affidavit and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge SPRINGER I f1~UBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ?,.{day of 1/vb-{ , 1995. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Ci/ 17 l'-1.0~ 20 I I I I I I I ,, I I I I I I I I I I I J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. ACTIVITY STATEMENT OF JOY CHARLES SPRINGER DATE ACTIVITY TIME 6/28/90 Conference with JWW regarding Pulaski .5 County School case 6/28/90 Reading and review of Pulaski County 1.5 school settlement agreement 6/29/90 Conference with JWW regarding Incentive 3.5 school hearing; Preparation for hearing; review of Incentive school plan 6/30/90 Prehearing conference with JWW; Hearing 8.0 before Judge Wright re: Incentive school hearing; abstract of witness testimony 8/5/90 Review of LRSD desegregation plan 3.5 8/21/90 Review of LRSD desegregation plan 4.0 9/8/90 Review of PCSSD desegregation plan 4.0 10/15/90 Review of NLRSD desegregation plan 2.5 1/5/91 Conference with JWW re: implemetationn 3.0 of desegregation plan and discussion re: assistance Joshua can provide to parties re: implementation and identification of problem areas c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 1 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS AMOUNT I I I I I I I I I I I , , I I I I I I I 1/6/91 1/8/91 1/9/91 1/10/91 1/11/91 1/11/91 1/14/91 1/15/91 1/24/91 1/25/91 1/30/91 2/4/91 2/18/91 c:\\wpdos\\jcs.atmt Conference with JWW re: plan 1.0 implementation, assistance to District, and identification of problem areas Pre-meeting conference with JWW; 1.9 meeting school district officials and lawyers regarding modifications to desegregation plan; took notes; post meeting conference Meeting with school district officials and 6.0 lawyers regarding plan modifications; post meeting conference with JWW Meeting with school districts officials and 5.5 lawyers regarding plan modifications Conference with PCSSD attorney, SJ, to 3.0 discuss plan modifications; travel to his office; parking $4.25 Preparation of memorandum to JWW re: 2.0 meetings with respect to plan modifications Discussion of monitoring instrument with 2.5 JWW; preparation of same Preparation of monitoring instrument 4.0 Preparation for hearing re: Aersospace 4.5 proposal; telephone confemce with CJ re: implementation procedure; telephone with PCSSD,NLRD, LRSD re: implmentation procedure; preparation of exhibits; conference with JWW re: trial strategy Hearing before Judge Wright re: 1.0 Aerospace grant proposal Continued review of Aerospace proposal 2.0 Continued review of Aerospace proposal 2.0 and LRSD desegregation plan Deafted proposal for monitoring activities 6.5 and instrument for Joshua monitoring team 2 I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2/25/91 2/26/91 2/26/91 2/27/91 2/27/91 2/27/91 2/28/91 2/28/91 c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt Conference with Joshua team members to 3.0 discuss monitoring activities and instrument; updated monitoring instrument; discussed LRSD schools to be monitored; conference with JWW Used personal vehicle for travel to Mitchell 1.5 Incentive school to monitor Incentive school program with Joshua team members; conference with principal and visted classrooms Used personal vehicle for travel to lsh 1.5 Incentive school to monitor Incentive school program with Joshua team members; conference with principal and visted classrooms Used personal vehicle for travel to Garland 2.0 Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; conference with principal and visited classrooms Used personal vehicle for travel to 1.5 Stephens lncentve school to mointor incentive school program; conference with principal and visted classrooms Used personal vehicle for travel to 1.5 Rightsell Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; confemce with principal and visited classrooms Used personal vehicle for travel to 2.0 Rockefeller Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; conference with principal and visited clasrooms Conference with team members to discuss 2.5 results of monitoring visits and discussion of monitoring instrument for Incentive schools 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3/1/91 3/4/91 3/4/91 3/5/91 3/5/91 3/6/91 3/6/91 3/7/91 3/7/91 3/7/91 c:\\wpdoa\\jcs.stmt Conference with team members to further 1.5 discuss findings from incentive school visits and formulate draft report on findings Used personal vehicle for travel to lsh and 2.3 Mitchell Incentive schools to observe extended programs Preparation of draft report re: first week's 2.5 observations and findings at Incentive schools Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD 1.5 elementary schools -Geyer Springs and Cloverdale for discussion and inspection of construction at these school with administration. Court approval? Preparation of report regarding visits to 1.3 elementary "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1666","title":"Court Filings: District Court, affidavit of Opal Sims and affidavit of Ramsey Eddington","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":["Sims, Opal","Eddington, Ramsey"],"dc_date":["1995-11-21"],"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","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, affidavit of Opal Sims and affidavit of Ramsey Eddington"],"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/1666"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["47 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Sims, Opal","Eddington, Ramsey"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF .~ O;rJ{)le.., AFFIDAVIT OF OPAL SIMS ) )ss. ) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENORS Comes now the affiant, Opal Sims, who submits the following affidavit under oath: 1. I received a B.A Degree from the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff in the Spring of 1980. My program involved a major in the area of physical education and a minor in science. 2. I worked as a substitute teacher in the Plum Bayou Tucker School District during the 1980-81 school year. In 1982 and 1983, I worked in the Job Corps center located in Little Rock. During a part of this employment, I taught a \"life skills\" course to persons served by the center. In 1984 and 1985, I worked as a program manager for Arkansas Career Resources, a non-profit agency located in Little Rock. My work involved developing programs to promote the movement of women from welfare status I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I to involvement in the work force. 3. I was employed as a \"state program specialist\" by the Action Agency, an agency of the United States Government, from February 1986 until 1990. The Action Agency provides funds to generate volunteer activities and takes measures to promote use of the monies in an effective manner, consistent with federal regulations. My work included management oversight, program development, training, program evaluation, and monitoring of programs. My monitoring activities involved on-site review of 25 to 30 programs a year and included observation of the programs, review of records, interviews, and preparation of written reports to the regional office of the Action Agency. 4. I was employed by the John W. Walker law firm in the period from April 8, 1991 through July 7, 1991, as one of the members of the team which prepared the first Joshua Monitoring Report. My work included the following tasks: helping to develop the monitoring instrument; visiting schools; interviewing principals, teachers, and support staff; observing classes; compiling data; writing reports on findings at particular schools; conferring with other monitoring team members and John W. Walker; and helping to write the overall monitoring report, including the recommendations. 5. During my work at the Walker firm, I prepared daily records reflecting the time which I worked and the nature of my activities. Attachment One to this Affidavit sets forth my time and activities, based upon those records. I have read the foregoing affidavit and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OPAL SI SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ,2,/ day of /(J{),1,\u002641{) /J$/ , 1995. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 9/ n f:ul!::, YPUBLIC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ACTMTY STATEMENT - OPAL SIMS In reference to: Little Rock School District, et al. v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al.; Lorene Joshua, et al.; Katherine Knight, et al. (lntervenors) DATE 04/08/91 04/09/91 04/09/91 04/10/91 04/10/91 04/11/91 04/11/91 04/12/91 04/12//91 04/15/91 1991 ACTMTY HOURS Reviewed monitoring instruments; reviewed PCSSD proposed desegregation plan 6.6 Reviewed PCSSD's proposed desegregation plan 3.0 Visit to lsh Incentive School to monitor classes and conference with school principal 4.0 Reviewed interdistrid desegregation plan 3.0 Visit to Garland Incentive School to monitor classes; visit with teachers and held conference with principal 4.0 Reviewed NLRSD's desegregation plan 3.0 Visit to Stephens Incentive school to monitor classes; visit teachers and instrudional aides; and held conference with principal 4.6 Visit with Dr. Cheryl Simmons to discuss increasing parent involvement in school and to schedule parent meeting for an evening at the school .6 Meeting with Joshua monitoring group to review visits for week and to plan reporting 2. 7 Worked on locating phone numbers, addresses of parents with children attending Garland Incentive School; worked on letter notifying parents of meeting scheduled for 4/18 3.0 1 I I DATE ACTIVITY HOURS I 04/15/91 Picked up mailing list of Garland Incentive School parents from LRSD Administrative offices .3 I 04/15/91 Worked on mailing notices for Thursday night meeting at Garland Incentive School 6.0 I 04/16/91 Brady Elementary School observation of classrooms and conference with principal 3.0 I 04/16/91 Went to Bale Elementary School to drop off survey to Mrs. Wilson .5 I 04/16/91 Visited Fuller Jr. High and Mills High School for principal's conferences and classroom observations 4.0 I 04/17/91 Compiled notes from monitoring visits made to Garland, I Stephens, and Bale Elementary Schools 3.0 04/18/91 Attended meeting between attorneys for the PCSSD, LRSD and I Joshua to discuss desegregation plan 2.0 04/18/91 Observation of classroom and conference with principal at I Romine Elementary School 3.0 04/19/91 Conference with monitoring team Mrs. Charles and Mrs. Rouse I to review visits made during the period 4/15-4/18 and to plan for week of 4/22-4/26 1.5 I 04/19/91 Made phone calls to elementary schools to schedule visits for week beginning 4/22 and prepared folders on each school 5.0 I 04122/91 Visit to Fairpark Elementary School for principal confrerence and classroom observation 3.0 I 04/22/91 Visit to Badgette Elementary school for principal conference and classroom observation 2.0 I 04/23/91 Visit to Mabelvale Elementary School for principal conference and classroom observation 2.0 I 04/23/91 Visit to Chicot Elementary School for principal conference and I 2 I I I DATE ACTIVITY HOURS I classroom observation 2.0 I 04/24/91 Visits made to Baseline \u0026 Meadowcliff Elementary Schools for principal conferences and classroom observation 5.5 I 04/25/91 Visits made to Fulbright, Williams and Jefferson Elementary Schools for principal conferences and classroom observation 6.0 I 04/29/91 Visted Wakefield, Geyer Springs and Western Hills Elementary Schools for principal conferences and classroom observation 5.0 I 04/29/91 Made phone calls to parents of Garland Incentive School students to remind them of 4/30 meeting 2.0 I 04/30/91 Visits to Cloverdale, and Watson Elementary Schools for principal conferences and classroom observation 4.0 I 04/30/91 Phone calls to parents about meeting scheduled for 7:30 at Garland Incentive School 1.0 I 04/30/91 Went to Bale Elementary School to pick up survey form. It was not completed as planned (the secretary will call when the form I is completed) .5 04/30/91 Meeting with parents of students attending Garland Incentive I School 2.5 05/01/91 Visits to Gibbs Magnet School and Dunbar Jr. High for I conferences with the principals and classroom observation 4.0 05/02/91 Visit to Mam Magnet and Central High Schools for conference I with principals and classroom observation 4.0 I 05/03/91 Made phone calls to schools in LRSD to schedule appointments for week of 5/6-10 and worked on narratives/survey forms from schools visited during the week 7.0 I 05/06/91 Picked up survey forms from the following schools: Mabelvale Elementary, Wakekfield Elementary, Wilson Elementary, I Western Hills Elementary, Geyer Springs Elementary, Meadowcliff Elementary, Baseline Elementary 5.0 I 3 I I I DATE ACTIVITY HOURS I I 05/06/91 Phone calls to parents to remind them of Tuesday night meeting at Garland Elementary School 2.0 I 05/07/91 Visits to Dunbar Jr. High and Woodruff Elementary for principal conferences 4.0 I 05/09/91 Visits to Metropolitan Vo-Tech and Southwest Jr. High for visit with principals and classroom observation 6.0 I 05/10/91 Organized files and completed survey forms on schools visited to date 4.0 I 05/10/91 Conference with Joshua monitoring team members to plan for I final report and scheduling of visits 2.0 05/13/91 Visited Forest Heights, Jr. High and Mabelvale Jr. High for I conference with the principals and classroom observation 6.0 05/14/91 Visited JA Fair and Washignton Elementary for conference I with the principals and classroom observation 4.0 05/15/91 Visited Scott Elementary and North Little Rock High School for I conference with the principals and classroom observation 5.0 05/17/91 Picked up survey forms from Watson Elementary, Cloverdale I Elementary and Hendeson Jr. High; visited classroom at Henderson Jr. High 2.5 I 05/20/91 Visited Oak Grove Elementary Jr. High and Sr. High for conferences with principals and classroom observation 6.0 I 05/21/91 Visited Robinson Elementary, Robinson Jr. High and Robinson Sr. High for principal's conferences and classroom observation 6.0 I 05122/91 Visits made to Sylvan Hills Elementary, Sylvan Hills Jr. High and Sylvan Hills High School for principal's confrences and I classroom observation 6.0 05/23/91 Visits to Agenta Elementary, and Ridgeroad Middle School for I principal's conferences and classroom observation 4.0 I 4 I I I DATE ACTMTY HOURS I 05/28/91 Visited Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Center for conference with the principal and classroom observation 2.0 I 05/29/91 Made phone calls to schools to schedule appointments to secure survey forms; worked on compiling monitoring materials 6.0 I 05/30/91 Visited LRSD Alternative School Leaming Center for a conference with the principal; also visited Central High School I for classroom observation and teacher conferences 5.5 05/31/91 Visited Scott Elemetary school to pick up survey data; visited I some classrooms. Conference with team members to discuss progress to date 4.0 I 06/03/91 Compiled monitoring materials for report 3.0 I 06/03/91 Franklin Elementary school; helped to conduct interview for Incentive school teachers for the 1991-92 school term 2.0 I 06/04/91 Meeting with Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor, to discuss monitoring activities in the tri-district schools 2.5 I 06/05/91 Conducted interviews for Incentive School teachers at Franklin Elementary for 1991-92 school year 2.5 I 06/06/91 Picked up survey forms from Fuller Jr. High and MIiis High School 1.0 I 06/07/91 Worked on monitoring report 4.0 06/10/91 Compiled Incentive School data for monitoring report 4.0 I 06/10/91 Participated in interviews for prospective teachers for Franklin I Incentive School for 1991-92 school term 2.5 06/11/91 Worked on LRSD monitoring report 4.0 I 06/12/91 Worked on LRSD monitoring report 6.0 I 06/12/91 Participated in interviews for Franklin Incentive School teaching staff for 1991-92 school year 2.0 I 5 I I I DATE ACTMTY HOURS I 6/13/91 Worked on LRSD monitoring report 7.5 I 06/14/91 Worked on LRSD monitoring report 4.0 06/14/91 Participated in interviews for Franklin Elementary Incentive school I teachers for the 1991-92 school year 3.0 06/17/91 Worked on LRSD monitoring report 7.0 I 06/18/91 Worked on LRSD monitoring report 7.0 I 06/19/91 Worked on monitoring report for LRSD 8.0 I 06/19/91 Conference with Karen Buchanan, principal at Washington Magnet School 2.0 I 06/20/91 Worked on monitoring report for LRSD 6.0 06/21/91 Worked on monitoring report for the LRSD 8.0 I 06/22/91 Participated in interviews for Franklin Incentive School teachers for the 1991-92 school year 3.0 I 06/24/91 Worked on monitoring report for LRSD 6.0 I 06/25/91 Writing of monitoring report section on the LRSD 8.0 06/26/91 Writing monitoring report on LRSD 6.0 I 06/27/91 Writing monitoring report for LRSD 6.0 I 06/28/91 Meeting with teachers from Cloverdale Jr. High School to discuss concerns about the school's administration 3.5 I 06/28/91 Wrote up concerns voiced by Cloverdale Jr. High teachers to be included in the LRSD monitoring report 4.0 I 07/01/91 Worked on monitoring report for PCSSD 7.5 I 07/02/91 Worked on PCSSD monitoring report 6.0 I 6 I - -- -- - - - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATE 07/03/91 07/03/91 07/05/91 07/06/91 07/08/91 07/09/91 07/09/91 ACTIVITY HOURS Worked on PCSSD monitoring report 4.0 Worked on NLR School District monitoring report 3.0 Compiled numerical data from LRSD, survey forms (incentive, area, magnet elementary schools; magnet and area Jr. High \u0026 magnet and area Sr. High schools) 7.5 Compiled numerical dta from LRSD survey forms (nicentive, area, magnet elementary schools; magnet and area Jr. High schools and magnet and Area High schools) 7.0 Using numerical data from survey froms and talley sheets made revisions to LRSD monitoring report. Also made additional editing/proofing changes 8.0 Worked on revisions to LRSD monitoring report 3.0 Worked on recommendations to be presented to LRSD administrators re: findings/concems from the monitoring report 3.5 TOTAL HOURS EXPENDED 365.3 7 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCKSCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF l cnc,KL AFFIDAVIT OF RAMSEY EDDINGTON ) )ss. ) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENOR$ Comes now the affiant, Ramsey Eddington, who submits the following affidavit under oath: 1. I am a Certified Public Accountant with my own business located at 201 S. Chester, Little Rock, Arkansas. I compile the business records of John W. Walker, P.A. 2. From data previously secured from the Walker law firm, I compiled the amounts paid by the Walker law firm to Clemetine Rouse, Evelyn Jackson, Delores Sykes, Kirke Herman, Debbie Parker, and LaRhonda Pondexte for the calendar years 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994. This information is as follows: I I I ., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PAYEE 1991 1992 1993 1994 Clementine Rouse 2200.00 1000.00 2000.00 Evelyn Jackson 2700.00 Delores Sykes 1000.00 3600.00 3600.00 Kirke Herman 16675.00 8400.00 12732.00 4587.00 Debbie Parker 26,225.81 LaRhonda Pondexter 5218.74 6875.00 I have read the foregoing affidavit and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information. I f.a lr RAMSEt}DDI roN SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this / 7 day of _ _.;.A._' --,-~L';..._;v__. _ _, 1995. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 4/ 1'7 / 200 3 / I NOTARY PUBLIC I I I I, I I I' I I I I I I I I II I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion and Memorandum of the Joshua lntervenors for an Interim Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs for Post-Judgment Monitoring have been served individuals listed below, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid, on this 21st day of November, 1995. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark . 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry Malone, Esq. rJo Little Rock School District 81 O West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell \u0026 Streett 401 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 504 Little Rock, AR Ms. Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim Humphries, Esq. Attorney General's Office 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, Ar 72201  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "}],"pages":{"current_page":19,"next_page":20,"prev_page":18,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":216,"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}}]}}