{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1803","title":"Multiple court filings","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"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2009-01/2009-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)||History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2000-2009","Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dcterms_title":["Multiple court filings"],"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/1803"],"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":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1797","title":"Multiple court filings","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"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2008-11/2008-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)||History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2000-2009","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Crystal Hill Elementary School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dcterms_title":["Multiple court filings"],"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/1797"],"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":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1799","title":"Multiple court filings","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"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2008-07/2008-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)||History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2000-2009","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County"],"dcterms_title":["Multiple court filings"],"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/1799"],"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":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1796","title":"Multiple court filings","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, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2008-05/2008-06"],"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":["Education","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2000-2009","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dcterms_title":["Multiple court filings"],"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/1796"],"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":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1794","title":"Multiple court filings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2008-02/2008-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)||History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2000-2009","Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dcterms_title":["Multiple court filings"],"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/1794"],"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":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1795","title":"Multiple court filings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2008-01-22/2008-01-31"],"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":["Education","Law","School integration","Race relations","Judicial process","History--Little Rock (Ark.)--2000-2009","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County"],"dcterms_title":["Multiple court filings"],"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/1795"],"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":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1787","title":"Court filings regarding responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status, notice of docket correction with additional exhibit, and response re: order regarding Pulaski Association of Classroom Teacher's (PACT's) request to file a belated response.","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":["2008-01-07/2008-01-18"],"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--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Teachers","Joshua intervenors","Parents' and teachers' associations","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration","Little Rock School District","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status, notice of docket correction with additional exhibit, and response re: order regarding Pulaski Association of Classroom Teacher's (PACT's) request to file a belated response."],"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/1787"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["43 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to Pulaski Association of Classroom Teacher's (PACT's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status; District Court, motion to file a belated response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status; District Court, surreply to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status; District Court, response to December 21, 2007, letter order; District Court, letter order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for unitary status; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in support of motion for unitary status; District Court, Joshua intervenors' reply to state's and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) response to December 21, 2007, order; District Court, notice of electronic filing, notice of docket correction with additional exhibit; District Court, letter order; District Court, response re: order regarding Pulaski Association of Classroom Teacher's (PACT's) request to file a belated response; District Court, response re: order; District Court, motion for substitution of counsel; District Court, notice of electronic filing, order    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4178 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNIIBD STATES DISTRICT COURT EASIBRN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESIBRN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. t-ARS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD REPLY TO PACT'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR A DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS INTRODUCTION This court should disregard the PACT Response for two (2) fundamental reasons: 1. The PCSSD filed its Motion for Unitary Status on October 29, 2007. The PACT ''Response\" was filed on December 21, 2007, or almost two (2) months later. PACT neither sought nor obtained an enlargement of time to respond to the PCSSD Motion and under the Rules the ''Response\" should be dismissed as untimely. 2. More substantively and fundamentally, the relief sought by PACT, to the extent it can be discerned, exceeds the limited reasons for which PACT was granted intervenor status in 1984. In 1984, PACT persuaded the Court of Appeals to permit it and the other teacher organizations then in operation in Pulaski County to intervene for the limited purpose of protecting their contractual rights and their collective bargaining rights, particularly assuming that consolidation might be ordered. 738 F.2d 82. (8th Cir. 1984). Here, the relief seemingly sought by PACT asks the district court to exclude from its ultimate decision the issues of racial discrimination in hiring and promotions as alleged in two individual cases: Humphries v. PCS SD ( citation omitted) and Dixon v. PCSSD ( citation omitted). PACT 's submission at p.4. 1121892.1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4178 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 2 of 5 DISCUSSION 1. Pursuant to the rules of this court, a response to a motion is due within eleven (11) days of service. See Rule FRCP 6. Here, a response was due no later than November 9, 2007, even assuming that PACT had any standing or basis or make a response. The gross tardiness of the response alone is a sufficient basis for the court to strike or disregard it or to deny the relief sought. 2. Much of the PACT submission discusses the claims of two individuals, a Dr. Donna Humphries who wishes to be an administrator, and a Ms. Norma Dixon, a non-certified employee who would like to be a \"buyer.\" Two preliminary observations are in order. If Dr. Humphries is ever successful in becoming an administrator, she would forfeit her eligibility to remain a member of PACT. PACT is an acronym for Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers. Likewise, Ms. Dixon, as a non-certified employee who wishes to be a buyer in the business department, does not even aspire to be a classroom teacher, and is likewise not eligible to be a PACT member. Much of the rest of the PACT submission complains about the racial composition of the administrative staff of the PCS SD, a matter outside the scope of its intervention. 738 F.2d 82 (8th Cir. 1984). Nowhere does it point to a specific violation of Plan 2000, the Plan pursuant to which the District is seeking to demonstrate its compliance and thus attain unitary status. Plan 2000 states simply and exclusively as regards administrators that: \"The PCSSD shall select its administrative staff from a racially diverse pool of applicants.\" Plan 2000 at page 6, SectionL. Staff Plan 2000 says nothing about what the statistical outcomes should be. The test for the hiring of teachers is phrased identically. Later in its submission, PACT seeks to make much of its view that the PCSSD is in compliance with some standards not found in Plan 2000 regarding the racial composition of its teacher corp. PACT cites a case from 1987 when the PCSSD operated pursuant to an earlier plan. At various points in this litigation, other litigants have sought to promote or otherwise litigate their perceived interests of individual employees. As predecessor judges in this case have consistently ruled, this class action institutional reform litigation is not a proper forum for the litigation of individual claims or perceived individual slights. The PACT ''Response\" should be dismissed on this basis as well. Premises considered, PACT, as an organization of teachers 1121892.1 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4178 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 3 of 5 allowed to intervene to protect their contract rights as teachers, simply lack standing to file their ''Response.\" WHEREFORE, the PCS SD prays for an order denying whatever relief is sought by PACT and for all other proper relief. 1121892.1 Respectfully submitted, :l\\1ITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Telephone: (501) 688-8800 Facsimile: (501) 688-8807 Isl M. Samuel Jones. III M. Samuel Jones III (76060) E-mail: sjones@mwsgw.com Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4178 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 4 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 7, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following:  Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com  Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com  John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net,yeldnef@yahoo.com  Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net,tmiller@fec.net,brendak@fec.net  M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com,aoverton@mwsgw.com  Stephen w. Jones sjones@jlj.com,linda.calloway@jlj.com  Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com,nmoler@williamsanderson.com  Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com,aroaf@seark.net,paramer@odmemail.com  Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov,agcivil@arkansasag.gov,danielle.williams@arkansasag .gov  John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.comJorap72297@aol.com.jspringer@gabrie1maiLcom I certify that on January 7, 2008, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 1121892.1 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4178 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 5 of 5 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 1121892.1 Isl M. Samuel Jones. III M. Samuel Jones, III Arkansas Bar No. 76060 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Telephone: (501) 688-8800 Facsimile: (501) 688-8807 E-Mail: sjones@mwsQW.com 5 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:34 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Brief in Opposition This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, M. on 1/7/2008 at 2:33 PM CST and filed on 1/7/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski County Special School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4178 Docket Text: BRIEF IN OPPOSITION filed by Pulaski County Special School District re [4175] Response to Motion - PCSSD Reply to PACT's Response to PCSSD's Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status (Jones, M.) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 1/8/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date= 1/7/2008] [FileNumber= 1070655-0] [3c6b7ca956241038bba68bdb4ddbd820dlfl89c0e21297c6b3bf7c923d8308b67520 7a3c381397c5b193a0e0fe82c9a085839e3146b6d3e33a97ae9a8df83dec]] 1/8/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4179 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MOTION TO FILE A BELATED RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR A DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Comes the Intervenor, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT), and, moves for leave to file its Response to Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status, and in support, states: 1. PACT mistakenly relied upon the Court's prior grant ofan extension of time until December 29, 2007, for the Joshua Intervenors to file their response to PCS SD' s motion for declaration of unitary status, and therefore, filed its response on December 21 , 2007. 2. PCSSD now seeks to strike that response pursuant to Rule 6, FRCP. 3. As PCS SD' spending motion is a dispositive motion for this case, PACT should be heard on the issues raised in its December 21, 2007, response, despite the delay in filing relative to PCSSD's motion. 4. PCS SD is not prejudiced by this delay, as the Joshua Intervenors were previously granted an extension of time for filing their response, and PACT filed within that time period. Further, the court has indicated that it will not set a hearing on PCSSD's motion until after the Court Page 1 of 3 'I Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4179 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 2 of 3 of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rules on the Joshua Intervenor's appeal of the court's order granting LRSD unitary status. PCSSD has had adequate time to reply, and has done so, substantively, already. Wherefore, PACT prays for an order, nunc pro tune, granting it additional time to respond to PCSSD's motion for declaration of unitary status to include December 21, 2007. Respectfully submitted, ls/Mark Burnette Mark Burnette, ABN 88078 MITCHELL,BLACKSTOCK,BARNES WAGONER, IVERS \u0026amp; SNEDDON, PLLC 1010 West Third P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 (501) 378-7870 Page 2 of 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4179 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 9, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: ___ John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. clayfendley@comcast.net; yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net;tmiller@fec.net;brendak@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com;aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com;linda.calloway@jlj .com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com;nmoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com;aroaf@seark.net;paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov;agcivil@arkansasag.gov danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com; lorap72297@aol.com;jspringer@gabrielmail.com M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com I certify that on January 9, 2008, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 By: ls/Mark Burnette Mark Burnette, ABN 88078 Page 3 of 3 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 3:26 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including prose litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Burnette, Mark on 1/9/2008 at 3:25 PM CST and filed on 1/9/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4179 Docket Text: First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to [4159] MOTION for Order for a Declaration of Unitary Status by Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (Burnette, Mark) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com 2/12/2008 Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com - Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/9/2008] [FileNumber=1073027-0] [85f4eb2890762693857547f8cfcac50348467752285b7alae8f633abcd5fD2dd6189 6101f3a91ed914aa161cdd93858ecd6af6dlbfadd94ffaa2bd2f1084eb3e]] 2/12/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4180 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SURREPLY TO PCSSD'S PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MOTION FOR A DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Comes the Intervenor, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT), and, for its surreply to Pulaski County Special School District's Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status, states: 1. PACT simultaneously files herewith a Motion for Leave to File Belated Response and Sur Reply to PCSSD's Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status to meet PCSSD's objection to the previously filed response without an order granting such a belated filing. PACT mistakenly relied upon the time granted to the Joshua Intervenors as setting a deadline for all responding to the dispositive motion filed by PCSSD. The usual eleven days for responding to motions was insufficient to allow PACT to assess the motion relative to the multiple interests at stake. PACT urges the court to accept its original pleading filed ono December 21, 2007, after considering the accompanying motion, and thereafter, grant the relief requested. 2. Further, PCSSD 's Reply, ,i 2, makes two erroneous \"preliminary observations,\" which it presumably intends for the court to rely upon to find PACT \"simply lack standing to file their Page 1 of 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4180 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 2 of 5 \"Response.\" First, PCS SD asserts that the two individuals (Dr. Donna Humphries and Ms. Norma Dixon) for whom PACT responded on December 21, 2007, are either not members of PACT ( re:Ms. Dixon) or would \"forfeit\" PACT membership if \"successful in becoming an administrator,\" and presumably, therefore, PACT does not have standing to represent the interests asserted in PACTs' Response to Motion for Declaration of Unitary Statuse. PCSSD Reply,p. 2. Dr. Humphries is a member of PACT, and will not forfeit membership upon being granted relief as an administrator. PCS SD is well aware that it withholds PACT membership dues for well over 40 principals and assistant principal administrators employed by the district. Further, PACT simply has no restriction on membership relative to an administrative employee's status as such so long as the member must have a teaching certificate as a condition of his or her employment, and, - the person is not the chief administrator of the district, i.e. the superintendent. PACT's bargaining status is limited to non-administrative personnel, but, as discussed below, that does not limit PACT's class representative status on behalf of virtually all employees of the district. See Dkt. No. 1179, also cited in PACT's Response. Secondly, with respect to Ms. Dixon and Dr. Humphries, PACT is obligated to represent both of these employees, whether members of PACT or not, pursuant to the April 17, 1989 consent Order Dkt. No. 1179, which states in relevant part: The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, the North Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, Grainger Ledbetter, Joyce Elliott, Sue Simmons, Katherinie Knight, Ed Bullington, Willie Givens, Teretha Jackson, and Leola Scoggins, are certified as class representatives under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the class of all present, past and future certified and non- Page 2 of 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4180 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 3 of 5 certified, past and future certified, and non-certified staff employees of the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, and the North Little Rock School District; Hence, by agreement and order of the court, PCSSD is precluded from asserting any alleged objection to PACT's standing on behalf of either non-teacher employees, non-certified employees, or non-PACT member employees. All are represented by PACT at this juncture. PCSSD's counsel may have been unaware of the expanded role of PACT on behalf of all PCSSD employees as he was not the attorney signing that consent order on behalf of PCSSD, attorney N. M. Norton, Jr., was counsel at that time. However, PACT cited DKT 1179 in its Response, thus PCSSD is aware that PACT's representative status has been expanded beyond the parameters of the 1984 Court of Appeals ruling which PCSSD cites. In light of the 1989 consent order establishing PACT's expanded class representative status, - PACT' s substantive interests in this matter are not constrained or controlled by the limits established in 1984, to \"protect their [sic] contract rights as teachers\" as asserted by PCS SD. Reply Brief p. 3. Nevertheless, the protection of PCSSD's employees' contract rights are precisely what is being raised by PACT herein. The contract rights which PACT seeks to protect from implicit resolution within this case are as based on the following: All employment contracts with public entities include an implied term of equal protection, pursuant to the 5th and 14th Amend. to the U.S. Const.; all employment contracts by employers who employ more than 15 employees include an implied term of equal employment opportunity as described by Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. Further, PCSSD's \"Professional Negotiated Agreement,\" explicitly addresses the process for filling administrative positions from within the ranks of its employees, which is directly asserted as a basis for Dr. Humphries' claims. The problem Page 3 of 5 V \u0026lt; ... ... Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4180 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 4 of 5 PACT sees with PCSSD's position herein is its apparent attempt to gloss over, and gain potential legal advantage, by referring the court to its administrative assignment statistics, PCSSD 's Motion for Declaration of Unitary Status, p. 4-5, which, if approved, may be interpreted as implicitly approving its hiring statisics for these positions. One cannot \"assign\" minorities to 52% of the available administrative positions without having also \"hired\" 52% minorities for those positions. If the court grants its approval to one, it may well be held to have implicitly granted approval to the other. That should not be done, and that is what PACT seeks to prevent by filing its Response. WHEREFORE, PACT prays any order issued on PCS SD' spending motion for unitary status make explicit exclusion of the issues ofracial discrimination in hiring and promotions as alleged in Humphries v. PCSSD, Case No. 4 :06 CV-00606 (E.D. Ark.) and Dixon v. PCSSD, Case No. 4-07-cv- 01119 (E.D.Ark). Respectfully submitted, ls/Mark Burnette Mark Burnette, ABN 88078 MITCHELL,BLACKSTOCK,BARNES WAGONER, IVERS \u0026amp; SNEDDON, PLLC 1010 West Third P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 (501) 378-7870 Page 4 of 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4180 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 9, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: ___ John Clayburn Fendley , Jr. clayfendley@comcast.net; yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net;trniller@fec.net;brendak@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com;aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com;linda.calloway@jlj .com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com;nrnoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com;aroaf@seark.net;paramer@odmemail.com ScottP.Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov;agcivil@arkansasag.gov danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov John W. Walker j ohnwalkeratty@aol.com; lorap72297@aol.com;jspringer@gabrielmai1.com M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com I certify that on January 9, 2008, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 By: ls/Mark Burnette Mark Burnette, ABN 88078 Page 5 of 5 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 3:33 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response in Opposition to Motion This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including prose litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Burnette, Mark on 1/9/2008 at 3:32 PM CST and filed on 1/9/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4180 Docket Text: RESPONSE in Opposition re [4159] MOTION for Order for a Declaration of Unitary Status filed by Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers. (Burnette, Mark) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec .net, brendak@fec .net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/12/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 - Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/9/2008] [FileNumber=1073049-0] [295d492bfa46dlfbac44420e507ba0b87f98cld95027c217c49e075f825fl28763c7 ccd4b412a96ddb147da03783ac2a7a07d4c327baf3150e6b135c8f80c3be]] 2/12/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82-cv-866 WRW PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO DECEMBER 21, 2007, LETTER ORDER The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), by and through its attorney, Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson, and the North Little Rock School District, by and through its attorney Stephen W. Jones, state for their Response to the Court's December 21, 2007, Letter Order: 1. On December 21, 2007, the Court issued a letter expressing concern about scheduling hearings on the School Districts' motions for unitary status because of the Joshua Intervenors' \"challenging the compliance standard [the Court] used during the last hearing\" in the pending appeal of the LRSD's unitary status. 2. The standard for determining whether the school districts have complied with their desegregation plans is well established in this case. In 2002, when this Court released the LRSD from all but one of the areas of its desegregation plan, the Court explained that the standard was whether a district had \"substantially complied\" with its desegregation obligations. The 2002 opinion gave a focused definition of this standard when it held: I am required to examine whether any of LRSD's failures to comply with the Revised Plan in the six challenged areas are \"serious enough\": (1) to constitute \"substantial noncompliance\"; and (2) \"to cast doubt\" on LRSD's \"future compliance with the constitution.\" Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 2 of 5 LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 237 F.Supp.2d 988, 1032-33 (E.D. Ark. 2002). 3. Although the Joshua lntervenors appealed the 2002 release of the LRSD, they did not challenge this standard on appeal. The Eighth Circuit in affirming this Court's 2002 decision relied on this standard to evaluate the LRSD's release. LRSD v. Armstrong, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). This standard thus became the law of the case as the Court recognized in 2004. LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F. Supp. 2d 963,965 (E.D. Ark. 2004). Accordingly, this is the standard that should continue to govern the evaluation of the school districts' compliance with their desegregation plans. 4. Further, the standard of substantial compliance in good faith established by this Court and the Eighth Circuit is consistent with Supreme Court precedent starting with Brown II in 1955. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299, 75 S.Ct. 753, 746 (1955) (release from court supervision required if \"the action of school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles.\") (emphasis added); Accord Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 439, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1695 (1968)(school district's obligation of compliance was \"to be acting in good faith.\"); Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 249, 111 S.Ct. 630, 637-8 (1991)(requiring \"good faith of the school board in complying with the decree.\"); Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 493, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 1447 (1991)(rejecting assertion that school district had to engage in \"heroic measures\" to demonstrate compliance with a desegregation plan). 5. The Joshua Intervenors have not challenged the general application of this standard to this case in their currently pending appeal. They have argued in their Appellant's Reply Brief that the \"deeply embedded\" requirement in the Court's 2004 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 3 of 5 Compliance Remedy was not a new standard but that it came \"straight from the broad 2.7.1 bargain, by 'reasonable implication.\"' Ex. A, Joshua Reply Brief p. 9. The Joshua Intervenors go on to state that the \"deeply embedded\" standard does not apply to the other two districts, because \"the standard is a part of LRSD's voluntary substantive obligation drawn from Sec. 2.7.1.\" Id. In short, the Joshua Intervenors have taken the position on appeal that the standard involved in their Eighth Circuit appeal applies only to the LRSD and only to one part of its desegregation plan. Principles of fairness and estoppel should prevent the Joshua Intervenors from changing positions on this issue as the two remaining school districts move forward. Hossaini v. Western Missouri Medical Center, 140 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1998). 6. With regard to the PCSSD's petition for unitary status, a response to that pleading was due on or about November 12, 2007. Neither the LRSD (the original plaintiff in this case) nor the Joshua Intervenors have filed a response to that petition in the two months since it was filed. 7. The undersigned would also note that the Arkansas General Assembly has made funds available for reimbursement of attorneys' fees if the school districts can obtain a ruling by June 14, 2008, that they have at least partially complied with their desegregation plans. Ex. A, Act 395 of 2007. WHEREFORE, the State of Arkansas and the North Little Rock School District state that the currently pending appeal should not be an impediment to having the two remaining school districts provide their students assurance through court action that they either have fulfilled or are fulfilling their desegregation obligations and requests that the 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 4 of 5 Court enter a scheduling order on the pending petitions for unitary status, and issue all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. BY: BY: Respectfully submitted, DUSTIN McDANIEL Attorney General Isl Scott P. Richardson SCOTT P. RICHARDSON, Bar No. 01208 MATTHEW B. McCOY, Bar No. 01165 Assistant Attorneys General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-1019 direct (501) 682-2591 facsimile Email: scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov ATTORNEYS FOR STATE OF ARKANSAS AND ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Isl Stephen W. Jones STEPHEN W. JONES, Bar No. 78083 Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 501-375-1122 Fax 501-375-1027 ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 10, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Mr. Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mr. Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com Mr. John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net Mr. Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net Mr. M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com Mr. Stephen W. Jones sjones@j lj .com Mr. John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com; aroaf@seark.net; paramer@odmmail.com I, Scott P. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on January 10, 2008, to the following nonCM/ ECF participants: Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass. 02173 Isl Scott P. Richardson SCOTT P. RICHARDSON 5 - 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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 - 35 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181-2 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 1 of 5 Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to the law as it existed prior to this session of the General Assembly. Act 395 of the Regular Session State of Arkansas As EAosB .-i}3i7/07 86th General Assembly Regular Session, 2007 HOUSE BILL 1829 By: Representative Bond For An Act To Be Entitled AN ACT TO ENSURE EFFICIENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS INVOLVED IN DESEGREGATION LITIGATION; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Subtitle AN ACT TO ENSURE EFFICIENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS INVOLVED IN DESEGREGATION LITIGATION. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. Findings. It is found and determined by the General Assembly that: (1) The school districts in Pulaski County entered into a settlement agreement and desegregation plans in 1989 with the intent to fulfill a \"promise for achieving unitary school systems which are free from the vestiges of racial discrimination\"; (2) The State of Arkansas has paid the districts in excess of approximately seven hundred million dollars ($700,000,000) to assist the districts in fulfilling their promise to achieve unitary schools free from the vestiges of racial discrimination; (3) There has never been a date certain when the state's desegregation obligations in the case styled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866, are to end; (4) The Little Rock School District has recently been declared lllllllllllll 111111111111111111111111111 Exhibit A 03-07-2007 09:14 JDFlll 1 2 3 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181-2 As Engrossed: H3/7/07 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 2 of 5 HB1829 unitary and has been released from federal court supervision, but the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District have yet to attain a ruling that they have fulfilled their promise to their students to achieve unitary school systems; 5 (5) These school districts believe they are unitary or have 6 achieved a unitary status in some respect, and have stated so publicly in 7 legislative committee meetings; 8 (6) The General Assembly finds that without any ruling from the 9 federal district court that the districts have achieved unitary status, there 10 is no assurance that the promise of schools free of the vestiges of racial 11 discrimination has been fulfilled by these districts; 12 (7) The General Assembly finds that, as a part of the state's 13 overall obligation to provide a general, suitable, and efficient school 14 system, the students and parents of the Pulaski County districts deserve to 15 know that they are being educated in a unitary school district, or if their 16 district is not unitary in some respect the district should be making 17 18 19 20 adequate progress towards being declared fully unitary; (8) The General Assembly seeks to assist the school districts to achieve unitary status and to fulfill their promise to provide school systems which are free from the vestiges of racial discrimination consistent with 21 their desegregation plans; and 22 (9) The General Assembly also seeks to provide some assurance to 23 the children in the districts that the promise of unitary schools in the 24 Pulaski County districts will be fulfilled within a reasonable amount of 25 time. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 SECTION 2. Arkansas Code Title 6, Chapter 20, Subchapter 4 is amended to add additional sections to read as follows: 6-20-415. Consultants. The Department of Education in consultation with the Attorney General shall hire consultants on the following basis: (1) The consultants shall be qualified as experts in public school district desegregation; 1, 2007; (2) The department shall hire the consultants prior to October (3) The purposes for employing the consultants are to determine 2 Exhibit A 03-07-2007 09:14 JDFlll 1 2 3 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181-2 As Engrossed: H3/7/07 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 3 of 5 HB1829 whether and in what respects any of the three (3) Pulaski County school districts: (A)(i) Are unitary. (ii) If a school district has been declared unitary 5 or has been declared unitary in some respects, the consultants shall not 6 examine the school district on those issues; and 7 (B) Have complied with their respective consent decrees; 8 and 9 (4) The consultants shall understand and acknowledge in their 10 work and research that their testimony in court may be required. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 6-20-416. Desegregation funding. (a) The Department of Education and the Attorney General are authorized to seek proper federal court review and determination of the current unitary status of any school district in the case of Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866. (b)(l) Upon the effective date of this section, the department and the Attorney General are authorized to seek modification of the current consent 20 decree or enter into a new or an amended consent decree or settlement 21 agreement under this section that allows the State of Arkansas to: 22 (A) Continue necessary and appropriate payments under a 23 post-unitary agreement to the three (3) Pulaski County school districts for a 24 limited and definite time period not to exceed seven (7) years and for a 25 definite limited sum of payments; 26 (B) Ensure that the amount of funding provided under the 27 post-unitary agreement is the total maximum obligation of the state and the 28 school districts in the case; 29 (C) Ensure that the payments required pursuant to the 30 post-unitary agreement are structured so that the total amount of the 31 payments decrease so that no financial obligation remains due or owed by the 32 state at the end of the time period specified in the post-unitary agreement; 33 and 34 35 36 (D) Ensure that the total of any financial obligation created or established for the state in any one (1) year shall not exceed the state's desegregation obligation for the 2007-2008 school year. 3 Exhibit A 03-07-2007 09:14 JDFlll 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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181-2 As Engrossed: H3n /07 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 4 of 5 HB1829 (2) The agreement under this subsection (b) may only be a postunitary agreement and the school districts shall receive the continued funding only if they are declared unitary. However, the agreement does not have to be post unitary and may commence upon all districts having been declared, previously or in the future, unitary in terms of student assignment and student racial balance so long as all other requirements in subdivision (b)(l) of this section are met. (3) Before any agreement is entered into pursuant to this subsection (b), the proposed post-unitary agreement shall be submitted to the Legislative Council for review and approval. (c)(l) The department in consultation with the Attorney General shall have the authority to enter into agreements with the three (3) Pulaski County school districts to reimburse the school districts for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary status or partial unitary status. (2) To be eligible for possible reimbursement under this subsection (c) for legal fees incurred, motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status shall be filed no later than October 30, 2007 1 and the school districts must be declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14 1 2008. (3) Under no circumstances shall any one (1) school district be entitled to reimbursement under this subsection (c) in excess of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000). (4) Before a reimbursement agreement is entered into pursuant to this subsection (c), the proposed reimbursement agreement shall be submitted to the Legislative Council for review and approval. (d)(l) By modifying the current consent decree or entering into a new or an amended consent decree or post-unitary agreement, the State Board of Education may create one (1) or more new school districts within Pulaski County if the creation of the new school district or districts does not eliminate the Pulaski County Special School District from existence. (2) The state board shall seek the federal district court's approval prior to creating a new school district pursuant to this subsection (d), unless the federal district court's approval is not required because: (A) The school district or districts involved have been released from the federal district court's supervision; or (B) The new school district or districts is contemplated 4 Exhibit A 03-07-2007 09:14 JDFlll 1 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181-2 As Engrossed: H3n/07 only as part of the post-unitary agreement. Filed 01/11/2008 Page 5 of 5 HB1829 (3) Any new school district created in Pulaski County shall 3 receive a pro rata distribution based on its average daily membership of the 4 funding provided under subsection (b) of this section for the school district 5 or districts from which it was created. 6 (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed: 7 (1) To force entry of a consent decree or settlement agreement 8 by the department or the Attorney General with the three (3) Pulaski County 9 school distri cts; or 10 (2) As protecting any school district from action or sanction by 11 the department for fiscal, academic, or facilities distress. 12 13 14 15 16 17 - 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 - 36 Isl Bond 5 APPROVED: 3/21/2007 Exhibit A 03-07-2007 09:14 JDFlll Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 4:16 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response (Non Motion) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Richardson, Scott on 1/11/2008 at 4:16 PM CST and filed on 1/11/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas, State of WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4181 Docket Text: RESPONSE re [4176] Order of December 21, 2007 by Arkansas, State of (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, Act 395 of 2007)(Richardson, Scott) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/12/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 - Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/11/2008] [FileNumber=1075449-0 ] [a025e51e79d39c79ba67025907cd934ad8bc4b0d36928763bf7f9903f31a89c73d8 d7f4471 b50b27998567a6f720aa60faf0ae6211 bdbfe4b75c7758b5f27583]] Document description:Exhibit A, Act 395 of2007 Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/11/2008] [FileNumber=1075449-l ] [7fb9987a8c1692f917deb5b9830564c6385221857531cb9a136c61e009318e08746 23afc1693fbe3e2d80f0146153a8c5e2e49525fb2bec8fde06ac8a6a3411f]] 2/12/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4182 Filed 01/14/2008 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 500 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 0444 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 January 14, 2008 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, 4:82-CV-00866 Dear Mr. Walker: It appears that you have not filed a response to the Pulaski County Special School District's Motion for Declaration of Unitary Status (Doc. No. 4159), which was filed on October 29, 2007. Do you concede their motion? If not, why has no response been filed? Please advise by noon, on Tuesday, January 22, 2008. I also note that the State and the North Little Rock School District have filed a response (Doc. No. 4181) to my December 21, 2007 Letter-Order. If you wish to reply to this pleading, do so by noon, Tuesday, January 22, 2008. Original to the Clerk of Court cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Other Counsel of Record Cordially, /s/ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 2:10 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 1/14/2008 at 2:10 PM CST and filed on 1/14/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4182 Docket Text: ORDER responses due by noon Tuesday, January 22, 2008 re [4176] Order, [4159] MOTION for Order for a Declaration of Unitary Status filed by Pulaski County Special School District. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr on 1/14/08. (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com - John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com 1/15/2008 John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 - Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date= 1/14/2008] [FileNumber= 107 6222-0 ] [9b46924dedf356eb7397040212d07959ac9fl 7602042c 1 b2481 fl 05d3284f0bdb70 46fff719b4a842adl24874634e131ae33a7f6e8ce961e2bbf0461cc19b6at]] 1/15/2008 Page 2 of2 , . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4184 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 1 of 2 INTI-IE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. Case No. 4:82cv866WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR UNITARY STATUS 1. They deny the allegations of paragraph one. 2. They deny the allegations of paragraph two. 3. They deny the allegations of paragraph three. 4. They admit the allegations of paragraph four. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors oppose the Motion for Declaration of Unitary Status. Respectfully submitted, Isl John W. Walker 1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4184 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 2 of 2 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501- 374-4187 (Facsimile) Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Opposition has been filed using the CM/ECF system on this 15th day of January, 2007 wherein on copy will be served on the following counsel: M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com Christopher Heller heller@fec.net Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov 2 Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com Mark T. Burnette mBumette@mbbwi.com Office of Desegregation Mon. andreeroaf@odemail.com Isl John W. Walker Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf _ support@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11 :57 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response to Motion This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 1/15/2008 at 11 :56 AM CST and filed on 1/15/2008 Case Name: Case Number: Filer: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Leslie Joshua Stacy Joshua Wayne Joshua Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4184 Docket Text: RESPONSE to Motion re [4159] MOTION for Order for a Declaration of Unitary Status filed by Lorene Joshua, Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua, Wayne Joshua. (Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice bas been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com - Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com 1/15/2008 .. \\ . .,,. Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalk:eratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/15/2008] [FileNumber=1077106-0 ] [4fe730110079004854c2a451 bc5efff96e21694690b61eee0739979fl 5276a21e9a 18320e6a6e6ec8514a5c659ed01539ec66b5378cdlcfc7ab215d5454f12aa]] 1/15/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. Case No. 4:82cv866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully oppose the motion that the PCSSD be declared unitary. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that this matter be set for hearing at which point the defendants be required to demonstrate by a substantial evidentiary showing that the schools have fulfilled the requirements of law and the agreements between the parties. To the court's inquiry regarding Joshua's delay in filing this response, Joshua respectfully shows the Court that issues related to compliance have been the subject of ongoing negotiations between Joshua and the PCSSD with the United States Department of Justice being the mediating source as provided by the settlement agreement. Joshua has 1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 2 of 10 kept the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed of the Joshua objections and has invoked the process set forth in the settlement agreement for resolution of disputes between the parties. The PCSSD motion was filed during the period that the invoked process was underway. 1 The matter was further set for negotiation on December 18, 2007 but was cancelled due to the unavailability for health related reasons of PCSSD counsel, M. Samuel Jones. The process is scheduled to resume on a date to be determined by the parties now that Mr. Jones health is no longer an issue. The Joshua objections are generally that the PCSSD has not substantially complied with the provisions of the settlement agreement and that it has not implemented the recommendations of this court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The PCS SD has generally taken the position that it is no longer required to implement the provisions of the settlement agreement because \"desegregation is over, as a matter of law.\" That opinion has been stated on many occasions by district officials though not embraced in any writing known to undersigned counsel. 1 . The motion filed was more or less mandated by the State officials represented by the Arkansas Legislature, the Arkansas Department of Education and the Attorney General's office. Neither of those officials have made a substantive assessment of the district's compliance with law and the existing agreements. 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 3 of 10 The ODM has submitted a number of monitoring reports which reflect PCSSD's dismal performance with respect to meeting its settlement and legal obligations. Joshua has persistently brought these matters to the attention of the court through ODM. The invocation of the process for raising objections and discussions pursuant thereto, as provided by the plan, have been underway now for more than two (2) years. The parties have not been able to resolve the issues. 1. To the argument set forth in the PCSSD \"Introduction,\" i.e., schools should ordinarily be under local control, Joshua points up that a district's having remedied acknowledged violations is prerequisite to that perspective. Whether that remedy has occurred as directed would ordinarily be a judicial determination. Local control as a concept, however, is subordinate to insuring that promised constitutional rights and remedies are implemented. 2. The PCSSD's observation that LRSD has been declared unitary, Section A, p. 2, is correct only in part. Moreover, because partial unitary status was induced without express direction of the LRSD Board of Education by recorded Board motion and vote, and by documentation of that fact which is now that earlier decision may be the subject of a new or other appropriate. 3. PCSSD argues that it is \"positioned to be declared unitary in the area of student assignments.\" The trouble with the PCSSD position is that upon the 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 4 of 10 ending of M to M funding, the schools located in Pulaski county which now house African American students from Little Rock will no longer accept those students. The students will thus be left homeless because LRSD, through the initiative of Ken James, and his successor Superintendent Roy Brooks, have closed schools located in the African American communities and have no plans for accommodating the return of those students upon cessation of M to M funding who now claim PCSSD schools as their home site. This is underway as those forces in the LRSD which initiated the Motion for Unitary status, i.e., ADE Director Ken James, LRSD board members Baker Kurrus and Larry Berkeley, and unidentified persons in the LR business community, seek to have constructed primarily for white children another school in west Little Rock. If this happens state imposed segregation will be continued. Furthermore, the students who will be necessarily returned from PCS SD will have no home school for, contrary to LRSD plans, schools in their neighborhoods - Rightsell, Mitchell, Badgett and Cloverdale have been closed. 4. PCSSD acknowledges that a number of its schools are out of compliance, p. 3. The district's figures presented were for 2006-7, not the present term. The court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) noted that 5 of 23 elementary schools fell \"outside the plan described range for 2007-8, each above 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 5 of 10 the maximum black enrollment.\" The ODM said that the same situation persisted in 2006-7 as well. The district refers to Harris and relies upon court approval of district strategies for correcting the imbalance. The strategies presented to the court did not work and have largely been ignored by PCSSD. Importantly, PCSSD did not report is failed strategy to the court and as a result state imposed segregation clearly remains at Harris. Upon partial unitary status being declared for Mills, Fuller and College Station, those schools will become racially identifiable for white students will largely no longer be in the surrounding attendance zones. Fuller, College Station and Harris are physically unequal to the new Chenal school which will be virtually one race. Surely, the court will recognize the force of Plessey v. Ferguson. 1898, which required equal facilities at the least and as a condition for release require substantial new facilities for those areas which are equal to Chenal and Maumelle, the replacement site for Oak Grove. 5. On page 4 of the brief, the PCSSD addresses faculty and administrative assignments. Joshua Intervenors note that the ODM has addressed this area and has made recommendations regarding the matter. See ODM report dated December 15, 2006. 6. On page 5 of the brief under facilities, the PCS SD argues that unequal 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 6 of 10 schools are not \"vestiges of the prior dual system of education for the races.\" It is to be noted that Harris Elementary school on a comparative basis is dismal, in need of remodeling or replacement. While the PCSSD has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the facility, it is still unequal and in no way can be regarded as comparable to the new Chenal school, Baker and Pine Forest and Maumelle elementary and middle schools among others. The reference to the Lakeview case is misplaced because Lakeview did not address racial inequalities with respect to facilities. The schools which are located in majority African American communities in Pulaski County, with few exceptions, are not the equal of those schools which are located in middle class, majority white communities. 7. On page 5 of the brief, the PCS SD further argues that it has complied in good faith and that it has eliminated the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable. The District's good faith is not demonstrated by the filing of this petition. The filing of this petition for full unitary status was not authorized by the Board. Indeed, board members recognize that there are still vestiges of discrimination in the district. Moreover, the ODM has found continuing vestiges of discrimination. See status reports of ODM dated August 16, 2006 and December 15, 2006. Joshua is prepared to demonstrate that the PCSSD Board only authorized its administration and counsel to seek partial unitary status. 6 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 7 of 1 O However, prodded by state officials, PCSSD administrators changed the record to reflect Board action for unitary status. 8. The PCCSD made commitments with respect to student discipline which are the partial subject of the referenced conflict between the parties now pending before the Department of Justice as well as the area of Special Education. The District has conceded that it was non compliant with respect to those areas. It has been only within the last two years that they have initiated actions to address their dereliction in those areas. The motion does not address at all the pertinent area of academic achievement, discipline, and special education, all of which are being discussed by the parties with the Department of Justice. 9. The district basically acknowledges that it has not complied with obligations under the settlement decree and under law. Because of intense pressure from the State of Arkansas, the present motion has been filed. That pressure includes dissolution of part of the district and the establishment of one and possibly to separate school districts, one for the Jacksonville area and another for Maumelle-Sherwood. It is contemplated that there will be other efforts to diminish and realign the PCSSD which efforts operate to the detriment of the African American students in all three districts. Those efforts violate the stated good faith commitments. 7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 8 of 1 O 10. In this action, upon release from it, the State of Arkansas committed to fully support desegregation actions, improve achievement, and to otherwise eliminate all vestiges of state imposed discrimination. This was done in what is called the \"Allen letter\". In this respect, the State of Arkansas has established, contrary to the wishes of PCS SD, a charter school, the LISA Academy in the district which is racially identifiable (79% white). The State appears anxious to establish other racially identifiable schools in Pulaski County under guise and label of \"charter schools.\" The State is fully aware of the likely efforts of such privatization of public education. PCS SD is powerless to resist the State's resegregative initiative because of fear that the district will be taken over by the ADE as either academically or financially distressed. The court is obliged to respect the reports of ODM in considering the district's compliance. The PCS SD is also obliged to do so. The ODM is not a party but its role has been well defined and not modified by later court directive. The PCSSD (and the NLRSD) and the State of Arkansas may be of the view that this court does not respect the considered work of the ODM monitors because of the approach taken by the court during the LRSD proceedings now on appeal. Joshua submits that even in the absence of these objections the ODM reports establish that the PCSSD has not fulfilled its legal requirements approved by the 8 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 9 of 10 court. Furthermore, by \"invoking the process\" and utilizing the Department of Justice Community Relations Department, Joshua has proceeded as the plan directs. This court should not interfere by crediting PCS SD' s request until the parties have exhausted the process and until Joshua has presented its complaints to the court. The PCSSD motion should be denied! Respectfully submitted, Isl John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501- 374-4187 (Facsimile) Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Opposition has been filed using the CM/ECF system on this 15th day of January, 2007 wherein on copy will be served on the following counsel: M.SamuelJones,ill sjones@mwsgw.com Christopher Heller heller@fec.net 9 Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com Mark T. Burnette mBurnette@mbbwi.com Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 1 O of 1 O Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov 10 Office of Desegregation Mon. andreeroaf@odemail.com Isl John W. Walker Page 1 of2 pally From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:02 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Brief in Support This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including prose litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 1/15/2008 at 12:01 PM CST and filed on 1/15/2008 Case Name: Case Number: Filer: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Leslie Joshua Stacy Joshua Wayne Joshua Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4185 Docket Text: BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by Lorene Joshua, Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua, Wayne Joshua re [4184] Response to Motion {Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com - Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com 1/15/2008 - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date= 1/15/2008] [FileNumber= 1077124-0 ] [lb59dfaa5eda3412fD9c87c2f62b8034d5ae976489fea19435b171d029b9446a35e 7ba8c5bbd6054ddca4 70b 1 c06c77bd8:f9e0bf9e0bd04 fl 5b7fD 11 e91 e5955]] 1/15/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4186 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. Case No. 4:82cv866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REPLY TO STATE'S AND NLRSD'S RESPONSE TO DECEMBER 21, 2007 ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The State is not a party to this proceeding. It's part in the motion is inappropriate unless it is to be considered as either a Motion to Intervene or for relief otherwise provided to it by agreements between the parties. There has been no showing of either. On the other hand, the State's response demonstrates the State's ability to direct the actions of the NLRSD (and the PCSSD). It's arguments are not appropriate unless and until it is made a party. 2. The NLRSD response was obviously dictated by the ADE and other state officials under threat of financial loss. 3. In reply to the Response to the Court's Letter Order, Joshua submits 1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4186 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 2 of 4 that the Order was appropriate. The briefs of the LRSD and Joshua parties are before the Court of Appeals as is an amicus brief, denoting non party status, by the State as well. 4. The parties response essentially argues what LRSD is arguing on appeal. Those parties are in effect requesting this court to make a new ruling on the pending appeal while the standard of review used by the court in LRSD is being appealed and is under review itself. (Para(s). 3-4, p. 2 of Response.) 5. The parties' response is simply their assessment of the appeal before the Eighth Circuit. Their opinions of Joshua's pending Eighth Circuit case are not legally relevant to the issue set forth as a basis for deferring hearing. In short the Response to the Court's Order by an interloper party, the ADE, not properly before this court and who is an amicus in the referenced litigation, is inappropriate without express intervention for which there must be a factual and legal basis. The State must at least allege harm. The NLRSD' s argument which remains simply that notwithstanding the appeal in the Little Rock case, the court should proceed post haste to consider its motion. The court is reminded that this is the first motion filed by NLRSD in years. For NLRSD, time obviously has not been urgent in the past for considering the issue of unitary status. It is not urgent now and there is no demonstrated 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4186 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 3 of 4 prejudice to NLRSD. Indeed, the State of Arkansas has extended the time to NLRSD regarding this petition. The Court's Letter Order should therefore stand as issued. Respectfully submitted, Isl John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501- 374-4187 (Facsimile) Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Opposition has been filed using the CM/ECF system on this 15th day of January, 2007 wherein on copy will be served on the following counsel: M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com Christopher Heller heller@fec.net Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov 3 Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com Mark T. Burnette mBumette@mbbwi.com Office of Desegregation Mon. andreeroaf@odemail.com Isl John W. Walker Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:08 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Reply (Non Motion) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents ftled electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 1/15/2008 at 12:07 PM CST and filed on 1/15/2008 Case Name: Case Number: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Leslie Joshua Stacy Joshua Wayne Joshua Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4186 Docket Text: REPLY re [4181] Response (Non Motion) Joshua Intervenor's Reply to State's and NLRSD's Response to December 21, 2007 Order by Lorene Joshua, Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua, Wayne Joshua (Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net 2/12/2008 M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj .com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/15/2008] [FileNumber=1077136-0 ] [99288d5be7fe75c1422e044a3bb24144ed7b15e18569b127833acb0122ca7ce7183 40585ace9a56c0eb4f436fa78a5e4b1769d0ce74617346681634c8f6041lfj] 2/12/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4187 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 1 of 1 \"Scott Richardson\" \u0026lt;Scott.Richardson@arkansas ag.gov\u0026gt; 01/15/2008 02:14 PM To \u0026lt;clerksoffice@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; cc \"Sam Jones\" \u0026lt;SJones@mwsgw.com\u0026gt;, \u0026lt;sjones@jacknelsonjones.com\u0026gt;, \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;Heller@fec.net\u0026gt;, \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;, bee Subject LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., No. 4:82-cv-866 WRW Attached is an exhibit that was inadvertently left off of the Response to December 21, 2007, Letter Order (Dkt. # 4181) (Docketed as \"RESPONSE re 4176 Order of December 21, 2007 by Arkansas, State of) filed by the State of Arkansas and the North Little Rock School District. I understand that this exhibit can be appended to the original pleading by the clerk's office through the CM/ECF system. Please accept this as my request that you do so. Thank you for your assistance. Scott P. Richardson Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)682-1019 (501)682-2591 fax scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov Joshua Reply Brief. pdf Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:33 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice of Docket Correction This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including prose litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 1/15/2008 at 2:32 PM CST and filed on 1/15/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4187 Docket Text: NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re: [4181] Response re: Order of 12/21/2007. CORRECTION: Exhibit B was added as an attachment to docket entry [4181], based on the attached request. (thd) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com 1/15/2008 John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/15/2008] [FileNumber=1077392-0 ] [6bac00b54dbalc7e768e53ebldda7875e9bdd9851d43530fed40bb7f4014b3b77fe ecc977f94a8bddd3b536c204fadd5801d9435d0732ac0blcb9a14f658d2d5]] 1/15/2008 Page 2 of2 07-1866 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENOR/APPELLANTS v. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE Reply Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, Et Al. On Appeal From United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Hon. William R. Wilson District Judge Presiding Robert Pressman John W. Walker 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (F) EXHIBIT B Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................... . Table of Authorities ........................................................................... . Argument .......................................................................................... . The Arguments of the LRSD and the State Lack Merit A. The Original Section 2.7.1 Commitment Encompassed Structure for Assessment/Evaluation Deeply Embedded in the Operation of the LRSD B. The LRSD's Freedom to Craft an Implementation Plan During the Agreed Upon Duration of the Revised Plan C. This Court's Identification of the District Court's Remedial Authority D. The District Court's 2002 Decision and Its Initial Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default E. F. The District Court's 2004 Decision and Its Second Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default The District Court's Giving Notice of a Change in the Standards for Judging Compliance Only After the Hearing Requires Reversal 1 11 1 1 3 3 4 6 9 Certificate of Service............................................................................. 12 Certificate of Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Attachments i EXHIBIT B Table of Authorities Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395 (7thCir. 1994) Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) First Union National Bank, Trustee v. Pictet Overseas Trust Corp., 477 F.3d 616 (8thCir. 2007) Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.s. 565 (1975) Grand State Marketing Co. v. Eastern Poultry Distributors, 975 S.W.2d 429 (Ark.App. 1998) Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610 (1976) Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953 (8thCir. 1997) LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8thCir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8thCir. 1996) LRSD v. PCSSD, 237 F.Supp.2d 988 (E.D.Ark. 2002) LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F.Supp.2d 963 (E.D.Ark. 2004) LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d 528 (8thCir. 2006) LRSD v. PCSSD, Order Declaring the Little Rock School District Unitary, Feb. 23, 2007 McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc., 633 F.2d 226 (lstCir. 1980) Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 301 F.3d 1 (lstCir. 2002) Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) United States v. ITT Continental Baking Company. 420 U.S. 233 (1975) ii 10, 11 10 10, 12 10 2 10 4,9 3,4 8 2,4,6 6, 7, 11, 12 1, 6, 9 2, 12 10 9, 11 4 2 EXHIBIT B Rule 55, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Sec. 201(1) (1981) iii 10 2 EXHIBIT B The Arguments of the LRSD and the State Lack Merit LRSD and the State ignore the breadth, in context, of LRSD's original commitment in Section 2. 7 .1; LRSD's agreement necessarily required multiple actions creating a structure for implementation fairly characterized by the \"deeply embedded\" language later employed by the District Court, after LRSD twice failed to fulfill its voluntary commitments. They do not account for these defaults, or the District Court's remedial authority in such circumstances. They minimize, or ignore entirely the District Court's communicating an important change in the criteria for judging LRSD compliance only in its February 23, 2007 post-hearing opinion, thereby denying Joshua counsel the opportunity to challenge LRSD compliance with know ledge of all governing standards. A. The Original Section 2. 7 .1 Commitment Encompassed a Structure for Assessment/Evaluation Deeply Embedded in the Operation of the LRSD In 1998, the District Court approved the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), to which the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD had agreed. LRSD, 451 F.3d at 3. Section 2.7.1 provided that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2. 7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. While only 65 words and 2 sentences, this was a commitment of considerable breadth. First. The text referred to annual reviews of the specified programs in terms of 1 EXHIBIT B - their effectiveness in improving African-American student achievement. 1 The text also obligated the LRSD to modify or replace programs shown to be ineffective. Second. The programs, identified in Sec. 2. 7 of the Revised Plan, were those \"designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African American students .. . . \" The LRSD \"identified almost 100 [such] programs .... \" LRSD, 237 F.Supp. at 1076, n. 135. Third. The parties interpreted \"assess\" and \"assessment\" to require evaluations, a more detailed study than an assessment, of at least the key Section 2.7 programs. 237 F.Supp. at 1076-80; LRSD (dist. ct.), 2-23-07, at 13-15.2 The mere agreement to and approval of these two sentences was obvious! y not the goal of the parties. The objective meaning of these words, in the context of a school district of substantial size, contemplated a great deal of activity by its officers - and employees. There would be a need, inter alia, for the adoption of policies and guidelines; the employment of personnel capable of performing assessments and evaluations; interaction with those involved in the content of LRSD curriculum; communication with and training of school-level personnel; reports on 1 In 1997-98, the LRSD enrolled 24,886 students, 16,664 of whom were African Americans; LRSD then operated 50 schools. [ODM enrollment report, Dec. 7, 2007] 2 As the district court notes [LRSD, 2-7-07, at 2, 15] RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS Sec. 201(1) (1981) provides: \"Where the parties have attached the same meaning to a promise or agreement or a term thereof, it is interpreted in accordance with that meaning.\"; see also U.S. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 233,238 (1975) (reliance on \"any technical meaning words used may have had to the parties\"); Grand State Marketing v. Eastern Poultry Distribs., 975 S.W.2d 429,442 (Ark.App. 1998) (\"In particular, when a technical term is used, the trier of fact may determine in what sense the term was used.\") 2 EXHIBIT B - implementation to high level administrators and the school board; oversight; and documents containing completed program studies. Not infrequently, a phrase is used to describe an endeavor of considerable complexity. Here, a reasonable construction of the parties' broad voluntary agreement was that it contemplated, over time, multiple, mature actions at different levels and locales in the LRSD, i.e., that a structure to carry out the parties' broad agreement be \"deeply embedded\" in the LRSD curriculum and instruction program. B. The LRSD's Freedom to Craft an Implementation Plan During the Agreed Upon Duration of the Revised Plan Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided for implementation for a three-year period, assuming substantial compliance with its terms. In this period, the system's implementation of Section 2.7.1 was not constrained by any directive(s) of the District Court. The LRSD was free to fashion and implement steps to comply with the parties' agreement. C. This Court's Identification of the District Court's Remedial Authority Prior to the approval of the Revised Plan, this court addressed in this case the implementation and enforcement of agreements of the parties. The appeal in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) followed the parties' agreement to a desegregation plan for each of the three districts involved in the case, as well as an \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\" and a \"Settlement Agreement\" concerning obligations of State officials. 921 F.2d at 1378-80. Rejecting rulings of the District Court, this court approved the parties' plans. The court noted that \"the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring\" and continued [at 1386]: 3 EXHIBIT B 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 the monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. This court also addressed the District Court's authority in the concluding section of its 1990 opinion, which summarized this court's rulings and directives. This court wrote: 8. The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. See also Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367,378 (1992) (\"A consent decree no doubt embodies an agreement of the parties and thus in some - respects is contractual in nature. But it is an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees.\"); Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997) (parties' agreement \"becomes, in a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties\"). D. The District Court's 2002 Decision and Its Initial Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default In 2002, following hearings, the District Court ruled on the LRSD's effort to show compliance with the Revised Plan sufficient to achieve full unitary status and the termination of court jurisdiction. The court clustered the Plan provisions at issue in six areas. LRSD, 237 F.Supp. at 1086. In all areas but one, implementation of Plan provision 2. 7 .1, the court found substantial compliance and ended court supervision. 4 EXHIBIT B 237 F.Supp. at 1086, 1089. As to 2.7.1, the court found an absence of substantial compliance. Id. The District Court's discussion, 237 F.Supp. at 1076-80, may be summarized as follows: [i] LRSD interpreted Sec. 2.7 .1 consistently to obligate the district to prepare program evaluations of the key 2.7 programs, which by the text of that section were not limited to the programs in Plan Section 5. [At 1076-80] [ii] The school board adopted an evaluation policy belatedly, i.e., in February 2001, only in the month before LRSD filed its Compliance Report (at the time specified in the 1998 Revised Plan), seeking a complete release from court supervision. [At 1078, para. 7] [iii] LRSD lacked the personnel needed to prepare adequate evaluations. [At 1081, 5-16-01 E-mail] [iv] LRSD's March 2001 Compliance Report was marked by a lack of candor, - exaggerating the extent of completion of evaluations; none were complete. [At 1079- 80, para. 14] [v] In view of its earlier consistent position that Sec. 2.7.1 required the preparation of evaluations of key 2. 7 programs, LRSD's contrary position in the hearing also evidenced a lack of candor. [At 1078, para. 10] Faced with an absence of the evaluations which LRSD had agreed to be necessary and evidence of bad faith, the District Court did not simply plead with LRSD to comply. Rather, in keeping with this court's instructions in 1990, the Court devised a \"Compliance Remedy.\" This remedy required LRSD, among other things, to [237 F.Supp. at 1087-88]: [i] establish \"a program assessment procedure ... that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sec. 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\"; [ii] prepare 5 EXHIBIT 8 and use certain \"program evaluations\" which it had identified; [iii] continue during a specified period to assess each 2.7 program and use this and other available information in deciding on program modification and elimination; [iv] maintain certain written records regarding these assessments, including records regarding program modification and elimination, a topic specifically addressed in Sec. 2.7.1; and [iv] use a particular external expert or someone else with equivalent qualifications to prepare the evaluations, which the LRSD had referenced. There is no proper basis for criticism of the District Court regarding the 2002 remedy. Faced with LRSD default, the court extended the implementation period and identified actions inherent in the parties' 2. 7 .1 agreement, as construed by the parties. The District Court fulfilled the responsibility identified in strong terms by this court in 1990, in order to give Joshua Intervenors the benefit of the parties' bargain. Importantly, the LRSD neither sought clarification of the meaning of this remedy, nor appealed. LRSD, 470 F.Supp. at 969; LRSD, 451 F.3d at 536. E. The District Court's 2004 Decision and Its Second Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default In 2004, the LRSD sought a termination of court supervision based upon asserted compliance with the court's 2002 remedy and Sec. 2.7.1. The District Court again found a lack of substantial compliance. Faced with a second instance of noncompliance, the court set forth the second Compliance Remedy, which was, intentionally, more specific than the 2002 remedy. LRSD, 470 F.Supp. at 997. The factors on which the court relied in finding non-compliance and framing its 2004 remedy included the following: [i] the LRSD had again recognized that its 6 EXHIBIT B obligation encompassed some program evaluations; [470 F.Supp. at 970-71]; [ii] although, as LRSD's expert witness testified, all districts implement sub-programs within a curriculum, which can be and should be evaluated [Dr. Ross, hearing transcript at 195; 470 F.Supp. at 986], the \"evaluations\" which the LRSD presented were global overviews of the entire literacy and math-science curricula, not studies of particular programs which could be used to make the requisite decisions about program modification and elimination [ 4 70 F.Supp. at 971-72, 987, 990]; [iii] neither global overview addressed the key research question identified in LRSD's assessment\\evaluation policy, i.e., \"has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students?\" [470 F.Supp. at 987, 990]; [iv] LRSD did not maintain the - records regarding its program studies required in paragraph B of the 2002 Compliance Remedy [470 F.Supp. at 994-95]; [v] the shortcomings in LRSD performance were again attributable to staffing problems in the district [470 F.Supp. at 985-86]; [vi] in the opinion of the LRSD expert, Dr. Ross, a system the size of the LRSD could be expected to provide four or five evaluations a year [ 4 70 F.Supp. 994]; [vii] LRSD had failed to provide to ODM and Joshua Intervenors promised progress reports on the literacy and math-science evaluations [470 F.Supp. at 988-89, 991]. There is no proper basis for criticism of the District Court regarding the 2004 remedy. Faced with a second LRSD default, the court addressed more specifically required actions and steps to achieve them. No goal, required action, or standard was outside the parties' broad agreement. Except when it came to court, LRSD always 7 EXHIBIT B identified its obligations as including some evaluations. When LRSD had twice failed in this area, the court drew upon the testimony of LRSD's expert to identify the number of evaluations to require in its second remedy. LRSD having twice failed with regard to adequate personnel, the court was specific with regard to both in-house staff (PRE) and external experts (to do evaluations). The court's deeply embedded language was not a requirement untethered to the original 2. 7 .1 commitment, or fairly characterized as made up out of whole cloth, but instead a provision fairly descriptive of the LRSD landscape in a full compliance with Section 2. 7 .1 setting. Had LRSD complied at the outset, or after entry of the first compliance remedy, the District Court would not have had the need to articulate a global standard, geared to the particular subject matter of Sec. 2. 7 .1, to help measure compliance. The District Court could not allow itself to be \"run off.\" It could not condone non-compliance. It had a responsibility, which its second remedy sought to address. To the extent relevant on this appeal, it should be noted that no part of the argument made by the dissenting judge in this court's 2006 decision withstands scrutiny. See 451 F.3d at 541-43. First. The interpretation of the word \"assessment\" and the identification of the type of program studies required overall by Sec. 2.7.1 ignores two critical factors. These are LRSD's repetitive construction of its bargain as requiring some evaluations and the relevance of the parties' position on this to proper interpretation of Sec. 2. 7 .1. 8 EXHIBIT 8 See n.2, supra.3 Second. Having qualified personnel was an inherent element of the original 2. 7 .1 bargain; and the District Court dealt specifically with this topic only after a second default, each encompassing personnel deficiencies, as previously shown. Third. The \"deeply embedded\" standard, invoked only after two defaults, comes straight from the broad 2. 7 .1 bargain, by \"reasonable implication, \"4 as previously shown. A focus on the status and completeness of the identified actions for achieving compliance with Sec. 2. 7 .1 is more (not less) objective than application of the \"good faith\" standard ultimately employed. The State expresses concern about the impact of the \"deeply embedded\" concept on the two other Pulaski County school districts. [State brief at 16-17] No factual basis for this concern is shown. The State shows no order employing this standard regarding these systems (Pulaski County and North Little Rock). The State does not relate its concern to any particular remaining remedial provision in one of these districts. Beyond this, the State does not recognize that the standard is a part of LRSD's voluntary substantive obligation drawn from Sec. 2.7.1. and invoked by the District Court only after a second LRSD default. F. The District Court's Giving Notice of a Change in the Standards for Judging Compliance Only After the 3 Factual findings bearing upon contract interpretation are reviewed for clear error. LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8thCir. 1996). Given the volume of evidence relied upon, the lower court's findings that Sec. 2.7.1 encompassed evaluations are unassailable. 4 Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 954 (8th Cir. 1997). 9 EXHIBIT B Hearing Requires Reversal Prior notice, including of governing standards, is a fundamental and required element of fairness in many contexts. See [A] Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 301 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (district court entered default judgment on ADA claim, but after hearing conducted pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.Pro., dismissed claim on the merits; while the district court could conduct a hearing \"to 'establish the truth of any averment' in the complaint,\" it could only do so if it \"had made 'its requirements known in advance to the plaintiff, so that [he] could understand the direction of the proceeding and marshal! such evidence as might be available to [him].' Id. (quoting McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc., 633 F.2d 226, 229 (lstCir. 1980).\"; [B] Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1398 (7thCir. 1994) ( opinion written by Circuit Judge Lay, sitting by designation) (same); [C] First Union National Bank v. Pictet Overseas Trust, 4 77 F.3d 616, 621 (8thCir. 2007) ( discussing possible applicability of law of the case doctrine; \"Even had the district court intended to resolve the fiduciary duty issue in its Interest Rate Decision, it failed to do so with sufficient directness and clarity to establish the settled expectations of the parties necessary for the subsequent application of the law of the case doctrine.\"); [D] Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581-82 (1975) (in context of school suspension for disciplinary reason, required element of affording procedural due process rights is that \"the student [must] first be told what he is accused of doing and what the basis of the accusation is\"; this affords student \"opportunity to present his side of the story\" in an informed manner); [E] Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 10 EXHIBIT B U.S. 610, 620 (1976) (whether as to law or rule persons \"of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application\"); [F] Board of Educ. of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237,246 (1991) (\"[A] school board is entitled to a rather precise statement of its obligations under a desegregation decree.\"). The District Court departed from this basic standard of fairness. In Part K of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, the District Court identified LRSD's \"obligations under Sec. 2. 7 .1 as specified in the Compliance Remedy [ of 2004]\" as the measuring rod for assessing the district's right to a termination of court jurisdiction. [ 4 70 F.Supp. at 1000] That remedy, in Part B, included the \"deeply embedded\" language, which even referred to \"[p]art ofLRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing .... \" [470 F.Supp. at 998] The District Court gave notice of changing this standard only in its post-hearing opinion. [LRSD, 2-7-07, at 16-17] Obviously, Joshua counsel could not, on a key point, \"understand the direction of the proceeding and marshall such evidence as might be available to [them]\" [Ramos-Falcon and Black. supra], when the change to the \"good faith\" standard was set forth only after the evidentiary hearing was completed. Moreover, \"management orders\" and guidance to counsel before the hearing magnified the harm. By letter of December 6, 2006, the District Court required each side to present by December 8 for each witness \"a fair and accurate summary of the expected testimony ... and the length of time you estimate for direct examination.\" In a letter of January 18, 2007, the court stated that each side would be limited to 7 11 EXHIBIT B hours for its direct case and 2 hours for cross-examination. The court added: \"Crossexamination must be brisk and to the point, i.e., a Blitzkrieg, not an invasion of Normandy.\" [See attachments to this brief] In this setting, Joshua counsel had to focus with great care on the existing compliance standards. LRSD argues that Intervenors should have perceived the change in standards. [LRSD brief at 37-38] Neither the Court of Appeals, nor the District Court before the 2006 hearing or its decision, identified the good faith standard ultimately used by the lower court. Whether one refers to the law of the case or the criteria for assessing compliance, the standard actually used was not timely identified with \"sufficient directness and clarity .... \" First Union National Bank, 477 F.3d at 621. Moreover, LRSD does not recognize that the deeply embedded standard is a substantive element - of Sec. 2. 7 .1, fairly construed. The State discusses the law of the case concept. It is, however, silent on the problem here, the timing of the district court's changing in an important way the standards for judging compliance. [States's brief at 10-11] The State also does not recognize the nature of the deeply embedded standard; it is an element of the substantive bargain of Intervenors and LRSD in Sec. 2.7.1; it describes steps necessary to move from a few words on a page to a reality in the operation of the district. It is not, as the State discussion implies, a global standard, apart from Sec. 2. 7 .1, for assessing whether there is sufficient compliance with the agreement to justify a termination of the case as to LRSD or another district. Compare State brief at 12-13. 12 EXHIBIT B Conclusion This court should vacate the judgment of dismissal and: [i] direct the District Court, after a hearing, to reinstate a compliance remedy for an additional period; [ii] or, alternatively, direct that the District Court, after a hearing, determine the compliance of the LRSD with the second remedy, including the \"deeply embedded\" component as a substantive element of the remedy; [iii] or, alternatively, direct that the District Court, after a hearing, determine the compliance of the LRSD with the second remedy, utilizing the good faith standard in doing so. 13 Respectfully submitted, /s/,Tohn W. Walker John W. Walker, AR No. 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 E-Mail: johnwalkeratty@aol.com Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 EXHIBIT B CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JOHN W. WALKER, the undersigned counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, Appellant herein, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply Brief has been served on this 18st day of December, 2007, by dispatch to a third-party commercial carrier for overnight delivery to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Clerk's Office, Thomas F. Eagleton Court House, Room 24.329, 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis,Missouri 63102-1125 and via U.S. Mail and/orhanddelivery to Mr. Chris Heller, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000, Little Rock, AR 72201 and to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, One Union National Plaza, 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. ls/John W. Walker 14 EXHIBIT B CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(C) and Eighth Circuit Rules 28A(c), that this Reply Brief (exclusive of the table of contents, the table of authorities, any addendum, and any certificates of counsel) contains 3427 words. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of FRAP.32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of FRAP.32(a)(6) because of this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Wordperfect 9.0 in Times New Roman, 14-point. The undersigned has provided one virus free digital version of this brief to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and to all counsel of record. The digital version of this brief has been furnished on a 3.5\" computer diskette in Portable Document Format (also known as PDF or Acrobat Format). The digital version was generated by printing to PDF from the original word processing file. Dated: December 18, 2007 ls/John W. Walker 15 EXHIBIT B Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4188 Filed 01/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 500 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 0444 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 January 16, 2008 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, 4:82-CV-00866 Dear Mr. Walker: Regardless of whether there are \"interloper parties\" in the case, has Joshua taken the position at any time, in the District Court or in the Court of Appeals, that the standard applied in the most recent Little Rock School District Order is the standard to be applied in the North Little Rock and Pulaski County School District cases? I may have missed something, but I don't believe this issue was specifically addressed in your response of yesterday. Please let me have your specific response by noon, Tuesday, January 22, 2008. Original to the Clerk of Court cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Other Counsel of Record Cordially, Isl Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:28 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including prose litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 1/16/2008 at 2:27 PM CST and filed on 1/16/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4188 Docket Text: LETTER/ORDER directing additional response of Joshua lntervenors by noon 'January 22, 2008 re [4184] Response to Motion filed by Leslie Joshua, Wayne Joshua, Lorene Joshua, Stacy Joshua. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr on 1/16/08. (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com - John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, 1orap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com 1/17/2008 John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID=l 095794525 [Date= 1/16/2008] [FileNumber=l 078278-0 ] [56cd5acef3c3541f6a87a4b590b4b62c20f86c7935dd0154blf28c99944fe5df631 00d10c8e5cf409301flfbc4b1300dd936bcela22ead0a3f84badb2b9df60f]] 1/17/2008 Page 2 of2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4190 Filed 01/16/2008 Page 1 of 2 LAW OFFICES MITCHELLWILLIAMS SELIG  GATES  WOODYARD  PLLC M . SAMUEL JONES, Ill 01,tECT DIAL: 501688-8812 E-MAIL : S.JONE  @MWSGW. COM Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 600 W. Capitol Ave., Rm. 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 JANUARY 16, 2008 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. U.S.D.C. No. 4:82CV00866WRWIJTR Dear Judge Wilson: 425 WE5T CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE I BOO LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 3525 TELEPHONE 501 688-8800 FAX 501 6888807 The Court is probably aware that PACT, right before Christmas, filed a \"Response\" to the PCSSD Motion for Unitary Status. The PCSSD filed a Reply which was thereafter followed on January 9, 2008 by both a Motion by PACT to file a belated response and a Sur Reply. The PCSSD is going to respond in a timely fashion to PACT's Request to File a Belated Response. I also need to submit to the Court, in an appropriate form, an affidavit from the District's Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs regarding the issue of what dues are withheld from paychecks and to whom or what they are paid. The procedural posture of the PACT \"claim\" seems a little odd and I am trying to figure out what to call this further pleading. I just wanted to apprise the Court and the parties that I am working on this, hope to have fresh papers in the Court's hands by Friday, and trust this will be satisfactory. Thank you. MSJlab Cordially yours, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. By Isl M. Samuel Jones, III LITTLE RocK, ARKANSAS  ROGERS, ARKANSAS  AUSTIN, TEXAS cc. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4190 Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. January 16, 2008 Page2 cc Via Email: Mark Terry Burnette John W. Walker Clayton R. Blackstock Philip E. Kaplan Christopher J. Heller Stephen W. Jones John Clayburn Fendley, Jr Scott P. Richardson Office of Desegregation Monitor Via US Mail: Timothy Gerard Gauger James M. Llewellyn , Jr. William P. Thompson Filed 01/16/2008 Page 2 of 2 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:30 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response (Non Motion) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, M. on 1/16/2008 at 4:30 PM CST and filed on 1/16/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski County Special School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document N um her: 4190 Docket Text: RESPONSE re [4188] Order regarding PACT's Request to File a Belated Response by Pulaski County Special School District (Jones, M.) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 1/17/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 - Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/16/2008] [FileNumber=1078646-0 ] [5270da50b09118371a3dd85c21f4adb98f38480e14a0fdd3292779dbcfe87354a94 dfe79bbd3f768f432c945744cc221 b3be532edaf6e40edl b4312c018fa836]] 1/17/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4191 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 1 of 2 LAW OFFICES MITCHELLWILLIAMS SELIG  GATES  WOODYARD  PLLC M . SAMUEL JONES, Ill DlftECT DIAL: 501 6888812 EMAIL: SJONES@MWSGW.COM Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 600 W. Capitol Ave., Room 423 Little Rock AR 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. January 18, 2008 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1 800 LITTLE RocK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3525 TELEPHONE 50 1 688-8800 FAX SO I 688-8807 U.S.D.C. No. 4:82CV00866WRWIJTR Dear Judge Wilson: Several days ago I wrote the Court concerning the papers PACT has filed. I predicted the PCSSD would be filing additional papers today. We have encountered logistical delays in obtaining pleadings and orders that are circa 1984 and 1989 but have now secured them. Since the latest PACT filings are dated January 9 and considering the federal holiday on Monday, January 21, 2008, I believe our additional papers, if transmitted to the court on or before January 22, 2008, would be timely. This is also the date the Court has been consistently using in suggesting further responses from Joshua and perhaps others. Accordingly, that is our new target date for additional filings and responses. MSJlab cc Via Email: Mark Terry Burnette John W. Walker Cordially yours, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. By Isl M. Samuel Jones, III LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS  ROGERS, ARKANSAS  AUSTIN, TEXAS 1127447.1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4191 Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. January 18, 2008 Page2 Clayton R. Blackstock Philip E. Kaplan Christopher J. Heller Stephen W. Jones John Clayburn Fendley, Jr Scott P. Richardson Office of Desegregation Monitor cc Via US Mail: 1127447.1 Timothy Gerard Gauger James M. Llewellyn , Jr. William P. Thompson Filed 01/18/2008 Page 2 of 2 Page 1 of2 - pol_lY_ ___________ _____ ____________ From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 3:03 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response (Non Motion) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, M. on 1/18/2008 at 3:02 PM CST and filed on 1/18/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski County Special School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4191 Docket Text: RESPONSE re [4188] Order regarding PACT's Request to File a Belated Response by Pulaski County Special School District (Jones, M.) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeld.nef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 1/18/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odrnemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/18/2008] [FileNumber=1080472-0 ] [a8ad57a4ad578261cd064477cb0d80345dl43e534a3ee46496c9d712d86b3737660 fe2d4c032f2c729ccf70acf8f656cd4b13465fl 76fa3fd6c1540f34af0151]] 1/18/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4192 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82-cv-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS The State of Arkansas and the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), by and through its attorney, Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson, and for its Motion for Substitution of Counsel, states: 1. Deputy Attorney General Tim Gauger has left the employ of the Attorney General's Office. 2. Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson has been given responsibility as lead attorney for this case. WHEREFORE, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and the State of Arkansas request that former Deputy Attorney General Tim Gauger be withdrawn from this case and that Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson be substituted in his stead and for all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, DUSTIN McDANIEL Attorney General BY: Isl Scott P. Richardson SCOTT P. RICHARDSON, Bar No. 01208 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4192 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 2 of 3 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-1019 direct (501) 682-2591 facsimile Email: scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov ATTORNEYS FOR SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 18, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Mr. Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mr. Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com Mr. John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net Mr. Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net Mr. M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com Mr. Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com Mr. John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com; aroaf@seark.net; paramer@odmmail.com 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4192 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 3 of 3 I, Scott P. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on January 18, 2008, to the following nonCM/ ECF participants: Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass. 02173 3 Isl Scott P. Richardson SCOTT P. RICHARDSON Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 4:08 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Motion to Substitute Attorney This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Richardson, Scott on 1/18/2008 at 4:07 PM CST and filed on 1/18/2008 Case Name: Case Number: Filer: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Arkansas, State of Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4192 Docket Text: MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Arkansas Department of Education, Arkansas, State of (Richardson, Scott} 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net - M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com 1/22/2008 Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box    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.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1789","title":"Court filings regarding Amicus Curiae brief of the state of Arkansas in support of affirmance in favor of appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD), Office of Desegregation Management report, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, reply brief of Joshua intervenors, response in opposition to motion for declaratory judgment, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2007-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","School integration","African Americans--Education","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Amicus Curiae brief of the state of Arkansas in support of affirmance in favor of appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD), Office of Desegregation Management report, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, reply brief of Joshua intervenors, response in opposition to motion for declaratory judgment, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1789"],"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":["22 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: Court of Appeals, Amicus Curiae brief of the state of Arkansas in support of affirmance in favor of appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD); District Court, notice of electronic filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2007-2008 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; Court of Appeals, reply brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al.; District Court, notice of electronic filing, response in opposition to motion for declaratory judgment; Court of Appeals, notice of filing, Joshua intervenors' reply brief; Court of Appeals, certificate of service; District Court, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status; District Court, letter-order    This transcript was create 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 No. 07-1866 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF/ APPELLEE LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENOR PLAINTIFFS/ APPELLANTS V. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, and STATE OF ARKANSAS DEFENDANTS On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division Honorable William R. Wilson AMICUS CURIE BRIEF OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE IN FAVOR OFAPPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DUSTIN McDANIEL Attorney General State of Arkansas SCOTT P. RICHARDSON #01208 MATTHEW B. McCOY #01165 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-1019 ATTORNEYS FOR ST A TE OF ARKANSAS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .. ............................ .. .... .. ............... .. ..................................... .. .... i Table of Authorities ................................................... .. ................. .. ..................... ii Statement of Amicus Curiae and Summary of the Argument.. .... .. ........ ............. I Argument. ... ....................... .. ............... ............. ............. .... ..... ...................... .... ..... 4 I. NO CLEAR ERROR IN THE COURT'S CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ................................. ............ ..... 4 II. NO CLEAR ERROR IN THE COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT LRSD SATISFIED ITS 2.7.1 OBLIGATIONS ...... .. .... .. .... .. .. 7 II. GOOD FAITH COMPLIANCE WITH A DESEGREGATION PLAN IS THE LAW OF THIS CASE, NOT \"DEEPLY EMBEDDED\" COMPLIANCE .... .. .. .. ............ .... ... ... I 0 Conclusion ...................... .... .. .. .. ... ....... ... ..... .. .. ......... ..... ... ...... ..... .. .... ...... ... .. ...... I 7 Certificate of Service .......... .. ............ ..... .. ......................... .. ................... .. ......... . 19 Certificate of Compliance .... ... ... .... ..... ...... .. ... .. .............. .. ..... .. ............... .. ...... .... 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE Anderson v. Beseimer City, 470 U.S. 564, 105 S.Ct. 1504 (1985) ...... .... ................ .. ........ ................... .. ... .... .. ... ..... 6 Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 , 103 S.Ct. 1382 (1983) .................................... ............... ........ ..... .. ...... 11 Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 111 S.Ct. 630 (1991) .... ..... ... .. .. ... .......... ......... .. ........ .. ............... 2, 12, 13 Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753 (1955) ... .. .... 3, 12 Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Inc. v. Rent-a-Wreck of America, Inc., 181 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 1999) .............................. .. ............. .... .. ............. 5 First Union Nat. Bank v. Pictet Overseas Trust Corp. , Ltd. 477 F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2007) ............ ................. .... ..... ............... .... 10-11 Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1991) ............... ............. .. 13 Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689 (1968) .. ... .. ....................................... .. ..... .. ....... .. ........ .. 12 Little Rock School District, et al. v. Armstrong, et al. , 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004) ......... .... ...... .. ... .. ...... .. .. ..... ... ..... .. ... 3, 5, 14 LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2006) ............ ........... .. .. ........ 3, 15, 16 LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 237 F.Supp.2d 988 (E.D. Ark. 2002) ................ 3, 13 LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F. Supp. 2d 963 (E.D. Ark. 2004) ... ... ............ 2, 14, 15 LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 2007 WL 624054 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 23, 2007) .... ....................... ....... ................... 8, 9, 10, 15 United States v. Hively , 437 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2006) ....... ........................... 11 II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I United States v. Manfre, 456 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2003) ................................ 11 United States v. McCarthy, 97 F .3d 1562 (8th Cir. 1996).... ...... .......... ...... .. .. 5 RULES Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 52(a) ..................................................... ................ .. ...... ... 5, 6 111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I STATEMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The State of Arkansas files this Amicus Curiae brief pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a) in support of the District Court's finding that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has achieved full unitary status. The State's interest in this proceeding arises out of its status as a party to the 1990 settlement agreement in this case, its general supervisory authority over the LRSD, the over $60 million each year the State spends in support of the desegregation efforts of the three Pulaski County school districts in this case, and the State's interest in seeing that the three Pulaski County school districts substantially comply with their desegregation plans. The Joshua Intervenors argue on appeal that the District Court's judgment finding the LRSD to have achieved unitary status should be reversed and that the LRSD should be returned to its nearly fifty years of court supervision. In support of this argument the Joshua Intervenors argue three points on appeal: 1) that the District Court erred in its fact and credibility determinations, 2) that the LRSD failed to do enough in establishing its program assessment and evaluation process, and 3) that the District Court should not have returned to the proper standard by which to measure the school district's desegregation plan compliance. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court erred in its factual findings. Their primary dispute on appeal with those findings is their disagreement with the District Court's credibility determinations. The Court below properly chose which witness testimony to credit. The Joshua Intervenors have failed to demonstrate that the District Court abused its wide discretion. The LRSD took many steps and spent considerable resources to ensure that a process to continually assess and evaluate its key 2.7 programs was a permanent part of its curriculum. Although, the District Court had improperly imposed the heightened \"deeply embedded\" standard on the LRSD in this area, the record amply supports a finding that the LRSD met even this heightened standard. The District Court properly acknowledged that it had changed the law on the LRSD when it required that the district's \"comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F. Supp. 2d 963, 997-8 (E.D. Ark. 2004)(emphasis in original). The correct legal standard is whether the district substantially complied with its desegregation plan in good faith. This has been the standard since Brown II was decided by the Supreme Court. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 294, 299, 75 S.Ct. 753, 746 (1955). This standard was also clearly laid out by the District Court in its 2002 opinion finding the LRSD unitary as to the majority of its plan obligations, LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 237 F.Supp.2d 988, 1035-36 (E.D. Ark. 2002), and was affirmed by this Court in 2004. LRSD v. Armstrong, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). In this Court's 2006 opinion, it clearly reserved judgment on the propriety of the \"deeply embedded\" requirement. LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F .3d 528, 541 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the \"deeply embedded\" standard is not the law of this case but was a departure from the settled law of this case. Two other school districts remain as defendants in this case: the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Spe~ial School District (PCSSD). A holding from this Court that the \"deeply embedded\" standard was proper would destabilize the settled law of this case. It would allow the standard for plan compliance to be changed without notice to these districts, as happened with the LRSD. Accordingly, the District Court's return to the proper standard should be clearly affirmed. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ARGUMENT Almost fifty years after the Little Rock School District's first major step in the integration of its schools, the District has achieved another milestone: a judgment from the district court granting full unitary status and complete release from court supervision. Through their appeal, the Joshua Intervenors seek to return the school district to court supervision. The State of Arkansas files this Amicus brief in support of the Little Rock School District's full unitary status. The Joshua Intervenors urge reversal of the District Court for three reasons: 1) they assert that the District Court was wrong in its factual findings because they disagree with the court's credibility determinations, 2) they believe that the School District's many efforts to embed a program evaluation process has not gone far enough, and 3) they assert that the District Court should not have analyzed district efforts using the good faith standard of substantial compliance. Because the District Court was clearly correct in each of its determinations, the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed in all respects. I. NO CLEAR ERROR IN THE COURT'S CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS. The Joshua Intervenors argue factual errors based on their disagreement with the District Court's credibility determinations. Most 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I notably, the bulk of the testimony relied upon by the Joshua Intervenors are not factual statements but mere conclusions of certain witnesses about the effectiveness of the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) efforts to comply with the District Court's 2004 order. \"Credibility determinations are within the exclusive domain of the district court, and are virtually unreviewable on appeal.\" United States v. McCarthy, 97 F.3d 1562, 1579 (8th Cir. 1996). A district court's factual determinations, including credibility of witnesses, are reviewed for \"clear error.\" Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Inc. v. Rent-a-Wreck of America, Inc., 181 F.3d 906, 909 (s1h Cir. 1999); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 52(a) (\"Findings of fact ... shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses\"). The Eighth Circuit does not overturn a district court's factual findings unless it is left with the \"definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.\" Little Rock School District, et al. v. Armstrong, et al., 359 F.3d 957, 963 (8th Cir. 2004). The Supreme Court has instructed that Courts of Appeal may not reverse the district court's factual findings as long as \"the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety ... even though [the circuit court may be] convinced that had it been 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently\" Anderson v. Beseimer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-4, 105 S.Ct. 1504 (1985)(holding that appellate courts are bound by Fed. R. Civ: Pro. 52's clearly erroneous standard). The Joshua Intervenors point this Court to no objective basis for overturning the District Court's credibility determinations. \"[W]hen a trial judge's finding is based on his decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses, each of whom has told a coherent and facially plausible story that is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence, that finding, if not internally inconsistent, can virtually never be clear error.\" Anderson, 470 U.S. at 575, 105 S.Ct. at 1512. The Intervenors focus primarily on the testimony of one witness, the director of the LRSD's Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department: Dr. Karen DeJarnette. As demonstrated by the record, Dr. DeJarnette's reliability in drawing conclusions about the district's unitary status efforts was substantially undermined at the unitary status hearings. Indeed, she revealed herself to have lost objectivity in opining on this ultimate issue of the unitary status hearings. Her testimony demonstrated that she had realized the effect that judicial supervision over  2. 7 .1 assessments and evaluations had on her 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I office, which was charged with carrying out these programs, and for that reason she was willing to act in support of continuing judicial supervision of the LRSD. She was shown to have shifted from an effort to comply with the court's order to an effort to gather power to her department without regard to the decisions of district administrators or the advice of the district's attorney. The District Court properly chose to discredit her testimony. The Joshua Intervenors have not shown error in the District Court's  credibility determinations. The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed. II. NO CLEAR ERROR IN THE COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT LRSD SATISFIED ITS 2.7.1 OBLIGATIONS As will be explained further in this brief, the District Court properly recognized that the requirement it imposed that the school district must show that its program for assessment and evaluation was \"deeply embedded\" in school policies, was outside the parameters set by prior court decisions and should be abandoned. Even so, the LRSD presented considerable proof that it had, in fact, \"deeply embedded\" a process for evaluating its  2.7 programs, those designed to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students, and that it was sincerely committed to that endeavor. The Joshua Intervenors only evidence to the contrary is that a \"data warehouse\" was not completed and that the LRSD was still in the process of 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I developing school portfolios at the time of the hearing. These were initiatives to make the district's access to data on its students more readily accessible and better organized. However, the testimony and evidence demonstrated that the LRSD could produce accurate, reliable data on its student's academic performance without these programs. Chief among the District Court's factual findings in this regard is that the LRSD had in place a reliable process for gathering the information necessary to evaluate and assess its programs. ' LRSD maintains \"data silos\" (individual servers) in numerous departments, which contain all of the information PRE needs to prepare program assessments and evaluations. To access these data silos, PRE sends a \"radar request\" to LRSD's information technology department. Data specialists then go to the data silos and assemble the requested data. Dr. DeJamette and Mr. W ohlleb testified it usually takes two days or less for the data specialists to provide PRE with all of the requested data. Thus, even if the Data Warehouse failed to provide PRE with the data it needed, it could still prepare program assessments and evaluations using radar requests to access the data from the decentralized data silos where it is also maintained. The software concerns about perceived problems with the Data Warehouse represent a difference of opinion and preference, but the choice of Business Objects in no way indicates that LRSD has failed to comply with its obligations. LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 2007 WL 624054 * 17 ,r 23 (E.D.AR. Feb. 23, 2007)( emphasis in original). The Joshua Intervenors do not dispute this finding. Appellant's Brief p. 1. Accordingly, the undisputed factual evidence demonstrates that the LRSD has and continues to have ready 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I access to accurate, reliable data with which to assess and evaluate its  2. 7 programs. This was the same system used to provide data to Drs. Steven Ross and James S. Catterall for their  2.7 program evaluations. These experts vouched for the reliability of the data provided from this system in strong terms: \"All six of these evaluations were 'good evaluations.\"' Id. at *19 ,rs. \"Dr. Ross testified that PRE provided him with all of the data he needed to prepare .t hese six evaluations of 2.7 programs.\" Id. at *20 if6. \"Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall both testified that PRE provided them with all of the support and assistance they needed to prepare the eight evaluations.\" Id. at *21 ,r 2. Dr. Catterall \"stated that the data he received from LRSD was better than the data he received from most school districts.\" Id. at *20 if7. The evidence presented at the unitary status hearings showed that the district's efforts to create a data warehouse, Id. at *16 ifl9, and school portfolios, Id. at * 15, if 13, were additional efforts that went well beyond what was required by the LRSD's desegregation plan and the District Court's 2002 and 2004 compliance remedies. Accordingly, the District Court properly concluded: In short, there is nothing in the 2004 Compliance Remedy or Regulation IL-R which obligates LRSD to create a Data Warehouse or School Portfolios or to accomplish those two objectives before the comprehensive program assessment 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I process could be deemed to be \"deeply embedded.\" Clearly, LRSD administrators voluntarily decided to create a Data Warehouse and School Portfolios, in part, to make it easier for PRE to have access to the data it needed to perform assessments and evaluations. Id. at * 17 ,I 24. The LRSD presented sufficient evidence that it had implemented a process of assessment and evaluation that satisfied the District Court's now (properly) abandoned \"deeply embedded\" requirement. If there was any doubt, it was erased by the evidence of the district's moving beyond its then existing data mining capabilities to the great expense it went to in developing a data warehouse and school portfolios to facilitate the process of program assessment and evaluation. Accordingly, the District Court determined that even though the \"deeply embedded\" standard should be abandoned, nevertheless the LRSD had satisfied that standard and had left no doubt that its  2. 7 program assessment and evaluation process met the requirements of the district's plan. III. GOOD FAITH COMPLIANCE WITH DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS IS THE LAW OF THIS CASE, NOT \"DEEPLY EMBEDDED\" COMPLIANCE The law of the case doctrine provides that a court's decision on a rule of law should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent decisions in that case. First Union Nat. Bank v. Pictet Overseas Trust Corp. , Ltd., 477 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2007). It is an \"amorphous\" concept that directs the court's discretion, but \"does not limit the tribunal's power.\" Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391 (1983). The doctrine does not apply to interlocutory orders, which can always be reconsidered and modified by the district court prior to entry of a final order. United States v. Hively, 437 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2006). As to appellate decisions, the law of the case \"ordinarily\" requires a district court to follow an appellate decision with re~pect to all issues directly decided by that opinion. United States v. Manfre, 456 F.3d 871, 874 (8th Cir. 2006). Of course, a district court is not bound as to legal issues not addressed by an opinion of an appellate court. Id. Even where an appellate court has addressed an issue, however, the district court may still reconsider and modify the decision on that issue. \"Under law of the case doctrine, as now most commonly understood, it is not improper for a court to depart from a prior holding if convinced that it is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.\" Arizona, 460 U.S. at 619 fn. 8, 103 S.Ct. at 1391 fn. 8. Indeed, this Court has acknowledged that even where it has decided an issue of law, a district court is not prevented from revisiting the issue if the Eighth Circuit's decision was \"clearly erroneous and worked a manifest injustice.\" Manfre, 456 F.3d at 874. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Here, the District Court's insertion of a \"deeply embedded\" requirement into the case in 2004 was a departure from the settled law in desegregation cases. Since Brown II, the Supreme Court has held that a school district should be released from federal court supervision if \"the action of school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles.\" Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299, 75 S.Ct. 753, 746 (1955)(emphasis added). In Green v. County School Board, of New Kent County, the Court again affirmed that a school district's obligation of compliance was \"to be acting in good faith.\" 391 U.S. 430, 439, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1695 (1968). Twenty-three years later in a case on desegregation remedy, the Supreme Court again stated that a school district's compliance with its desegregation obligations must be weighed with a view to the \"good faith of the school board in complying with the decree.\" Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 249, 111 S.Ct. 630, 637-8 (1991). In Dowell, the Court rejected a request that a higher standard (not unlike the \"deeply embedded\" standard at issue here) be applied to a school district and held that the principles supporting a federal court's displacement of a school board's authority did not \"require any such Draconian result.\" Id. On the contrary, the Court instructed that \"[t]he District Court should 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I address itself to whether the Board ha[ s] complied in good faith with the desegregation decree.\" Id. at 249-50, 111 S.Ct. at 638 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Freeman v. Pitts the Court rejected the assertion that a school district had to engage in \"heroic measures\" to demonstrate compliance with a desegregation plan. 503 U.S. 467, 493, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 1447 (1991). Instead, the Court emphasized that the school district was simply required to demonstrate its good faith commitment to the principles of desegregation. Id. This case has consistently followed the good faith standard enunciated by the Supreme Court. In 2002, when the District Court ruled that LRSD was unitary as to the majority of its desegregation obligations, the court went to great length to analyze the proper standard by which to judge the LRSD's compliance efforts. LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 237 F.Supp.2d 988 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The result of that analysis was the court's conclusion that the proper standard was \"substantial compliance.\" Id. at 1032-33. It went on to give a focused definition of that term as it would apply to the case. Id. at 1035-36. The court held: I am required to examine whether any of LRSD's failures to comply with the Revised Plan in the six challenged areas are \"serious enough\": ( 1) to constitute \"substantial noncompliance\"; and (2) \"to cast doubt\" on LRSD's \"future compliance with the constitution.\" 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Id. It was this standard that the court went on to apply in holding that the LRSD was unitary as to all aspects of its desegregation plan, save one:  2.7.1. This Court adopted this standard and used it in reviewing the District Court's 2002 unitary status ruling. LRSD v. Armstrong, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). Each section of that opinion analyzing the District Court's unitary holdings concludes with the statement that \"we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance.\" Id. It does not ' appear from this Court's 2004 opinion that the question of what standard applied to the LRSD's conduct was seriously doubted. To the extent that a different standard may have been urged, that request was rejected. See Id. at 965. Not quite two months after this Court handed down its March 2, 2004, opinion, the District Court issued the Memorandum Opinion at issue here regarding the LRSD' s efforts to substantially comply with  2. 7 .1 of its desegregation plan. LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F. Supp. 2d 963 (E.D. Ark. 2004). The District Court acknowledged the effect of this Court's March 2, 2004, opinion: \"Thus, all aspects of the September 13[, 2002,] Decision are now final and law of the case.\" Id. at 965. Accordingly, the \"substantial compliance\" standard laid down in 2002 became the law of the case. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Moreover, the District Court acknowledged that \"[i]t is black letter law that a school district seeking an end to court supervision has the burden of proving substantial compliance with the judicially imposed remedy.\" Id. at 984 ( emphasis added). Despite the District Court's recognition of the proper standard, it departed from that standard in one aspect of its 2004 memorandum opinion. The court held that the LRSD's \"comprehensive process for assessing  2.7 programs must become a deeply embedded part of LRSD's elementary and ' secondary curriculum.\" Id. at 985, 997. The court's desire to see that programs designed to improve the academic performance of AfricanAmerican children in the LRSD continue to be assessed and evaluated for effectiveness is certainly laudable and should be commended. LRSD, 2007 WL 624054 *7-8 fu. 43, 47. However, as the court recognized, that desire is not a basis to change the rule of law applicable to this case. As the District Court explained in its 2004 opinion, the law in this area, and in this case, did not require the LRSD to engage in heroic efforts to demonstrate its good faith; it required substantial compliance in good faith with the LRSD's desegregation plan. On appeal from the 2004 District Court decision, the majority opinion of this Court did not directly address the \"deeply embedded\" standard. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2006). Instead the majority stated \"that had the question of compliance been submitted to us in the first instance, we might well have found that LRSD had met its burden of proof, all the more so in light of the heightened requirements imposed by the district court in its 2002 order.\" Id. at 540-41. The majority then made clear that its affirmance of the \"even more heightened requirements\" of the 2004 compliance remedy was based on the LRSD's ongoing efforts to comply with that remedy. Id. The question of. the propriety of these requirements was specifically reserved for another day: \"Suffice it to say that there will be time enough for us to revisit the requirements of the 2004 order if this case should once again come before us.\" Id. at 541. This precatory language certainly falls short of this Court having decided to depart from the good faith, substantial compliance standard and to adopt the \"deeply embedded\" standard. To hold that LRSD was required to satisfy the subjective \"deeply embedded\" requirement would drastically alter the law governing the future progress of this case. As this Court is aware, two more school districts remain under the supervision of the District Court in this case. Recognition and affirmance of the good faith standard of substantial compliance with a 16 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I desegregation plan by this Court would ensure that no such departures from the long standing law would be imposed upon these two remaining districts. The 2006 affirmance of the District Court's 2004 compliance remedy was clearly premised on the time that had passed and the then ongoing efforts of the LRSD in complying with the 2004 remedy. If this Court were now to approve the 2004 departure from the long-standing law of this case, it would allow the District Court to alter the standards for compliance applicable to the two remaining districts. without prior notice to those districts and the opportunity to conform their actions to the newly announced expectations of the court as opposed to the settled law. The Joshua Intervenor's request that this Court sanction this shifting sands approach to this half-century old litigation should be soundly rejected. The State of Arkansas requests that the District Court's return to the settled law of this case be affirmed for the benefit of the future litigation of the unitary status of the two remaining districts. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the State of Arkansas, as Amicus Curiae, requests that this Court affirm the District Court's grant of complete unitary status to the Little Rock School District in its entirety. 17 I I Respectfully submitted, DUSTIN McDANIEL I Attorney General I By: /4-~ I Scott P. Richardson, Ark. Bar # 2001208 MatthewB.McCoy, Ark. Bar#2001165 I Assistant Attorneys General 323 Center Street, Ste 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 I (501) 682-1019 (501) 682-2591 fax scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov I ' Dennis R. Hansen I Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Amicus Curiae the State of I Arkansas. I I I I I I I I I 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that two copies of the foregoing brief and one virus free diskette containing a copy of the brief have been served on the following via regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this z~:ttay of November, 2007: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 024 21 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Hon. Andree Roaf Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 /4--~ Scott P. Richardson 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that the applicable parts of this brief comply with typevolume limitation of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7). The Brief contains 3,797 words and 355 lines of text. Pursuant to Local Rule 28A, Appellees hereby submit a 3 \" computer diskette to the Clerk and counsel for the principal parties. The brief was prepared in Microsoft Office Word 2003 using the proportionally spaced typeface Times New Roman in font size fourteen point. I, Scott P. Richardson, hereby certify that the diskettes presented to the Clerk and Appellant's counsel have been scanned for viruses and are virus free. Scott P. Richardson 20 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:35 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the :filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 12/7/2007 at 4:34 PM CST and filed on 12/7/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Office of Desegregation Monitor WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document N um be_!: 4171 (No document attached) Docket Text: NOTICE of Filing 2007-2008 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the PCSSD by Office of Desegregation Monitor (available in paper format only) (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: H. William Allen (Terminated) hwallen@allenlawfirrnpc.com, njjackson@allenlawfirmpc.com Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Stephen L. Curry (Terminated) scurry@aristotle.net John T. Lavey (Terminated) jlavey@laveyandburnett.com, jsmith@laveyandburnett.com - Philip K. Lyon (Terminated) pklyon@jljnash.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net 12/10/2007 M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Richard W. Roachell (Terminated) rroachell@aol.com, schoollaw@msn.com William H. Trice, III (Terminated) btrice@hfc-law.com Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com Sharon Carden Streett (Terminated) scstreett@comcast.net John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Will Bond (Terminated) will@mcmathlaw.com, tasha@mcmathlaw.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier (Terminated) mhagemeier@uasys.edu, tsmith@uasys.edu Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 12/10/2007 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner Educatilfn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org December 20, 2007 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 \"ECEJVED DEC 2 o 2in Office of Desegregation Monitoring vlll One Union National ~,., .. _ OFFICE OF 124 West Capitol, Suh,t!~ATION MONITOR/ Little Rock, AR 72201 NG Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General 's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of December 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott Richardson, Attorney General's Office STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Jim Cooper, Melbourne Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia  Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT cc\u0026amp;~CEIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEC 2 0 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for December 2007. Respectfully Submitted, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on December I Cy-f--_-1:,)007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 1 of 3 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:12 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 12/19/2007 at 3:12 PM CST and filed on 12/19/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4172 Docket Text: NOTICE Of Filing the ADE's Project Management Tool for December 2007 by Arkansas Department of Education (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: H. William Allen (Terminated) hwallen@allenlawfirmpc.com, njjackson@allenlawfirmpc.com Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Stephen L. Curry (Terminated) scurry@aristotle.net John T. Lavey (Terminated) jlavey@laveyandburnett.com, jsrnith@laveyandburnett.com Philip K. Lyon (Terminated) pklyon@jljnash.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net 2/5/2008 M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Richard W. Roachell (Terminated) rroachell@aol.com, schoollaw@msn.com William H. Trice, III (Terminated) btrice@hfc-law.com Page 2 of3 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com Sharon Carden Streett (Terminated) scstreett@comcast.net John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Will Bond (Terminated) will@mcmathlaw.com, tasha@mcmathlaw.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier (Terminated) mhagemeier@uasys.edu, tsmith@uasys.edu Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcec:fStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=12/19/2007] [FileNumber=l061501- 2/5/2008 0] [b95ad922a60bf757b40e2d3b8d210b19d9b11916044018f5bed3923038f3651d56 490c805980ba10dd76aafe7662051e96104aeecb06bd6203db604e359ff052]] 2/5/2008 Page 3 of3 Page 1 of3 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:12 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered on 12/19/2007 at 3:12 PM CST and filed on 12/19/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4172 Docket Text: NOTICE Of Filing the ADE's Project Management Tool for December 2007 by Arkansas Department of Education (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: H. William Allen (Terminated) hwallen@allenlawfirmpc.com, njjackson@allenlawfirmpc.com Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Stephen L. Curry (Terminated) scurry@aristotle.net John T. Lavey (Terminated) jlavey@laveyandburnett.com, jsmith@laveyandburnett.com Philip K. Lyon (Terminated) pklyon@jljnash.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net 2/12/2008 M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Richard W. Roachell (Terminated) rroachell@aol.com, schoollaw@msn.com William H. Trice, III (Terminated) btrice@hfc-law.com Page 2 of3 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com Sharon Carden Streett (Terminated) scstreett@comcast.net John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Will Bond (Terminated) will@mcmathlaw.com, tasha@mcmathlaw.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier (Terminated) rnhagemeier@uasys.edu, tsmith@uasys.edu Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=12/19/2007] [FileNumber=l061501- 2/12/2008 0] [b95ad922a60bf757b40e2d3b8d210b19d9b11916044018f5bed3923038f3651d56 490c805980ba10dd76aafe7662051e96104aeecb06bd6203db604e359ff052]] 2/12/2008 Page 3 of 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 07-1866 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS  FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET Absc INTERVENOR/APPELLANTP 1 civc 0 v. DEc 2 o 2001 DESEG11/jf!lct OF ,7DN /,f O,JJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ,;JTORJN(J APPELLEE Reply Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, Et Al. On Appeal From United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Hon. William R. Wilson District Judge Presiding Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (F) .I I .I, I I I I 'I I I I I I 1 I I I I Table of Contents Table of Contents ............ .. ..... .... ... .. ...... ...... ........................ .... .. ......... . Table of Authorities .......... .................... ... ........ ....... .... ... .. ... ............... . Argu1nent            oooo    \"                oo  OO    OO         \" The Arguments of the LRSD and the State Lack Merit A. The Original Section 2. 7 .1 Commitment Encompassed Structure for Assessment/Evaluation Deeply Embedded in the Operation of the LRSD B. The LRSD's Freedom to Craft an Implementation Plan During the Agreed Upon Duration of the Revised Plan C. This Court's Identification of the District Court's Remedial Authority D. The District Court's 2002 Decision and Its Initial Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default E. The District Court's 2004 Decision and Its Second Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default F. The District Court's Giving Notice of a Change in the Standards for Judging Compliance Only After the Hearing Requires Reversal Certificate of Service ... .... ............ ... ..... ......... ..... .... ..... ... .. ... ........ .... .. .... . Certificate of Compliance ... .... ........ ....... ...... ......... ... .... ............ ... ....... ... . Attachments i 11 1 1 3 3 4 6 9 12 14 I I ,, I ,, I I .I I I I , , I I I I 1 I I Table of Authorities Black v. Lane, 22 FJd 1395 (7thCir. 1994) Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) First Union National Bank, Tmstee v. Pictet Overseas Tmst Corp., 477 F.3d 616 (8thCir. 2007) Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.s. 565 (1975) Grand State Marketing Co. v. Eastern Poultry Distributors, 975 S.W.2d 429 (Ark.App. 1998) Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610 (1976) Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953 (8thCir. 1997) LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8thCir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8thCir. 1996) LRSD v. PCSSD, 237 F.Supp.2d 988 (E.D.Ark. 2002) LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F.Supp.2d 963 (E.D.Ark. 2004) LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d 528 (8thCir. 2006) LRSD v. PCSSD, Order Declaring the Little Rock School District Unitary, Feb. 23, 2007 McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc., 633 F.2d 226 (1 stCir. 1980) Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 301 FJd 1 (1 stCir. 2002) Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) United States v. ITT Continental Baking Company. 420 U.S. 233 (1975) ii 10, 11 10, 12 10 2 10 4,9 3,4 8 2,4,6 6, 7, 11, 12 1, 6, 9 2, 12 9, 11 4 2 I I I I I I I I ,, I I I I I I I I I I Rule 55, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Sec. 201(1) (1981) iii 10 2 I I I ., , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Arguments of the LRSD and the State Lack Merit LRSD and the State ignore the breadth, in context, of LRSD's original commitment in Section 2. 7 .1 ; LRSD's agreement necessarily required multiple actions creating a structure for implementation fairly characterized by the \"deeply embedded\" language later employed by the District Court, after LRSD twice failed to fulfill its voluntary commitments. They do not account for these defaults, or the District Court's remedial authority in such circumstances. They minimize, or ignore entirely the District Court's communicating an important change in the criteria for judging LRSD compliance only in its February 23, 2007 post-hearing opinion, thereby denying Joshua counsel the opportunity to challenge LRSD compliance with knowledge of all governing standards. A. The Original Section 2. 7 .1 Commitment Encompassed a Structure for Assessment/Evaluation Deeply Embedded in the Operation of the LRSD In 1998, the District Court approved the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), to which the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD had agreed. LRSD, 451 F.3d at 3. Section 2.7.1 provided that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to detennine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the fonn of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. While only 65 words and 2 sentences, this was a commitment of considerable breadth. First. The text referred to annual reviews of the specified programs in terms of 1 I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I their effectiveness in improving African-American student achievement.1 The text also obligated the LRSD to modify or replace programs shown to be ineffective. Second. The programs, identified in Sec. 2.7 of the Revised Plan, were those \"designed to improve and re.mediate the academic achievement of African American students . .. . \" The LRSD \"identified almost 100 [such] programs . . .. \" LRSD, 237 F.Supp. at 1076, n. 135. Third. The parties interpreted \"assess\" and \"assessment\" to require evaluations, a more detailed study than an assessment, of at least the key Section 2.7 programs. 237 F.Supp. at 1076-80; LRSD (dist. ct.), 2-23-07, at 13-15 .2 The mere agreement to and approval of these two sentences was obviously not the goal of the parties. The objective meaning of these words, in the context of a school district of substantial size, contemplated a great deal of activity by its officers and employees. There would be a need, inter alia, for the adoption of policies and guidelines; the employment of persom1el capable of perfonning assessments and evaluations; interaction with those involved in the content of LRSD curriculum; communication with and training of school-level personnel; reports on implementation to high level administrators and the school board; oversight; and docmnents containing 1 In 1997-98, the LRSD enrolled 24,886 students, 16,664 of whom were African Americans; LRSD then operated 50 schools. [ODM enrollment report, Dec. 7, 2007] 2 As the district court notes [LRSD, 2-7-07, at 2, 15] RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS Sec. 201(1) (1981) provides: \"Where the parties have attached the same meaning to a promise or agreement or a tenn thereof, it is interpreted in accordance with that meaning.\"; see also U.S. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 233, 238 (1975) (reliance on \"any technical meaning words used may have had to the parties\"); Grand State Marketing v. Eastern Poultry Distribs., 975 S.W.2d 429, 442 (Ark.App. 1998) (\"In particular, when a technical term is used, the trier of fact may detennine in what sense the term was used.\") 2 I I I I ., I I I I I I I I I I I I I l1 completed program studies. Not infrequently, a phrase is used to describe an endeavor of considerable complexity. Here, a reasonable constmction of the parties' broa,d voluntary agreement was that it contemplated, over time, multiple, mature actions at different levels and locales in the LRSD, i.e., that a stmcture to carry out the parties' broad agreement be \"deeply embedded\" in the LRSD curriculum and instmction program. B. The LRSD's Freedom to Craft an Implementation Plan During the Agreed Upon Duration of the Revised Plan Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided for implementation for a three-year period, assuming substantial compliance with its tenns. In this period, the system's implementation of Section 2. 7 .1 was not constrained by any directive( s) of the District Court. The LRSD was free to fashion and implement steps to comply with the parties' agreement. C. This Court's Identification of the District Court's Remedial Authority Prior to the approval of the Revised Plan, this court addressed in this case the implementation and enforcement of agreements of the parties. The appeal in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) followed the parties' agreement to a desegregation plan for each of the three districts involved in the case, as well as an \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\" and a\" Settlement Agreement\" concerning obligations of State officials. 921 F .2d at 13 78-80. Rejecting mlings of the District Court, this court approved the parties' plans. The court noted that \"the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring\" and continued [at 1386]: It is important for the settlement plans to be scmpulously adhered to -- and here 3 I I I I I I. I I I I I I, I I I I I I ( I I 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 the monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. This court also addressed the District Court's authority in the concluding section of its 1990 opinion, which summarized this court's mlings and directives. This court wrote: 8. The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. See also Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 378 (1992) (\"A  consent decree no doubt embodies an agreement of the parties and thus in some respects is contractual in nature. But it is an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the mies generally applicable to otl1er judgments and decrees.\"); Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997) (parties' agreement \"becomes, 111 a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties\"). D. The District Court's 2002 Decision and Its Initial Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default In 2002, following hearings, the District Court mled on the LRSD's effort to show compliance with the Revised Plan sufficient to achieve full unitary status and the termination of court jurisdiction. The court clustered the Plan provisions at issue in six areas. LRSD, 237 F.Supp. at 1086. In all areas but one, implementation of Plan provision 2. 7 .1 , the court found substantial compliance and ended court supervision. 237 F.Supp. at 1086, 1089. 4 I. I I I I I I .,I I I I I I I I I I I, As to 2. 7 .1 , the court found an absence of substantial compliance. Id. The District Court's discussion, 237 F.Supp. at 1076-80, may be swmnarized as follows: [i] LRSD interpreted Sec. 2. 7 .1 consistently to obligate the district to prepare program evaluations of the key 2.7 programs, which by the text of that section were not limited to the programs in Plan Section 5. [At 1076-80) [ii] The school board adopted an evaluation policy belatedly, i.e., in February 2001 , only in the month before LRSD filed its Compliance Report ( at the time specified in the 1998 Revised Plan), seeking a complete release from court supervision. [At 1078, para. 7) [iii] LRSD lacked the personnel needed to prepare adequate evaluations. [At 1081, 5-16-01 E-mail] [iv] LRSD's March 2001 Compliance Report was marked by a lack of candor, exaggerating the extent of completion of evaluations; none were complete. [At 1079-80, para. 14) [ v] In view of its earlier consistent position that Sec. 2. 7 .1 required the preparation of  evaluations of key 2.7 programs, LRSD's contrary position in the hearing also evidenced a lack of candor. [At 1078, para. 10) Faced with an absence of the evaluations which LRSD had agreed to be necessary and evidence of bad faith, the District Court did not simply plead with LRSD to comply. Rather, in keeping with this court's instructions in 1990, the Court devised a \"Compliance Remedy.\" This remedy required LRSD, among other things, to [237 F.Supp. at 1087-88): [i] establish \"a program assessment procedure ... that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sec. 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\"; [ii] prepare and use certain \"program evaluations\" which it had identified; [iii] continue during a 5 I I I I I I I I I 1. I I I I I I I I I specified period to assess each 2.7 program and use this and other available infonnation in deciding on program modification and elimination; [iv] maintain certain written records regarding these assessments, including records regarding program modification and elimination, a topic specifically addressed in Sec. 2. 7 .1; and [iv] use a particular external expert or someone else with equivalent qualifications to prepare the evaluations, which the LRSD had referenced. There is no proper basis for criticism of the District Court regarding the 2002 remedy. Faced with LRSD default, the court extended the implementation period and identified actions inherent in the parties' 2. 7 .1 agreement, as constrned by the parties. The District Court fulfilled the responsibility identified in strong tenns by this court in 1990, in order to give Joshua Intervenors the benefit of the parties' . bargain. Importantly, the LRSD neither sought clarification of the meaning of this remedy, nor appealed. LRSD, 470 F.Supp. at 969; LRSD, 451 F.3d at 536. E. The District Court's 2004 Decision and Its Second Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default In 2004, the LRSD sought a tennination of court supervision based upon asserted compliance with the court's 2002 remedy and Sec. 2. 7. i. The District Court again found a lack of substantial compliance. Faced with a second instance of noncompliance, the court set forth the second Compliance Remedy, which was, intentionally, more specific than the 2002 remedy. LRSD, 470 F.Supp. at 997. The factors on which the court relied in finding non-compliance and framing its 2004 remedy included the following: [i] the LRSD had again recognized that its obligation encompassed some program evaluations; [470 F.Supp. at 970-71]; [ii] 6 I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I although, as LRSD's expert witness .testified, all districts implement sub-programs within a curriculum, which can be and should be evaluated [Dr. Ross, hearmg transcript at 195; 470 F.Supp. at 986], the \"evaluations\" which the LRSD presented were global overviews of the entire literacy and math-science curricula, not studies of particular programs which could be used to make the requisite decisions about program modification and elimination [470 F.Supp. at 971-72, 987, 990]; [iii] neither global overview addressed the key research question  identified in LRSD's assessment\\evaluation policy, i.e., \"has this curriculum/instmction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?\" [470 F.Supp. at 987, 990]; [iv] LRSD did not maintain the records regarding its program studies required in paragraph B of the 2002 Compliance Remedy [ 4 70 F.Supp. at 994-95]; [v] the shortcomings inLRSD perfonnance were again attributable to staffing problems in the district [470 F.Supp. at 985-86]; [vi] in the opinion of the LRSD expert, Dr. Ross, a system the size of the LRSD could be expected to provide four or five evaluations a year [470 F.Supp. 994]; [vii] LRSD had failed to provide to ODM and Joshua Intervenors promised progress reports on the literacy and mathscience evaluations [470 F.Supp. at 988-89, 991]. There is no proper basis for criticism of the District Court regarding the 2004 remedy. Faced with a second LRSD default, the court addressed more specifically required actions and steps to achieve them. No goal, required action, or standard was outside the parties' broad agreement. Except when it came to court, LRSD always identified its obligations as including some evaluations. When LRSD had twice failed 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I in this area, the court drew upon the testimony of LRSD's expert to identify the number of evaluations to require in its second remedy. LRSD having twice failed with regard to adequate personnel, the court was specific with regard to both in-house staff (PRE) and external experts (to do evaluations). The court's deeply embedded language was not a requirement untethered to the original 2. 7 .1 c01mnitment, or fairly characterized as made up out of whole cloth, but instead a provision fairly descriptive of the LRSD landscape in a full compliance with Section 2. 7 .1 setting. Had LRSD complied at the outset, or after entry of the first compliance remedy, the District Court would not have had the need to articulate a global standard, geared to the particular subject matter of Sec. 2.7 .1, to help measure compliance. The District Court could not allow itself to be \"nm off\" It could not condone non-compliance. It had a responsibility, which its second remedy sought to address. To the extent relevant on this appeal, it should be noted that no. part of the argument made by the dissenting judge in this court's 2006 decision withstands scrutiny. See 451 F.3d at 541-43 . First. The interpretation of the word \"assessment\" and the identification of the type of program studies required overall by Sec. 2.7 .1 ignores two critical factors. These are LRSD's repetitive construction of its bargain as requiring some evaluations and the relevance of the parties' position on this to proper interpretation of Sec. 2.7 .1. See n.2, supra.3 3 Factual findings bearing upon contract interpretation are reviewed for clear error. LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8thCir. 1996). Given the volume of evidence relied upon, the lower court's findings that Sec. 2. 7 .1 encompassed evaluations are unassailable. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Second. Having qualified personnel was an inherent element of the original 2. 7 .1 bargain; and the District Court dealt specifically with this topic only after a second default, each encompassing personnel deficiencies, as previously shown. Third. The \"deeply embedded\" standard, invoked only after two defaul~s, comes straight from the broad 2. 7 .1 bargain, by \"reasonable implication, \"4 as previously shown. A focus on the status and completeness of the identified actions for achieving compliance with Sec. 2.7.1 is more (not less) objective than application of the \"good faith\" standard ultimately employed. The State expresses concern about the impact of the \"deeply embedded\" concept on the two other Pulaski County school districts. [State brief at 16-17] No factual basis for this concern is shown. The State shows no order employing this standard regarding these systems (Pulaski County and North Little Rock). The State does not relate its concern to any particular remaining remedial provision in one of these districts. Beyond this, tl1e State does not recognize that the standard is a part of LRSD's voluntary substantive obligation drawn from Sec. 2. 7 .1. and invoked by tl1e District Court only after a second LRSD default. F. The District Court's Giving Notice of a Change in the Standards for Judging Compliance Only After the Hearing Requires Reversal Prior notice, including of governing standards, is a fundamental and required element of fairness in many contexts. See [A] Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia . Electrica, 301 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (district court entered default judgment on ADA 4 Knight V. PCSSD, 11,2 F.3d 953, 954 (8th Cir. 1997). 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I claim, but after hearing conducted pursuant to Rule 5 5 (b )(2 ), F ed.R. Ci v .Pro., dismissed claim on the merits; while the district court could conduct a hearing \"to 'establish the trnth of any avennent' in the complaint,\" it could only do so if it \"had made 'its requirements known in advance to the plaintiff, so that [he] could understand the direction of the proceeding and marshall such evidence as might be available to [him] .' Id. (quoting McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc., 633 F.2d 226, 229 (lstCir. 1980).\"; [B] Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1398 (7thCir. 1994) (opinion written by Circuit Judge Lay, sitting by designation) (same); [C] First Union National Bank v. Pictet Overseas Tmst, 477 F.3d 616, 621 (8thCir. 2007) (discussing possible applicability oflaw of the case doctrine; \"Even had the district court intended to resolve the fiduciary duty issue in its Interest Rate Decision, it failed to do so with sufficient directness and clarity to establish the settled expectations of the parties necessary for the subsequent application of the law of the case doctrine.\"); [D] Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581-82 (1975) (in context of school suspension for disciplinary reason, required element of affording procedural due process rights is that \"the student [must] first be told what he is accused of doing and what tl1e basis of the accusation is\"; this affords student \"opportunity to present his side of the story\" in an infonned manner); [E] Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610, 620 (1976) ( whether as to law or rule persons \"of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application\"); [F] Board of Educ. of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 246 (1991) (\"[A] school board is entitled to a rather precise statement of its obligations under a desegregation decree.\"). 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The District Court departed from this basic standard of fairness. In Part K of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, the District Court identified LRSD's \"obligations under Sec. 2. 7 .1 as specified in the Compliance Remedy [ of 2004]\" as the measuring rod for assessing the district's right to a tennination of court jurisdiction. [470 F.Supp. at 1000] That remedy, in Part B, included the \"deeply embedded\" language, which even referred to \"[p ]art ofLRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing . . .. \" [4 70 F.Supp. at 998] The District Court gave notice of changing this standard only in its post-hearing opinion. [LRSD, 2-7-07, at 16-17] Obviously, Joshua counsel could not, on a key point, \"understand the direction of the proceeding and marshall such evidence as might be available to [them]\" [Ramos-Falcon and Black, supra], when the change to the \"good faith\" standard was set forth only after the evidentiary hearing was completed. Moreover, imanagement orders\" and guidance to counsel before the hearing magnified the hann. By letter of December 6, 2006, the District Court required each side to present by December 8 for each witness \"a fair and accurate summary of the expected testimony . . . and the length of time you estimate for direct examination.\" In a letter of January 18, 2007, the court stated that each side would be limited to 7 hours for its direct case and 2 hours for cross-examination. The court added: \"Crossexamination must be brisk and to the point, i.e. , a Blitzkrieg, not an invasion of Normandy.\" [See attachments to this brief] In this setting, Joshua counsel had to focus with great care on the existing compliance standards. LRSD argues that Intervenors should have perceived the change in standards. [LRSD brief at 37-38] Neither the Court of Appeals, nor the District Court before the 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2006 hearing or its decision, identified the good faith standard ultimately used by the lower court. Whether one refers to the law of the case or the criteria for assessing compliance, the standard actually used was not timely identified with \"sufficient directness and clarity . . .. \" First Union National Bank, 477 F.3d at 621. Moreover, LRSD does not recognize that the deeply embedded standard is a substantive element of Sec. 2.7.1 , fairly construed. The State discusses the law of the case concept. It is, however, silent on the problem here, the timing of the district court's changing in an important way the standards for judging compliance. [States's brief at 10-11] The State also does not recognize the nature of the deeply embedded standard; it is an element of the substantive bargain oflntervenors and LRSD in Sec. 2. 7 .1 ; it describes steps necessary to move from a few words on a page to a reality in the operation of the district. It is not, as the State discussion implies, a global standard, apart from Sec. 2. 7 .1 , for assessing whether there is sufficient compliance with the agreement to justify a tennination of the case as to LRSD or another district. Compare State brief at 12-13. Conclusion This court should vacate the judgment of dismissal and: [ i] direct the District Court, after a hearing, to reinstate a compliance remedy for an additional period; [ii] or, alternatively, direct that the District Court, after a hearing, detennine the compliance of the LRSD with the second remedy, including the \"deeply embedded\" component as a substantive element of the remedy; [ iii] or, alternatively, direct that the District Court, after a hearing, detennine the compliance of the LRSD with the second remedy, 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I utilizing the good faith standard in doing so. 13 Respectfully submitted, ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker, AR No. 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 E-Mail: johnwalkeratty\u0026lt;ruaol.com Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JOHN W. WALKER, the undersigned counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, Appellant herein, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply Briefhas been served on this 18st day ofDecember, 2007, by dispatch to a third-party commercial carrier for overnight delivery to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Clerk's Office, Thomas F. Eagleton Court House, Room 24 .329, 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102-1125 and via U.S. Mail and/or handdelivery to Mr. Chris Heller, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000, Little Rock, AR 72201 and to the Office ofDesegregation Monitoring, One Union National Plaza, 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . ls/John W. Walker 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 2( a )(7)( C) and Eighth Circuit Rules 28A( c ), that this Reply Brief ( exclusive of the table of contents, the table of authorities, any addendum, and any certificates of counsel) contains 3427 words. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of FRAP.32(a)(5) and the type style requirements ofFRAP.32(a)(6) because of this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Wordperfect 9. 0 in Times New Roman, 14-point. The undersigned has provided one vims free digital version of this brief to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and to all counsel of record. The digital version of this brief has been furnished on a 3.5\" computer diskette in Portable Document Format (also known as PDF or Acrobat Fonnat). The digital version was generated by printing to PDF from the original word processing file . Dated: December 18, 2007 ls/John W. Walker 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. I I I 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 December 6, 2006 Mr. Christopher J. Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP - Little Rock Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway  Little Rock, AR 72024 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, 4:82-CV-866 Dear Counsel: As you know, this case is set for a hearing to commence on Monday, December 18, 2006. By noon this Friday, December 8, 2006, please fax me a list of your witnesses with a fair and accurate summary of the expected testimony of each witness and the length of time you estimate for  direct examination. Please also carefully identify each exhibit that you intend to offer at the hearing by noon Friday, December 8. By noon Monday, December 11, 2006, each of you should fax me a letter with your estimated time of cross-examination for each adverse witness. We may have to work~ long day to complete the testimony. I understand that the media has reported a stir or two concerning some of th.e potential witnesses, and concerning one or more of the lawyers of record. If these media reports are accurate, pf e~e advise me in exact and plenary detail what part, if any, these stirs will play in the December 18 hearing. Include any new issues that you anticipate (this information should also be submitted by noon, this Friday). It is my understanding that Mr. John Burnett and Mr. Steve Quattlebaum, both of the Little Rock Bar, are representing some of the potential witnesses or other principals in the case. Both of these Page 1 of 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lawyers are on Judge Tom Ray's recusal list. In view of this I think it is likely that he will recuse in the immediate future -- assuming, of course, that any of the individuals these lawyers represent will play a part in the hearing. I look forward to hearing from you. Cordially, Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. P.S . No requests for extensions of the above deadlines, please. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Ms. Mary Johnson Other Counsel of Record Page 2 of 2 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW . -Document 4095 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (601) 604-5149 January 18, 2007 Mr. Christopher J. Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP - Little Rock Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway . Little Rock, AR 72024 Re: LRSD ~- PCSSD, et al, 4:82-CV-00866 Dear Counsel: . We will have a total of about 20 hours for the hearing, considering dinner (lunch) breaks, and a 15  minute break each morning and afternoon. -LRSD will have 7 hours to present its case. Joshua will have a total of2 hours for cross-examine of L_RSD's witnesses .. Joshua will have 7 hours to present its case. LRSD will have a total of 2 hours to cross-examine Joshua's witnesses. Cross-examination must be brisk and to the point, i.e., a Blitzkrieg, not an invasion of Normandy. You should be keenly aware of the time limits, lest evidence you deem important gets passed by. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Other Counsel of Record Cordially, Isl Wm. R.Wilson.Jr.  l/17?, Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:47 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response in Opposition to Motion This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 12/20/2007 at 3:46 PM CST and filed on 12/20/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4173 ( \"Po /'If~ h4 \\/\u0026lt;. clo C.1,1 W\\ C \") r Docket Text: RESPONSE in Opposition re [4141] MOTION for Declaratory Judgment, [4143] MOTION for Declaratory Judgment filed by Lorene Joshua. (Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 1/8/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, 1orap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=12/20/2007] [FileNumber=1062801- 0] [2c4a2e7112bb6558e0a14444d8175f6274883ca83101922b2eb8a45ff417b39196 1145745a839186c4571040330aba330e2abdbb6c616bd01284d06d3dd62049]] 1/8/2008 . . - JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW  1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722ftE\"  TELEPHONE (501) 374-37580 CEIVEO FAX (501) 374-4.187 . . . EMAIL: jolmwalkera ttYri'.uaol.com  DEC 2 Q 200l l)oc.. l/l,'t JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN G. CHILDS . OFCOUNSEI DESEG OFFICE OF ROBERT McHENRY. P.A REGATION MONITORJNr. . 8210 HENDERSON .ROAI Mr. Michael Gans United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329 St. Louis; MO 63102 December 18, ] 007  . '!!!TILE ROCK, ARKA,'\\JSAS 722 1( PHONE: (501 ) 374-3425  FA.\"\\: (501) 372-3421 EMAIL: md1ear,\u0026lt;l;Z\u0026amp;,,wbd!.ne1 . ' Re: 07-1866 Little Rock School :District, et al. v. Joshua Intervenors, et al. Dear Mt. Gans: Enclosed please find ten copies of Joshua Iritervenors ' Reply Brief along with the digital version brief on a 3. 5\" computer diskette in PDF format to be filed in the above matter. JWW:lp Enclosures cc:  All Counsel of Record I I 07-1866 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS  FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET Ab~c    INTERVENOR/APPELLANT~ 11 ,;1 c,vco 'EC E O 200 V. . 7 DESEG11oiff'CE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 7081108 '10/iJNq APPELLEE Reply Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, Et Al. On Appeal From United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Hon. William R. Wilson District Judge Presiding Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (F) 07-1866 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENOR/APPELLANTS V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE Reply Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, Et Al. On Appeal From United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas  Western Division Hon. William R. Wilson District Judge Presiding RECEIVED DEC 2 O 2007 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITOIDNG Robert Pressman John W. Walker 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (F) Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................... ................................ . Table of Authorities .................................... .. ..................................... . Argument .................................................. ....................... ................. . The Arguments of the LRSD and the State Lack Merit A. The Original Section 2.7.1 Commitment Encompassed Structure for Assessment/Evaluation Deeply Embedded in the Operation of the LRSD B. The LRSD's Freedom to Craft an Implementation Plan During the Agreed Upon Duration of the Revised Plan C. This Court's Identification of the District Court's Remedial Authority D. The District Court's 2002 Decision and Its Initial Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default E. F. The District Court's 2004 Decision and Its Second Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default The District Court's Giving Notice of a Change in the Standards for Judging Compliance Only After the Hearing Requires Reversal 1 11 1 1 3 3 4 6 9 Certificate of Service .............. ....................................... ........................ 12 Certificate of Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Attachments i Table of Authorities Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395 (7thCir. 1994) Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) First Union National Bank, Trustee v. Pictet Overseas Trust Corp., 477 F.3d 616 (8thCir. 2007) Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.s. 565 (1975) Grand State Marketing Co. v. Eastern Poultry Distributors, 975 S.W.2d 429 (Ark.App. 1998) Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610 (1976) Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953 (8thCir. 1997) LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8thCir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8thCir. 1996) LRSD v. PCSSD, 237 F.Supp.2d 988 (E.D.Ark. 2002) LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F.Supp.2d 963 (E.D.Ark. 2004) LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d 528 (8thCir. 2006) LRSD v. PCSSD, Order Declaring the Little Rock School District Unitary, Feb. 23, 2007 McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc., 633 F.2d 226 (lstCir. 1980) Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 301 F.3d 1 (lstCir. 2002) Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) United States v. ITT Continental Baking Company, 420 U.S. 233 (1975) ii 10, 11 10 10, 12 10 2 10 4,9 3,4 8 2,4,6 6, 7, 11, 12 1, 6, 9 2, 12 10 9, 11 4 2 Rule 55, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Sec. 201(1) (1981) iii 10 2 The Arguments of the LRSD and the State Lack Merit LRSD and the State ignore the breadth, in context, of LRSD's original commitment in Section 2. 7 .1; LRSD's agreement necessarily required multiple actions creating a structure for implementation fairly characterized by the II deeply embedded 11 language later employed by the District Court, after LRSD twice failed to fulfill its voluntary commitments. They do not account for these defaults, or the District Court's remedial authority in such circumstances. They minimize, or ignore entirely the District Court's communicating an important change in the criteria for judging LRSD compliance only in its February 23, 2007 post-hearing opinion, thereby denying Joshua counsel the opportunity to challenge LRSD compliance with knowledge of all governing standards. A. The Original Section 2. 7 .1 Commitment Encompassed a Structure for Assessment/Evaluation Deeply Embedded in the Operation of the LRSD In 1998, the District Court approved the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), to which the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD had agreed. LRSD, 451 F.3d at 3. Section 2.7.1 provided that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2. 7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. While only 65 words and 2 sentences, this was a commitment of considerable breadth. First. The text referred to annual reviews of the specified programs in terms of 1 their effectiveness in improving African-American student achievement.1 The text also obligated the LRSD to modify or replace programs shown to be ineffective. Second. The programs, identified in Sec. 2. 7 of the Revised Plan, were those \"designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African American students .... \" The LRSD \"identified almost 100 [such] programs . ... \" LRSD, 237 F.Supp. at 1076, n. 135. Third. The parties interpreted \"assess\" and \"assessment\" to require evaluations, a more detailed study than an assessment, of at least the key Section 2.7 programs. 237 F.Supp. at 1076-80; LRSD (dist. ct.), 2-23-07, at 13-15.2 The mere agreement to and approval of these two sentences was obviously not the goal of the parties. The objective meaning of these words, in the context of a school district of substantial size, contemplated a great deal of activity by its officers - and employees. There would be a need, inter alia, for the adoption of policies and guidelines; the employment of personnel capable of performing assessments and evaluations; interaction with those involved in the content of LRSD curriculum; communication with and training of school-level personnel; reports on 1 In 1997-98, the LRSD enrolled 24,886 students, 16,664 of whom were African Americans; LRSD then operated 50 schools. [ODM enrollment report, Dec. 7, 2007] 2 As the district court notes [LRSD, 2-7-07, at 2, 15] RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS Sec. 201(1) (1981) provides: \"Where the parties have attached the same meaning to a promise or agreement or a term thereof, it is interpreted in accordance with that meaning.\"; see also U.S. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 233, 238 (1975) (reliance on \"any technical meaning words used may have had to the parties\"); Grand State Marketing v. Eastern Poultry Distribs., 975 S.W.2d 429, 442 (Ark.App. 1998) (\"In particular, when a technical term is used, the trier of fact may determine in what sense the term was used.\") 2 implementation to high level administrators and the school board; oversight; and documents containing completed program studies. Not infrequently, a phrase is used to describe an endeavor of considerable complexity. Here, a reasonable construction of the parties' broad voluntary agreement was that it contemplated, over time, multiple, mature actions at different levels and locales in the LRSD, i.e., that a structure to carry out the parties' broad agreement be \"deeply embedded\" in the LRSD curriculum and instruction program. B. The LRSD's Freedom to Craft an hnplementation Plan During the Agreed Upon Duration of the Revised Plan Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided for implementation for a three-year period, assuming substantial compliance with its terms. In this period, the system's implementation of Section 2.7.1 was not constrained by any directive(s) of the District Court. The LRSD was free to fashion and implement steps to comply with the parties' agreement. C. This Court's Identification of the District Court's Remedial Authority Prior to the approval of the Revised Plan, this court addressed in this case the implementation and enforcement of agreements of the parties. The appeal in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) followed the parties' agreement to a desegregation plan for each of the three districts involved in the case, as well as an \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\" and a \"Settlement Agreement\" concerning obligations of State officials. 921 F.2d at 1378-80. Rejecting rulings of the District Court, this court approved the parties' plans. The court noted that \"the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring\" and continued [at 1386]: 3 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 the monitoring is done eff ecti vel y, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. This court also addressed the District Court's authority in the concluding section of its 1990 opinion, which summarized this court's rulings and directives. This court wrote: 8. The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. See also Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367,378 (1992) (\"A consent decree no doubt embodies an agreement of the parties and thus in some - respects is contractual in nature. But it is an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees.\"); Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997) (parties' agreement \"becomes, in a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties\"). D. The District Court's 2002 Decision and Its Initial Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default In 2002, following hearings, the District Court ruled on the LRSD's effort to show compliance with the Revised Plan sufficient to achieve full unitary status and the termination of court jurisdiction. The court clustered the Plan provisions at issue in six areas. LRSD, 237 F.Supp. at 1086. In all areas but one, implementation of Plan provision 2. 7 .1, the court found substantial compliance and ended court supervision. 4 237 F.Supp. at 1086, 1089. As to 2.7.1, the court found an absence of substantial compliance. Id. The District Court's discussion, 237 F.Supp. at 1076-80, may be summarized as follows: [i] LRSD interpreted Sec. 2. 7 .1 consistently to obligate the district to prepare program evaluations of the key 2. 7 programs, which by the text of that section were not limited to the programs in Plan Section 5. [At 1076-80] [ii] The school board adopted an evaluation policy belatedly, i.e., in February 2001, only in the month before LRSD filed its Compliance Report (at the time specified in the 1998 Revised Plan), seeking a complete release from court supervision. [At 1078, para. 7] [iii] LRSD lacked the personnel needed to prepare adequate evaluations. [At 1081, 5-16-01 E-mail] [iv] LRSD's March 2001 Compliance Report was marked by a lack of candor, exaggerating the extent of completion of evaluations; none were complete. [At 1079- 80, para. 14] [v] In view of its earlier consistent position that Sec. 2.7.1 required the preparation of evaluations of key 2.7 programs, LRSD's contrary position in the hearing also evidenced a lack of candor. [At 1078, para. 10] Faced with an absence of the evaluations which LRSD had agreed to be necessary and evidence of bad faith, the District Court did not simply plead with LRSD to comply. Rather, in keeping with this court's instructions in 1990, the Court devised a \"Compliance Remedy.\" This remedy required LRSD, among other things, to [237 F.Supp. at 1087-88]: [i] establish \"a program assessment procedure ... that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sec. 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\"; [ii] prepare 5 and use certain \"program evaluations\" which it had identified; [iii] continue during a specified period to assess each 2.7 program and use this and other available information in deciding on program modification and elimination; [iv] maintain certain written records regarding these assessments, including records regarding program modification and elimination, a topic specifically addressed in Sec. 2.7.1; and [iv] use a particular external expert or someone else with equivalent qualifications to prepare the evaluations, which the LRSD had referenced. There is no proper basis for criticism of the District Court regarding the 2002 remedy. Faced with LRSD default, the court extended the implementation period and identified actions inherent in the parties' 2. 7 .1 agreement, as construed by the parties. The District Court fulfilled the responsibility identified in strong terms by this court - in 1990, in order to give Joshua Intervenors the benefit of the parties' bargain. Importantly, the LRSD neither sought clarification of the meaning of this remedy, nor appealed. LRSD, 470 F.Supp. at 969; LRSD, 451 F.3d at 536. E. The District Court's 2004 Decision and Its Second Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default In 2004, the LRSD sought a termination of court supervision based upon asserted compliance with the court's 2002 remedy and Sec. 2. 7 .1. The District Court again found a lack of substantial compliance. Faced with a second instance of noncompliance, the court set forth the second Compliance Remedy, which was, intentionally, more specific than the 2002 remedy. LRSD, 470 F.Supp. at 997. The factors on which the court relied in finding non-compliance and framing its 2004 remedy included the following: [i] the LRSD had again recognized that its 6 obligation encompassed some program evaluations; [470 F.Supp. at 970-71]; [ii] although, as LRSD's expert witness testified, all districts implement sub-programs within a curriculum, which can be and should be evaluated [Dr. Ross, hearing transcript at 195; 470 F.Supp. at 986], the \"evaluations\" which the LRSD presented were global overviews of the entire literacy and math-science curricula, not studies of particular programs which could be used to make the requisite decisions about program modification and elimination [ 4 70 F.Supp. at 971-72,987, 990]; [iii] neither global overview addressed the key research question identified in LRSD's assessment\\evaluation policy, i.e., \"has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students?\" [470 F.Supp. at 987, 990]; [iv] LRSD did not maintain the records regarding its program studies required in paragraph B of the 2002 Compliance Remedy [470 F.Supp. at 994-95]; [v] the shortcomings in LRSD performance were again attributable to staffing problems in the district [470 F.Supp. at 985-86]; [vi] in the opinion of the LRSD expert, Dr. Ross, a system the size of the LRSD could be expected to provide four or five evaluations a year [ 4 70 F.Supp. 994]; [ vii] LRSD had failed to provide to ODM and Joshua Intervenors promised progress reports on the literacy and math-science evaluations [470 F.Supp. at 988-89, 991]. There is no proper basis for criticism of the District Court regarding the 2004 remedy. Faced with a second LRSD default, the court addressed more specifically required actions and steps to achieve them. No goal, required action, or standard was outside the parties' broad agreement. Except when it came to court, LRSD always 7 identified its obligations as including some evaluations. When LRSD had twice failed in this area, the court drew upon the testimony of LRSD's expert to identify the number of evaluations to require in its second remedy. LRSD having twice failed with regard to adequate personnel, the court was specific with regard to both in-house staff (PRE) and external experts (to do evaluations). The court's deeply embedded language was not a requirement untethered to the original 2. 7 .1 commitment, or fairly characterized as made up out of whole cloth, but instead a provision fairly descriptive of the LRSD landscape in a full compliance with Section 2.7.1 setting. Had LRSD complied at the outset, or after entry of the first compliance remedy, the District Court would not have had the need to articulate a global standard, geared to the particular subject matter of Sec. 2.7.1, to help measure compliance. The District Court could not allow itself to be \"run off.\" It could not condone non-compliance. It had a responsibility, which its second remedy sought to address. To the extent relevant on this appeal, it should be noted that no part of the argument made by the dissenting judge in this court's 2006 decision withstands scrutiny. See 451 F.3d at 541-43. First. The interpretation of the word \"assessment\" and the identification of the type of program studies required overall by Sec. 2. 7 .1 ignores two critical factors. These are LRSD's repetitive construction of its bargain as requiring some evaluations and the relevance of the parties' position on this to proper interpretation of Sec. 2. 7 .1. 8 See n.2, supra.3 Second. Having qualified personnel was an inherent element of the original 2.7.1 bargain; and the District Court dealt specifically with this topic only after a second default, each encompassing personnel deficiencies, as previously shown. Third. The \"deeply embedded\" standard, invoked only after two defaults, comes straight from the broad 2.7.1 bargain, by \"reasonable implication,\"4 as previously shown. A focus on the status and completeness of the identified actions for achieving compliance with Sec. 2. 7 .1 is more (not less) objective than application of the \"good faith\" standard ultimately employed. The State expresses concern about the impact of the \"deeply embedded\" concept on the two other Pulaski County school districts. [State brief at 16-17] No - factual basis for this concern is shown. The State shows no order employing this standard regarding these systems (Pulaski County and North Little Rock). The State does not relate its concern to any particular remaining remedial provision in one of these districts. Beyond this, the State does not recognize that the standard is a part of LRSD's voluntary substantive obligation drawn from Sec. 2.7.1. and invoked by the District Court only after a second LRSD default. F. The District Court's Giving Notice of a Change in the Standards for Judging Compliance Only After the 3 Factual findings bearing upon contract interpretation are reviewed for clear error. LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8thCir. 1996). Given the volume of evidence relied upon, the lower court's findings that Sec. 2.7.1 encompassed evaluations are unassailable. 4 Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 954 (8th Cir. 1997). 9 Hearing Requires Reversal Prior notice, including of governing standards, is a fundamental and required element of fairness in many contexts. See [A] Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 301 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (district court entered default judgment on ADA claim, but after hearing conducted pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.Pro., dismissed claim on the merits; while the district court could conduct a hearing \"to 'establish the truth of any averment' in the complaint,\" it could only do so if it \"had made 'its requirements known in advance to the plaintiff, so that [he] could understand the direction of the proceeding and marshall such evidence as might be available to [him].' Id. (quoting McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc., 633 F.2d 226, 229 (lstCir. 1980).''; [B] Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1398 (7thCir. 1994) ( opinion written by Circuit Judge Lay, sitting by designation) (same); [C] First Union NationalBankv. PictetOverseas Trust, 477 F.3d 616,621 (8thCir. 2007) (discussing possible applicability of law of the case doctrine; \"Even had the district court intended to resolve the fiduciary duty issue in its Interest Rate Decision, it failed to do so with sufficient directness and clarity to establish the settled expectations of the parties necessary for the subsequent application of the law of the case doctrine.\"); [D] Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581-82 (1975) (in context of school suspension for disciplinary reason, required element of affording procedural due process rights is that \"the student [must] first be told what he is accused of doing and what the basis of the accusation is\"; this affords student \"opportunity to present his side of the story\" in an informed manner); [E] Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 10 U.S. 610, 620 (1976) (whether as to law or rule persons \"of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application\"); [F] Board of Educ. of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237,246 (1991) (\"[A] school board is entitled to a rather precise statement of its obligations under a desegregation decree.\"). The District Court departed from this basic standard of fairness. In Part K of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, the District Court identified LRSD's \"obligations under Sec. 2. 7 .1 as specified in the Compliance Remedy [ of 2004]\" as the measuring rod for assessing the district's right to a termination of court jurisdiction. [ 470 F.Supp. at 1000] That remedy, in Part B, included the \"deeply embedded\" language, which even referred to \"[p ]art of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing .... \" [ 4 70 F.Supp. at 998] The District Court gave notice of changing this standard only in its post-hearing opinion. [LRSD, 2-7-07, at 16-17] Obviously, Joshua counsel could not, on a key point, \"understand the direction of the proceeding and marshall such evidence as might be available to [them]\" [Ramos-Falcon and Black, supra], when the change to the \"good faith\" standard was set forth only after the evidentiary hearing was completed. Moreover, \"management orders\" and guidance to counsel before the hearing magnified the harm. By letter of December 6, 2006, the District Court required each side to present by December 8 for each witness \"a fair and accurate summary of the expected testimony ... and the length of time you estimate for direct examination.\" In a letter of January 18, 2007, the court stated that each side would be limited to 7 11 hours for its direct case and 2 hours for cross-examination. The court added: \"Crossexamination must be brisk and to the point, i.e., a Blitzkrieg, not an invasion of Normandy.\" [See attachments to this brief] In this setting, Joshua counsel had to focus with great care on the existing compliance standards. LRSD argues that Intervenors should have perceived the change in standards. [LRSD brief at 37-38] Neither the Court of Appeals, nor the District Court before the 2006 hearing or its decision, identified the good faith standard ultimately used by the lower court. Whether one refers to the law of the case or the criteria for assessing compliance, the standard actually used was not timely identified with \"sufficient directness and clarity .... \"First Union National Bank, 477 F.3d at 621. Moreover, LRSD does not recognize that the deeply embedded standard is a substantive element - of Sec. 2.7.1, fairly construed. The State discusses the law of the case concept. It is, however, silent on the problem here, the timing of the district court's changing in an important way the standards for judging compliance. [States's brief at 10-11] The State also does not recognize the nature of the deeply embedded standard; it is an element of the substantive bargain of Intervenors and LRSD in Sec. 2.7.1; it describes steps necessary to move from a few words on a page to a reality in the operation of the district. It is not, as the State discussion implies, a global standard, apart from Sec. 2.7.1, for assessing whether there is sufficient compliance with the agreement to justify a termination of the case as to LRSD or another district. Compare State brief at 12-13. 12 Conclusion This court should vacate the judgment of dismissal and: [i] direct the District Court, after a hearing, to reinstate a compliance remedy for an additional period; [ii] or, alternatively, direct that the District Court, after a hearing, determine the compliance of the LRSD with the second remedy, including the \"deeply embedded\" component as a substantive element of the remedy; [iii] or, alternatively, direct that the District Court, after a hearing, determine the compliance of the LRSD with the second remedy, utilizing the good faith standard in doing so. 13 Respectfully submitted, /s/.Tohn W. Walker John W. Walker, AR No. 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 E-Mail: johnwalkeratty@aol.com Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JOHN W. WALKER, the undersigned counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, Appellant herein, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply Brief has been served on this 18st day of December, 2007, by dispatch to a third-party commercial carrier for overnight delivery to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Clerk's Office, Thomas F. Eagleton Court House, Room 24.329, 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis,Missouri 63102-1125 and via U.S. Mail and/orhanddelivery to Mr. Chris Heller, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000, Little Rock, AR 72201 and to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, One Union National Plaza, 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. ls/John W. Walker 14 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(C) and Eighth Circuit Rules 28A(c), that this Reply Brief (exclusive of the table of contents, the table of authorities, any addendum, and any certificates of counsel) contains 3427 words. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of FRAP.32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of FRAP.32(a)(6) because of this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Wordperfect 9.0 in Times New Roman, 14-point. The undersigned has provided one virus free digital version of this brief to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and to all counsel of record. The digital version of this brief has been furnished on a 3.5\" computer diskette in Portable Document Format (also known as PDF or Acrobat Format). The digital version was generated by printing to PDF from the original word processing file. Dated: December 18, 2007 ls/John W. Walker 15 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1:miec E' ivE 0 TELEPHONE (501) 374_375f1'E,;, . FAX (501) 374-4187 EMAIL: johnwalkeratt1'1i:vaol.com DEC 2 G 2007 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN G. CHILDS l\\llr. Michael Shay United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 December 20, 2007 OFFICE OF OF COUNS DESEGREGATION MONITORINIRoBERT McHENRY, P 8210 HENDERSON RO LITTLE ROCK, .-\\RK.4..\u0026lt;\"\\/SAS 72: PHONE: (501) 374-3425  FA,'{ (501) 372a3 EMAIL: mchenr,1.1hswbdl Re: 07-1866 Little Rock School District, et al. v. Joshua Intervenors, et al. Dear Ivlr. Shay: Pursuant to our telephone conversation, enclosed you will find the original pages 13, 14, and 15 with Mr. Walker's signature. By copy of this letter, I am also providing all counsel listed on the Certificate of Service with these pages. If there are any additional corrections which need to be made, please advise. Sincerely, /\\ .Y  l ....-2 r7'1[!l0,1 o~v~ YsiL6raPowell Secretary to John W. Walker LP: Enclosures 13 . Walker, AR No. 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 E-Mail: johnwalkeratty(a)aol.com Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JOHN W. WALKER, the undersigned counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, Appellant herein, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply Brief was served on the 18st day of December, 2007, by dispatch to a third-party commercial carrier for overnight delivery to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Clerk's Office, Thomas F. Eagleton Court House, Room 24.329, 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102-1125 and via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to Mr. Chris Heller, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000, Little Rock, AR 72201 and to the Office ofDesegregation Monitoring, One Union National Plaza, 124 West Capitol, Suite 18 14 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to .Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 2( a )(7)( C) and Eighth Circuit Rules 28A( c ), that this Reply Brief ( exclusive of the table of contents, the table of authorities, any addendum, and any certificates of cotmsel) contains 3427 words. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of FRAP.32(a)(5) and the type style requirements ofFRAP.32(a)(6) because of this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using W ordperfect 9. 0 in Times New Roman, 14-point. The tmdersigned has provided -one virus free digital version of this brief to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and to all cotmsel of record: The digital version of this briefhas been famished on a 3.5\" computer diskette - in Portable Docmnent Fonnat (also known as PDF or Acrobat Fonnat). The digital version was generated by printing to PDE from the original word processing file . Dated: December 20, 2007 15 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf _ su pport@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:57 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Brief in Opposition This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 12/20/2007 at 3:56 PM CST and filed on 12/20/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4174 Docket Text: BRIEF IN OPPOSITION filed by Lorene Joshua re [4145] Brief in Support (Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 1/8/2008 . ' . . Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalk:eratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, 1orap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=12/20/2007] [FileNumber=l062865- 0] [65977f3b2c5e2ab4a9418b842718fd4c5295:f29ef9e7ef3b12d48014f6ad014540 aead3a02061f86aal 1564a5f02afl 7570a3601c799a30116bc81d2c7b02225]] 1/8/2008 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. Poe. 'i 115 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR A DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Comes the Intervenor, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT), and, for its response to Pulaski County Special School District's Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status, states: 1. Dr. Donna Humpries, a member of PACT, has pending an individual Title VII and 14th Amendment claim against Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) in Humphries v. PCSSD, E.D. Ark. Case No. 4:06 CV-00606. Likewise, Ms. Norma Dixon, a noncertified employee of PCS SD, has pending an individual Title VII claim against PCS SD. Both are represented herein by PACT and other named class representatives. [Dkt. 1179] 2. Dr. Humphries alleges PCS SD has preferentially hired and promoted minority applicants for elementary administrative positions since at least 2001. The statistical evidence in support of her allegation is overwhelming.. See, Employment Analysis of Elementary School Assistant Principals in the Pulaski County Special School District (report of plaintiffs Page 1 of 5 3. expert, Dr. David Sharp), Docket# 38, Exhibit 1, in 4:06cv00606. In its motion for release from court supervision, PCS SD cites the very statistic which tends to prove racial bias in hiring and promotion relative to Dr. Humphries' case. Specifically, PCS SD informs the court that over fifty-two percent of its school based administrators are black. Brief in Support of PCSSD'S Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status, at 5, (\"Brief, \"hereafter). Unfortunately, PCS SD fails to report to the court that only 21 % of the relevant labor pool of certified teachers for those positions is black, and therefore, it has reached this 52% level by methods that imply a further violation of the 14th Amendment. It is so far undisputed that PCS SD hires or promotes black applicants to elementary assistant principal positions at a rate from 2. 8 to 3 .2 standard deviations above what is expected based upon the relevant labor pool of certified teachers. See, Docket# 38, Exhibit 1, Case No. 4:06cv00606. No similar detailed analyses of junior high school and high school hires and promotions have been performed because of restrictions placed on discovery by the court in Humphries case. In Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977), the court holds that hiring or promoting one race at rates two or three standard deviations above the expected rate for that race is sufficient to establish that race was a factor in the hiring or promotion process for those positions. 4. Nevertheless, citing the racial composition of its certified administrative staff, PCSSD asserts that it is \"in compliance with\" a constitutional standard for ''Faculty and Administrative Assignments,\" citing Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1970). Brief at4-5, andfn. 8. For many years, PCSSD had met the legitimate racial diversity goals required by the court - i.e. nearly every certified Page 2 of 5 employee category reflected the relevant labor pool, - and thus, a phase of enhanced hiring and promotion of minorities was not required or contemplated by the court's approval of PCSSD's desegregation plans from 1987 forward. See, LRSD v. PCSSD, 659 F.Supp. 363, 369 (E.D.Ark. 1987)(\"Similarly, the affirmative action plan for administrative staff appears to have been successful although there remain underrepresentation in two specific categories: coordinators and directors .... The percentage of black administrators (24. 7%) is good and indicates a positive step toward curing this deficiency.\" Id.). By adoption of Plan 2000, PCS SD administration did reflect the labor pool - roughly 21 % of its administrators were black, and 21 % of certified teachers in the area were black. The same basic labor pool exists today, but 52.9% of administrators in PCSSD are black. At least in elementary schools, the statistics meet the legal standard for a prima facie case ofrace discrimination against white applicants for those jobs. How does this apparent race discrimination in employment affect the desegregation efforts of the three districts? We do not hazard a guess, nor is it PACT' s duty to analyze that question. However, these very considerations - the racial composition of PCSSD's employees - were a major component of the evidence which Judge Woods focused on when he made the original liability finding in this case. 5. PACT's concern on behalf of Dr. Humphries, is that PCSSD is seeking implicit or explicit court approval of the recent (2000-2006) hiring and promotions which resulted in the school's administration rising from 20% black to 52% black as if that rate of hiring of black administrators was related to a legitimate remaining remedial obligation in this case. Our concern is further heightened by the fact that PCS SD made no similar mention in its motion for unitary status that about 21% of its teachers are minority, and that about 21% of new Page 3 of 5 hires each year are black. Those statistics comport with the relevant labor pool percentages, but garnered no special mention for possible mention by this court when assessing PCS SD' s progress. 6. Whether the race discrimination now evident in PCSSD's employment of certified administrators will alter the court's opinion on unitary status, PACT urges the court to make an explicit exclusion of the district's administrative hiring and promotion process in any ruling on PCSSD's pending motion. If the court finds the issues raised herein need to be addressed in the hearing on the pending motion, PACT stands prepared to present that evidence for the court's benefit. 7. Ms. Dixon's employment claim arises out of her pursuit of a buyer position in the business department of PCS SD. On information and belief, that department has never hired a black buyer and all upper management positions in that department are filled by whites. WHEREFORE, PACT prays any order issued on PCS SD' spending motion for unitary status make explicit exclusion of the issues ofracial discrimination in hiring and promotions as alleged in Humphries v. PCSSD, Case No. 4:06 CV-00606 (E.D. Ark.) and Dixon v. PCSSD, Case No. 4-07-cv- 01119 (E.D.Ark). Respectfully submitted, ls/Mark Burnette Mark Burnette, ABN 88078 MITCHELL, BLACKSTOCK,BARNES WAGONER, IVERS \u0026amp; SNEDDON, PLLC 1010 West Third P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 (501) 378-7870 Page 4 of 5 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the following, postage prepaid, and filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to all counsel of record, this 21st day of December, 2007: Mr. SamuelJones,m Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates, Woodyard, PLLC 425 West Capitol Ave. Ste.1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Ste. 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol , Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 By: ls/Mark Burnette Mark Burnette, ABN 88078 Page 5 of 5 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 2:43 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response to Motion This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Burnette, Mark on 12/21/2007 at 2:42 PM CST and filed on 12/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4175 Docket Text: RESPONSE to Motion re [4159] MOTION for Order for a Declaration of Unitary Status filed by Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers. (Burnette, Mark) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 1/8/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=12/21/2007] [FileNumber=1063977- 0] [6eeelb572383b02aa3b59dde83a32470fef7c66e2684100df9c47bc82e187b9ec9 a17dfd4938fe363ade679760fd69221e663289e4f47612309d62063ed2041b]] 1/8/2008 J)oc f/7? UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EAS'Ji'S,DiSTRICTCOURT RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Mr. Stephen W. Jones 500 W. CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 0444 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 December 21, 2007 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway DEC 21 2007 JAMES ~RMAC~CLERK By: ~~~ OFFICE: (501) efii.fil'l:QileRK FAX: (501) 6045149 Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3483 Little Rock, AR 72024 Mr. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District, et al v. Pulaski Cotmty School District, et al 4:82-CV-00866-WRW Dear Counsel: I'm strongly disinclined to have a hearing on your motions to declare your Districts unitary until the Eighth Circuit renders its decision in the Little Rock School District case. As you know, Joshua Jnterveners are challenging the compliance standard I used during the last hearing. Until this issue is resolved by the Eighth Circuit, it seems to me that it would be ill-advised to conduct extensive, expensive hearings on your requests. While I've still got my mind charged with this issue, I anticipate that I will soon enter an order along the lines suggested above. Original: cc: Cordially, [t{/{MJJIL Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. /4r. James W. McCmmack, Clerk of the Court The Honorable Thomas Ray The Honorable Andre-e Roaf MIME-Version : 1 . 0 From:ecf_support@ared . uscourts . gov To:ared_ecf@localhost . localdomain a-res sage-Id : \u0026lt;1063998@ared . uscourts -. gov\u0026gt; ~ cc: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock Schoome.tr.ae Pulaski Cty School , et al Order n C  fl/ED Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicia ~elf'e f the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electrc[j},F.5a2J-~ , ?Rlf7 receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees ~'ffl]ly to all other users. To avoid later charges , download a copy of each docurr#~cEBJuring this first viewing . U. S . District Court DESEGREGATION F Eastern District of. Arkansas MDNITORJNG Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 12/21/2007 2:55 PM CST and filed on 12/21/2007 Case Name : Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number : 4:82-cv-866 https://ecf.ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt . pl?26052 Filer : WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number : 4176 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document : Document: https://ecf.ared.uscourts . gov/docl/02701103404?magic_num=MAGIC\u0026amp;de_seq_num=200582 9\u0026amp;caseid=26052 Docket Text: A LETTER/ ORDER the Court is strongly disinclined to have a hearing on Motions W,to Declare Districts Unitary until the Eighth Circuit renders its decision in the LRSD case. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson , Jr on 12 /21/07 . (d    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.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1773","title":"Court filings regarding Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, memorandum of authority, and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to 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","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2007-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Joshua intervenors","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School facilities","Middle schools","Maumelle Middle School (Maumelle, Ark.)","School enrollment","African Americans--Education"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, memorandum of authority, and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to 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/1773"],"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":["22 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion; District Court, memorandum of authority; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to motion; District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to motion; District Court, order; District Court, correction of order; District Court, notice of electronic filing, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    ARKAN SAS DEPARTM ENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner --Edacati1fn-4 State.Capitol Mall----- Little Rock,.AR. 72201,.107-1 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org October 31, 2007 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED NOV 2 - 2007 OFFICE OF IISmRWT~ Mmfil11f!1mllE Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West_ Capitol A venue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of October 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. JieR General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott Richardson, Attorney General's Office STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Jim Cooper, Melbourne Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia  Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton Marylane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED NOV 2- 2007 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS Off.lttf ~ Mimmmmtm DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2007 eas'$1tmt@!imorma]on:avaiIrortr~gtemtrei?,S.oE2o_ogi ttretA0 EtcaI\u0026amp;uIatec1ntm s:tatelfilJllnclaWJ=~orlj.YIOw.mno1m1tomeri iro'Kcsiaiwwt 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. UNITED STATES bISTR.l:Ct COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for October 2007. Respectfully Submitted, mith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 .,._  I .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on October 31, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:48 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the fded documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 11/1/2007 at 4:48 PM CDT and filed on 11/1/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4161 Docket Text: NOTICE OF FILING ADE's Project Management Tool for October 2007 by Arkansas Department of Education ( dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 2/5/2008 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/1/2007] [FileNumber=1031013-0 ] [2cla69filbc1165b8dcc0d02314a461bfcdb71a68d13811829e3b632229fd4b6858 be2e704b6d8ffl 428416598efil6896ef5929dl 132deb3bd453958975e7eb6]] 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4161 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 3 of 3 UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Exhibits Attached to Original  Document in Courts 's Case File Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4162 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 4:82CV00866-WRW /JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. MOTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the court to enter an order directing the Office - of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to review the Pulaski County Special School District student assignment plan and to make other reviews as may be necessary to determine the extent to which the PCSSD has complied with the prior orders of this court. On October 22, 2007, undersigned counsel informed the court of the PCS SD' s plans to build a replacement secondary facility in the Maumelle community. At that time, counsel brought to the court's attention that the proposed new facility may advantage certain students of higher socio economic level and disadvantage those, largely African American students, oflower socio economic status. Joshua also brought to the court's attention that the PCSSD appears to be in the process of recreating separate schools which may be largely unequal in terms of physical facilities, at the least, and that in order for the court to access this process, independently, the ODM should be requested to make inquiry into the subject. On October 29, 2007, the PCS SD filed a motion for unitary status. In that motion the district Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4162 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 3 asserts that it has substantially complied with existing orders of the court and the Court of Appeals. The Eighth Circuit has directed the creation and utilization of the ODM in order to make appropriate and pertinent inquiries and to otherwise monitor compliance with respect to the commitments that the district has made in order to fully eliminate all vestiges of racial discrimination from the school system. The district has made its filing in part because it was induced, if not directed, by the Arkansas Legislature to seek unitary status. Whether the district is unitary is a judicial determination to be made upon consideration of any reports regarding the subject by the ODM and the evidence that it otherwise submitted by the parties regarding the subject. Joshua's earlier request for ODM monitoring and a report thereon is appropriate and will be helpful to the court when the court undertakes hearings on the subject. The primary monitor approved by the Court of Appeals, which has consistently been financed - by the defendant school districts and the State of Arkansas, is the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Joshua submits that it is appropriate before this subject is heard by the court that the ODM review all aspects of the existing plans of the PCS SD and all of its school operations including comparative quality of facilities and make a monitoring report to the court in advance of such hearing. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the court to direct the ODM to enter an overall appraisal pursuant to a comprehensive monitoring undertaking of the extent of compliance by the PCSSD which the existing plans of the district and that it include within such report a valuation and relative quality assessment of all of the facilities within the Pulaski County School District where students attend its schools. Respectfully submitted, .. . . \"\" Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4162 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 3 Robert Pressman Attorney at Law 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Tel: (501) 374-3758 Fax: (501) 374-4187 By: ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, certify that on this 17lh day of November, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. Isl John W. Walker Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 1 :55 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Motion for Order This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 11/16/2007 at 1 :55 PM CST and filed on 11/16/2007 Case Name: Case Number: Filer: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Leslie Joshua Stacy Joshua Wayne Joshua Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4162 Docket Text: MOTION for Order Regarding PCSSD's Plans by Lorene Joshua, Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua, Wayne Joshua (Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com - Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com 2/12/2008 Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/16/2007] [FileNumber=1040037- 0] [54a0bc539b60990a46a8b7ec6e2202ff0c738518f338620f9e5f1329b2e70ec947 c77e21e7848fcaf09be2bb85436db8e90ceab27fd67c787101d47227eace75]] 2/12/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4163 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 4:82CV00866-WRW /JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITY PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS The authority for the requested relief as set forth in the motion is found at Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cty. Sp. S., 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). The Court of Appeals and the district court have repeatedly recognized the authority, responsibility and duty of the ODM to monitor the plans of the parties as well as the actions of the State of Arkansas. The request being made by the Joshua Intervenors is made pursuant to that authority. The public interest will be served by the requested monitoring in advance of any judicial proceedings. Robert Pressman Attorney at Law 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, JOHNW. WALKER,P.A Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Tel: (501) 374-3758 Fax: (501) 374-4187 By: ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 . ...... . ,, ...... Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4163 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, certify that on this 17th day of November, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. /s/ John W. Walker Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 2:03 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Brief in Support This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 11/16/2007 at 2:03 PM CST and filed on 11/16/2007 Case Name: Case Number: Filer: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Leslie Joshua Stacy Joshua Wayne Joshua Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4163 Docket Text: BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by Lorene Joshua, Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua, Wayne Joshua re [4162] Motion for Order Regarding PCSSD's Plans (Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com - Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com 2/12/2008 Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj .com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original fdename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/16/2007] [FileNumber=1040061- 0] [a77d50fb0f3d54f353e9ab6e795403d30480761abbb4dc8c913ce1369cf26e8128 9f7c3a8d6c86655940c36005af7cbe76ee40139e2fe8ab148ca7baa008b410]] 2/12/2008 ;i1aACJ'U..,...  ~'j,L, c..,= Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO MOTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS 1. On this day, November 16, 2007, Joshua filed a confusing \"motion\" that alternately seems to address the PCSSD's Motion for Unitary Status which was filed on October - 29, 2007, its plans to acquire a new location for Oak Grove High School next to Mamelle Middle School and a fairly rambling recitation of Joshua's view of the current role of the ODM and a request that the ODM evaluate PCSSD's plan compliance and facilities needs. 2. For the reasons set forth below, and because time is of the essence, this response primarily addresses that part of the Joshua motion, primarily. the second paragraph of the motion, regarding a replacement location for the antiquated Oak Grove High School. 3. The PCSSD will separately address other aspects of the Joshua motion in a separate response but in a timely fashion. A Brief History of the Current PCSSD Plan 4. Under previous incarnations of the PCS SD desegregation plans, fairly elaborate rules and tests applied to the selection of new school sites and court approval was specifically - required. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 41.6 4 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 12 5. At the behest of the then presiding District Court Judge, the PCS SD jettisoned its cumbersome and comprehensive plan originally dating from 1992 and the PCSSD and Joshua negotiated a new plan, commonly known as Plan 2000. 6. Joshua and the PCSSD jointly presented the Plan for Court approval and it was duly approved and went into effect during 2000. 7. Many of the previous requirements were removed from the Plan. For instance, there is no longer any section regarding site requirements or court approval for new schools. Rather, the Plan simply states: H. School Facilities (3) The PCSSD shall notify the Joshua Intervenors of plans for constructing new schools and for adding capacity to existing schools. The notice shall identify the capacity of the proposed facility, the area of the system to be served, and the projected impact on the racial make-up of the students in each school expected to be affected by the new construction. The Joshua Intervenors shall have a period of 14 days in which to provide input concerning each such proposal. The Status of the Cunent Maumelle Site 8. The Maumelle School site was selected by a bi-racial committee of patrons from the affected areas and the vote of that committee was unanimous to select the site next door to the current Maumelle Middle School as a replacement for the ancient Oak Grove High School. 9. Pursuant to Plan 2000, counsel for Joshua was duly notified on September 7, 2007. (See Exhibit A). Accordingly, it was the PCSSD which informed the Court on September 7, 2007, of its plans to acquire the Maumelle site for the new Oak Grove High School. Joshua's cu1Tent assertion that it was Joshua which so notified the Court on October 22, 2007, is erroneous and the date of Joshua's letter does not comply with the time constraints mentioned and agreed to in Plan 2000. 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 12 1 O. . Joshua is asking the Court to order the ODM to study this site. It is respectfully submitted that the purpose of the ODM is to monitor Plan compliance. It cannot be disputed that PCS SD complied with the Plan by formally advising Joshua of the site selected. 11. A copy of the letter from counsel for Joshua dated October 22, 2007, is attached as Exhibit B. The Jacksonville issue referred to in the letter arises from legislation passed in the most recent legislative session which might result in a proposal to create a new Jacksonville School District. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the plans for a new school in Maumelle. 12. As we explained in our initial letter, the entire student body for the new Maumelle school would matriculate from the Maumelle Middle School which draws its students from the Oak Grove area, M-to-M transfer students from Litt!~ Rock and Maumelle which is rapidly increasing its black population. Indeed, the current enrollment for Maumelle Middle School is approximately 44% African American. 13. Accordingly, there is no burden issue to study or discuss. Oak Grove, Maumelle and transfer students from Little Rock are simply not involved in any shape, form or fashion in the calculous that may or may not lead to a Jacksonville School District, as contended in Joshua's letter of October 22, 2007. 14. The Oak Grove community is on the west side of Camp Robinson which forms a land barrier between that northwestern part of the PCS SD and the northwestern part which commences in the Gravel Ridge/Sherwood area and extends on over into Jacksonville. . f 15. The status of Oak Grove High School has previously been assessed both by the State and the PCSSD's own studies. Each study has concluded that it should be closed and a new school built. Again, in the final analysis, the question should be: \"What does Plan 2000 require?\" It requires notice to Joshua. Notice was duly given on September 7, 2007. 45 days 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 12 passed before Joshua commented; the 14 days for comments specified in Plan 2000 expired not later than September 21 , 2007. Indeed, the Maumelle Middle School, from which this new school would draw its students, was not opposed by Joshua when it was selected and built several years ago. The schools would simply now be beside each other. The Current Status ~f the Property Acquisition 16. On November 15, 2007, the PCSSD received notification pursuant to the purchase contract that the sellers were invoking their right to close the Maumelle property transaction on or before December 15, 2007. Accordingly, time is of the essence. 17. This response is accompanied by a Memorandum Brief which more fully explains the PCSSD position. The PCSDD requests that a decision be accelerated by this Court denying the Joshua motion insofar as it seeks to block or delay the acquisition of the site for a new Maumelle High School which would serve a student body which is approximately 44% African American. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court declaring that deciding and , selecting new school sites in the PCSSD, absent possible extraordinary circumstances which do not exist here and are not alleged here, are no longer subject to the scrutiny and micromanagement of this Court or of the ODM, and that the PCSSD is free to complete an orderly site selection process. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 Isl M. Samuel Jones. III M. Samuel Jones III (76060) E~mail: sjones@mwsgw.com 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 12 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 16, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following:  Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com  Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com  John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net,yeldnef@yahoo.eom  Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net,tmiller@fec.net,brendak@fec.net  M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com,aoverton@mwsgw.com  Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com,linda.calloway@jlj.com  Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williarnsanderson.com,nmoler@williamsanderson.com  Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com,aroaf@seark.11et1paramer@odmemail.com  Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov ,agcivil@arkansasag.gov ,danielle. williams@arkansasag .gov  John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,1orap72297@aol.com.,jspringer@gabrielmail.com 5 I ,I Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 12 . ' . / I certify that on November 16, 2007, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Isl M. Samuel Jones. III M. Samuel Jones, III Arkansas Bar No. 76060 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School D,i stric' t MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 E-Mail: sjones@mwsgw.com 6 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 12 EXHIBIT A Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 - J LAW OFFICES Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 12 . } MITCHELLWILLIAMS SELIG  GATES  WOODYARD  PLLC M, SAMUEi. JONES, Ill DIREC't' PIAI.I sot C181-811 t 2 11:.,.MAILI a.JONll:8@MWSAW,COM VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Re: PCSSD FaciHties Dear John: LITTLE ROCK  ROGERS September 7, 2007 429 Wll!\"aT CAP'ITOL AVCHUlt Bun t aoo UTTLIC FIOCK1 ARICA.HWA  7220t-382.1S Tl!Ll:~HONa: 801 888,.8800 FM BO 1-8888807 It is my understanding that the PCSSD has placed under contract 60.406 acres adjacent to the current Maumelle Middle School for the likely construction of a high school to replace the cunent Oak Grove High School facility. I say \"likely\" because the District is currently conducting the appropriate studies to confirm the suitability of the site for school construction. Pursuant to Section H-3 of Plan 2000 l am submitting this letter to give you the infonnation Plan 2000 requires, The facility, if constructed, would simply be the high school for the current Maumelle Middle School and its student body. You will recall that the Maumelle Middle School was constructed several years ago to replace Oak Grove Junior High School. There would be no proposed changes in geo codes or assignment areas to my knowledge. Stated another way, the new high school would serve the identical area currently served by the old Oak Grove High School and the same students who currently matriculate rrom Maumelle Middle School to Oak Grove High School would instead attend a new high school next door to them. Cas~ 4:82-cv-00866=W,RW Document 4164 Filed 1}1\\612007 Page 9 of 12 a MITCHELL WILLIAMS W, SELIG GATES WOODYARD PLLC Mr. John Walker September 7, 2007 . Page2 Since no geo codes would be affected and the \"area\" would remain the same, the re location of the school should not have any impact on the racial makeup of the new high school or any of the feeder schools. I do not yet know if \"capacity\" has been studied or detennined. I am confident it will be sufficient to serve the existing student ~ody and it may be planned for some anticipated growth as well. Early next week I intend to ask for arid furnish to you copies of the actual contracts . including legal descriptions of the property and I wiJl ask about capacity and furnish any additional infonnation to you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. MSJ:ao cc: Honorable William R. Wilson Honorable J. Thomas Ray Mr. James Sharpe Dr. Brenda Bowles Cordially yours, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C . . Samuel Jones, Ill Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 10 of 12 EXHIBITB QCT.22,2007 10:38AM JOHN W WALKER PA Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 JOHN W. WAUUJR SHAWN CHILDS Mr. M Samuel Jones Mitchell Williams 425 Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: PCSSl\u0026gt; Dear Sam: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. A'rJ'OP.NEY Arr LAW 1728 BMADWAY LlTTLB nooK, ARKANBAfl 72206 TE:LEPHONB (501) 874-3758 FAX (501) 874-4187 Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com October 22, 2007 N0.393 P.2 Page 11 of 12 OPOOUNSEL !'!.OBERT McHENR'fi,F.A, DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HiNlllill$0tl ROAD LrrTU!: ROCI$. ARlCANSAS 'ra310 PRON\u0026amp;: ceot) S'lll-3426  PAX (601) 372,8428 Elllllll: mehen:yd@lswbell.net l write to oppose location of the proposed school in the Maumelle community. There are at least two reasons for Joshua's opposition. First. there is a pending proposal for deannexation of tenitory from PCSSD relating to the Jacksonville effort. There has not been an impact study or any other writing prepared regarding Jacksonville's possible, if not likely, withdrawal. Nor has there been a study to assess the burdens upon African American students who will still need a place to attend school. Will the proposed school increase travel times beyond the Sffl Circuit limit? What benefits will flow to all Afiican American students from the site_ i. e.,, is it an educationally sound or financial feasible plan. Second. PCSSD represents that it is on the verge of financial calamity. Where then or how will this matter be financed? And in face of the declining quality of e\u0026gt;ther schools in poorer, more African American communities in PCSSD, what would be the relative physical equality between the schools. I can not approve the Taj Malull approach for the schools planned for Chenal and Maumelle while the other schools are left \"separate and unequal.\" Not even~ would condone that. Finally, in view of the district's diSDlBl record with meeting its agreed upon desegregation obligations, I, by copy of this letter, request that the ODM make an appraisal of your plans before you go further. There is no motion pending. Accordingly. like you. I copy the Court. 10/22/2007 MON 11:08 [TX/RX NO 5126) ~002 OCT.22.2007 10:39AM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.393 P.3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4164 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 12 of 12 JWW:js co: Judge Andre Roa( Office of Desegregation Monitoring Honorable Judge William \"Bill\" Wilson 10/22/2007 MON 11: 08 [TX/RX NO 5126 J ~ 003 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 3:48 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response to Motion This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered by Jones, M. on 11/16/2007 at 3:48 PM CST and filed on 11/16/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski County Special School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4164 Docket Text: RESPONSE to Motion re [4162] MOTION for Order Regarding PCSSD's Plans filed by Pulaski County Special School District. (Jones, M.) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/12/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original fllename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/16/2007] [FileNumber=1040280- 0] [ 43c60fl 4 f20a88b061 0e3fc3b6a621dce2ad2aff846373c8be0a883b40695ec2b9 72e4494ca50494a907605acf92d943a797cf312318914a541b0f0b132ecc82]] 2/12/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4165 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO MOTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS This response incorporates Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the extent declaratory relief might be appropriate under these circumstances. Indeed, as explained in the PCSSD respon~e\\o the Joshua motion, on November 15, 2007, the PCSSD was informed by the sellers of the Maumelle property that they were exercising their right to schedule closing which they have now done specifying that closing should occur on or before December 15, 2007. Hence, the PCSSD is replying to the untimely Joshua motion on the day it was received. Contrary to the assertions of Joshua, ODM review and participation is not required under current circumstances. While it is absolutely true that the ODM is to monitor compliance with the parties' desegregation plans, there is nothing to \"monitor\" here beyond the simple question of did the PCS SD provide the notice of its school construction and site acquisition plans as required - by Plan 2000? The answer is clearly \"yes\" and is answered by the PCSSD letter to Joshua dated ., ' September 7, 2007, copies of which were mailed to the Comt and to the ODM. Joshua Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4165 Filed 1111612007 Page 2 of 4 - acknowledges that it did not respond or \"comment\" until October 22, 2007, or far beyond the 14 day \"window\" for comment the parties agreed to in Plan 2000. Indeed, on October 25, 2007, the Court by letter directed Joshua to file a motion if it wished to pursue this matter. While this Court acted within three days, Joshua delayed another 22 days before serving a motion that, given its content concerning the site issue, could have been prepared and served by October 26, 2007. Accordingly, it is respectfully submittec,. l that.the Court should summarily and ' expeditiously enter its order denying at least that portion of Joshua's motion dated November 16, 2007, which would in any way delay the orderly process and the closing now scheduled for the new Maumelle school site which will host students currently attending Oak Grove High School. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 Isl M. Samuel Jones. III M. ~~uel Jones III (76060) E-mail: sjones@mwsgw.com Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4165 r Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 16, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Comt using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following:  Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com  Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com  John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net,yeldnef@yahoo.com  Christopher J, Heller , heller@fec.net,tmiller@fec.net,brendak@fec.net  M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com,aoverton@mwsgw.com  Stephen W, Jones sjones@j Ij .com,linda.calloway@j lj .com  Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com,nmoler@williamsanderson.com  Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com,aroaf@seark.net,paramer@odmemail.com  Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov,agcivil@arkansasag.gov,danielle.williams@arkansasag .gov  John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,lorap72297@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com 3 .... Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4165 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 4 I certify that on November 16, 2007, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Pqstal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Isl M. Samuel Jones, III M. Samuel Jones, III Arkansas Bar No. 76060 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 WtjstCapitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Littl~ Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 E-Mail: sjones@mwsgw.com ; I 4 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 3:52 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Brief in Support This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, M. on 11/16/2007 at 3:51 PM CST and filed on 11/16/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski County Special School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4165 Docket Text: BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by Pulaski County Special School District re [4164] Response to Motion (Jones, M.) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/12/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=ll/16/2007] [FileNumber=1040298- 0] [9975d85bb0bb56dd7036917b51541907475265f5252ebc71a4afd66ef56387ea8b b5al725fdb847645485e450e017f42120b153c45defdc50b065a14cdd8c067]] 2/12/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4166 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW IJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Joshua's Motion for Order Regarding PCSSD's Plan (Doc. No. 4162) has been carefully reviewed, and is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day ofNovember, 2007. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 4:18 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order on Motion for Order This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered on 11/16/2007 at 4: 17 PM CST and filed on 11/16/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4166 Docket Text: ORDER denying [4162] Motion for Order Regarding PCSSD's Plan. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr on 11/16/07. (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com 2/12/2008 John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 - Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/16/2007] [FileNumber=1040407- 0] [00b62beb01e411a5c248clla289b93447clb58a6145cf85d7875f7ed062ea7d27a blfdlf0e07f249f867e9727714633d8522blf04690a724d157895426299627]] 2/12/2008 Page 2 of2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4168 Filed 11/19/2007 Page 1 of 1 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY 1rITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com Honorable Judge William R. Wilson United States District Court 500 West Capitol, Suite 0444 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 November 19, 2007 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HE:-IDERSON ROAD LITIU: ROCK, ARKA.~SAS 72210 PHo:,iE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County School District, et al. Case No. 4:82CV822 Dear Judge Wilson: My letter/motion to you dated October 5, 2007 contai11ed an error regarding Joshua's response time to NLRSD's Petition dated September 21, 2007. This request should have been until December 20, 2007 rather than November 20, 2007. See page 15 ofNLRSD's brief May the Court's order of October 25, 2007 be amended to reflect December 20, 2007 as the due date ofJoshua's resposne? Thank you for your consideration. JWW:js cc: Other Counsel of Record Office of Desegregation Monitoring Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf _ support@ared. uscou rts.gov Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:40 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Motion to Extend Time This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 11/19/2007 at 9:40 AM CST and filed on 11/19/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4168 Docket Text: MOTION to Extend Time For Response to NLRSD's Petition for Declaration of Unitary Status and Release from Court Supervision by Lorene Joshua (Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/12/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/19/2007] [FileNumber=1040773- 0] [436ee87e1261b6e599e7393c50e7a0e7ab7a4f8a282951calc6eb4fd268a693631 al 4b7fl 6099d93 8d3c64936c65694bf6691 c0ec241aaaf6884eddfe9750620]] 2/12/2008 . ,, Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 10:30 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order on Motion to Extend Time This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents ftled electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 11/19/2007 at 10:29 AM CST and filed on 11/19/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4169(No document attached) Docket Text: (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER granting [4168] Joshua's Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Response. Accordingly, Joshua's response must be filed by 5 p.m., Thursday, December 20, 2007. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr on 11/19/07. (dmm) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 11/19/2007 Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com - John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 11/19/2007 Page 2 of2 l(Je, '/170 ARKAN SAS DEPARTMENT OF Or. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatilf n 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org November 28, 2007 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECE VEIJ NOV~ 2007 OFF/Cf OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WR W Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of November 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Siu;iiA ~~:1mith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott Richardson, Attorney General 's Office STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Jim Cooper, Melbourne Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia  Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for November 2007. Respectfully Submitted, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on November 28, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REC IVED NOV 3 O 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW \"PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of  . . . .:ducation (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. -  1MPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2007 ff B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. Page 1 of3 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:55 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 11/28/2007 at 2:55 PM CST and filed on 11/28/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4170 Docket Text: NOTICE Of Filing by Arkansas Department of Education of the ADE's Project Management Tool for November 2007.(mkf) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: H. William Allen (Terminated) hwallen@allenlawfirmpc.com, njjackson@allenlawfirmpc.com Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Stephen L. Curry (Terminated) scurry@aristotle.net John T. Lavey (Terminated) jlavey@laveyandburnett.com, jsmith@laveyandburnett.com Philip K. Lyon (Terminated) pklyon@jljnash.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net 2/12/2008 M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Richard W. Roachell (Terminated) rroachell@aol.com, schoollaw@msn.com William H. Trice, III (Terminated) btrice@hfc-law.com Page 2 of3 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com Sharon Carden Streett (Terminated) scstreett@comcast.net John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Will Bond (Terminated) will@mcmathlaw.com, tasha@mcmathlaw.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier (Terminated) rnhagemeier@uasys.edu, tsmith@uasys.edu Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/28/2007] [FileNumber=1047366- 2/12/2008 0] [2ee7c37470f73a48aa9412a4ca14ae7496c4a9bc5a49d9e8f3a0016a088b93c22d e68b7ca7265aecae26alb8ba299eec5089d09c03013f9f31fdd94a1561aee3]] 2/12/2008 Page 3 of 3    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.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1785","title":"Court filings regarding Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) proposed budget, District Court motion to withdraw as counsel and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2007-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Education--Finance","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","School integration","African Americans--Education","School discipline","School facilities","Education--Evaluation","School employees","Teachers","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) proposed budget, District Court motion to withdraw as counsel and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1785"],"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":["33 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, order; Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) proposed budget, District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel; District Court, notice of electronic filing, order; District Court, notice of electronic filing, letter order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    FILEBiRT ~ii:i ~W~+ ARl\u0026lt;ANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 17 1001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS  1 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W, Mc~~; B --~'\"'.'~~= CLE K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT  Y- PLAINTIFF  V. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED OCT 2J 2007 omcEoF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS . On October 4, 2007, I received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2007-2008 fiscal year. I have attached a copy of the budget to this Order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond within five (5) days; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. 1/Jlt: IT IS SO ORDERED this ~day of October, 2007. Office bf Desegregation Monitoring -lied States District Court  Eastern District of Arl\u0026lt;ansas October 3, 2007 The Honorable William R. Wilson Judge, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 500 West Capitol, Room 444 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 RECEIVED OCT - ' 2007 Wm. R. WIison Jr U. S . District Ju'dge E .D. of Arl(ansa8 Enclosed is the proposed 2007-08 ODM budget. The format of the document follows that of ODM's previous budgets, including annotations to explain revenue calculations, definitions of budget categories, and the budgeted allocations for the year by category. This budget is allocated between the State of Arkansas, the Pulaski County Special School District, and the North Little Rock School District. Since LRSD has been released from all obligations relating tQ any ODM budget after the 2006-07 school year, our proposed 4007-08 budget does not include a financial allocation for the LRSD. I will promptly provide any additional information upon request. Sincerely yours, Andree Roaf Director, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Enc. cc: Judge J. Thomas Ray - - - - - - - - - - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 2007-08 BUDGET REVENUE ~o:;~~I :~i=~~e ~;~:)tt)J~~ft1; State of Arkansas 200,000.00 200,000.00 [}f:;iq9!9pQ';q/ LR::.,.,.,_,., 112,356.00 112,356.00 ~1A~~l~~ Minus credit from previous year 4,324.00 4,324.00 \\--::_,; 3;Q_51;too :; Equals LRSD's share of the budget 108,032.00 108,032.00 ~\\(t{a;o~$.;ti~P NLRSD {f)Zt=JJM.ti:: Budget allocation 41,786.00 41,786.00 : U_~;5_Q1 99..4,QP :J-:,l.,,: :.{?1~-,:'\"=:; ~:::-,\\;=.:: .. '.f Minus credit from previous year 1,608.00 1,608.00 7:\\\u0026gt;'{1;:1~;7)Q,9t ........................... .... ........... . .............. ~-~~~r 1 jr. f ,, ....... .- :, Equals NLRSD's share of the budget ______ _ 40,178.00 40,178.00 ;\\iiMlift:@'; PCS SD ~lE:i\u0026gt;;~;/t{;))\\/g Budget allocation 77,999.00 77,999.00 ??')Jf;1~ey;9:o} ,_;, ://:.'.~ . \"\u0026gt;.~,;;-.;~~-~-i-{ ..: .1~\\ )',: Minus credit from previous year 3,002.00 3,002.00 \u0026lt;\u0026gt;./i4\\JZti09.\\ Equals PCSSD's share of the budget 74,997.00 74,997.00 ~J;j'ij9;p;~~}P.i:f ::::::tE quipment/Furniture ,-.~-'-,:,--- ,..-_,~',._-;.'-\", '4\"_-_.,~----_.'. ,._ -i0,-,' ---_-_'. . -: '_---:' ~----__ _:-:--.4\u0026gt;- '4\"_2:_.'..'~-2563 _8_ :- i_-:-_-i:_.o-~,-_2;_ - ,--,-.,. - _1.c;,'.~t:;;-:_~_-_,~-,:_3:~_,'.:1~_,._;o!_{,:7;,:,;:4'.;._l! ,;.:O~:'.:o:; ::,.::. 4Si~it#~y;ioui{ r\u0026lt;, __- :,!. :;~;-_--:JEi~~~=-;=:::~, -'-\"\"\"--t'-,-?'-~-'..,.~ .v..- \"\"'--'-=- '---'-\"'\"\"\"'\"--\"-\"'\"\"\":':\"r \"==-\"\"~--- _ ',/ _ Note: The sum of the credits in the above chart is the unspent amount of our previous year's budget, including bank interest earned. Every budget cycle, ODM applies this amount toward each school district's budgeted allocation. Both that allocation and the credit are determined for the proposed budget by the previous year's October 1 enrollment numbers, then adjusted accordingly when the enrollment numbers for the current year become available. EXPENDITURES - 2006~07 Budget Communications 4,805.00 4,804.97 }?\\/j_~9.~@i;: Equipment 0.00 0.00 l'.'.,/y:f :{:g\\oo: Food Services 0.00 0.00 :i}:'??;/'/o.f@i Management Services 0.00 0.00 :{\\\u0026gt;'\\:}_q;qp_\". Perlodlcals 108.00 108.00 :-{,::-:/i)4ifue Rent 41 ,454.00 41,453.87 //:{tzi{fo~\\QO'. - +------+---------~ Repairs \u0026amp; Maintenance 162.00 161 .25 \\:.\\'~'.~1'.49.p;Qpi_ Resource Library 0.00 0.00 :::_t.J\\:\u0026lt;Y-;qc{ Salaries 302,161 .00 305,462.78 ?//~z~;of#;cfq.\\ Staff Development 0.00 0.00 ;:_;_;}\\;\"'. /-'O[~tj ; l--~-r-ua-p'-:'--1;es_ ___________1_ ,7_1_: -::-: -+---1_,7_1~- :-::- tr?t: t'.s0~~~i: Insurance Difference (Income minus Expendilur~! _ _ ------- ---- - - --- ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR 2007-08 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor .... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .... 2007-08 Budget 10/1/06 %of 2007-08 2006-07 2007-08 Enroll- Total Budget Credit Budget ment Enroll- Allocation (Budget Payment ment not spent) LRso  NA NA 0 3,056 (3,056) NLRSD 9,842 34.88 59,554 1,137 58,417 PCSSD 18,374 65.12 111,186 2,121 109;065 State of AR 200,000 0 200,000  YrWf~i/i(:': :::  i 2~~~J~i \u0026gt;~q\u0026amp;r, \u0026gt;\u0026lt;Jf o:1i o/ :;} '} \\i:~fJi: l: T.~e:J1i:14!t. Described below is:thestep~by'-step:process; reflected,inthe .chartabove,:.that we use.to .determine PCSSD's and NLRSD's contribution to the ODM budget: 1. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on this year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share of ODM's unspent budget for the previous year. 4. The sum is the amount each district is to contribute to ODM's budget. The districts will be notified before the close of the current fiscal year of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's budget. Note: Since the U.S. District Court had declared the LRSD unitary during the 2006-07 school year, the Court ruled that the LRSD had no obligation with respect to future ODM budgets. As a result, the 2006-07 credit, as shown in the chart above, is calculated using the October 2006 enrollment for all three school districts, while the 2007-08 budget allocation is calculated using the October 2006 enrollment for only the PCSSD and the NLRSD. Page3 ------------ EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or information. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. 2006-07 Budget 4,805.00 The 2007-08 communications budget Increased due to two factors: (1) the service provider Increased the standard monthly rate and (2) the service provider charged a one-time fee for moving the phone lines to relocate the office from the 18th floor to the 16u, floor (For more explanation pertaining to the move, see \"Rent' on page 4.) The overall Increase for 2007-08 Is offset by reducing the number of phone lines available for office use beginning In November 2007. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations . or associations or payments. to a paying agentfor services provided; such as conferenceregistration: fees. 2006-07 Budget 0.00 Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 2006-07 Budget 0.00 Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 2006-07 Budget Ex:~~::ires if l~~?::tt:tif 1;i~~f;~ Page4 ~-- - --------- . - Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals ofless than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 2006-07 Budget ex!~~:;~~res ;~I~~~~; i~:~~~~~~~:~:, 108.00 The amount budgeted and paid In 2006-07 was for a partial year's subscription for the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. The amount budgeted for 2007-08 ls for a full year's subscription. Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2006-07 Budget ,___ __ 4,331.00 The decrease In the 2007-08 budget Is due to a new lease agreement that will begin November. 2007 for a copier with a smaller monthly premium. Professional and TechnicalServices: Services.which by their nature.can.be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 2006-07 Budget 783.00 2006-07 Expenditures . With relocating the office from the 18th floor to the 16111 floor, computers, phone equipment, and internet service will have to be moved. The following breakdown includes the one-time charge for moving those three services: 800.00 standard services performed annually 300.00 relocate computers 500.00 Install Internet cabling 1,000.00 relocate phone equipment and lines Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 2006--07 Budget Ex:~~:;fires J.~!f ~r' i\u0026amp;t::l;l'.i~r~g( 41,454.00 The decrease in the 2007-08 budget is due to a reduction In office space. ODM Is relocating from the 18th floor in the One Union Nation Plaza to the 16111 floor in the same building. The square footage is decreasing from 2,738 to 1,537 and the monthly rent from $3,203.46 to $1 ,857.21. Page5 Repairs and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 2006-07 Budget 162.00 2006-07 Expenditures Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a pennanent or temporary nature. 2006-07 Budget 2006-07 Expenditures Below is a breakdown of each.employee's budgeted200.7~08;salary, reflecting.a-329% annual.base.  increase, which.is equalto-orless:thantheannualstepincrease.onthe:salaryscales,oftheJo.cal:districts. . : .. 1Gene Jones resigned 3-15-07. 2Horace Smith resigned 6-30-07. .... . - ~- .. Name of Employee Aridree Roaf Gene Jones' Margie Powell - Horace Smith 2 Polly Ramer Linda Bryant 3 ..... - Total 3Linda Bryant's last day to work will be 1-4-08 -- 20D6-07 2007.06 Salary Salary . 1,373 1.19,000 48;480 0 - 77,354 79,899  84,694  0 58,061 59,971 - 32,199 17,204 302,16t . 276,074 - Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid on behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 2006-07 Budget 2006-07 Expenditures ';\\}?:f r:f.it:,~r~ltt\\~ Page6 ~elow is a breakdown bv category of each emolouee's 2007-08 budgeted fringe benefits: Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hos pita I Short Total Allowance Security ment -lzatlon Ins. Indemnity Term Benefits Roaf 0 9,103.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,103.50 Powell 1,200.00 6,204.07 11,353.66 3,162.72 32.64 282.48 60.96 62.8B 22,369.61 Ramer 0 4,587.78 8,395.94 3,162.72 32.64 282.48 60.96 62.BB 16,565.40 Bryant 0 1,316.11 2,406.66 1,836.20 10.B0 145.B0 31 .05 32.40 5,660.92 ~tf:;}\\)i.V::~ \\(Ji~~~;~ci-,: ':,~2f;il:~:/i.} i~J$ida;Y \\ff,i~Vii.f: (i;1.foa) {\\:;.JjQ'.7it{ tf/ A'.~~:w:,; ;:)1i~2i~: /st$i~J3 y  Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex  units or substances. 2006-07 Budget 2006-07 Expenditures Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel; and other expenses associatedwithtraveling or business, such as parking fees .. Payments for per diem inlieu ofreimbursementsfor. subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 2006-07 B0dget 0.00 2006-07 Expenditures Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 2008-07 Budget 606.00 2006-07 Expenditures With decreasing the size of the office, the amount of office furniture and equipment will also be decreased, thus reducing the amount of required insurance. Page7 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf _ support@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 3:45 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/17/2007 at 4:44 PM CDT and filed on 10/17/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4150 Docket Text: ORDER, parties must file any objections within 5 days to the ODM's proposed budget for the 2007- 2008 fiscal year; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/17/07. (\u0026lt;lac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin 2/5/2008 NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l0/17/2007] [FileNumber=1020016- 0] [99db091723ab95387ed55376e2abde84173cd32f757af69fbebfD366e453fe6d6a 30ecb3de178c4bee78c3e3553b92316e64claa22ba7bc68b6dfa6339c6c01c]] 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4152 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 1 of 2 _,_ . _._ S:ILEn '.: ... ul ofsrR,cT ~~T ,_. l:l\"LSTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OCT 2 2 2007 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. 4:82CV866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL Norman J. Chachkin, one of counsel for Joshua Intervenors, respectfully prays that this Court enter its Order pennitting him to withdraw from that representation in this matter because he will be leaving the staff of the NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. (\"LDF'') effective October 31, 2007. Plaintiffs will continue to be represented by local counsel. Respectfully submi~. ~JM#i  /NRMAN J. CHAH~\"'- NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educ'l Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, 16th floor New York, NY 10013-2897 (212) 965-2259 .. K Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4152 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 2 of 2 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on this 16th day of October, 2007, I served a copy of the foregoing Motion upon counsel for the parties to this action, by depositing the same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. Friday \u0026amp; Eldredge 400 West Capitol Avenue 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201-0000 M. Samuel Jones, ill, Esq. Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C.-LR 425 West Capitol A venue Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3483 Scott Richardson, Esq. Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker, Esq. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 ~ Norman J. C achkin Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:00 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Motion to Withdraw as Attorney This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/22/2007 at 2:59 PM CDT and filed on 10/22/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Leslie Joshua Stacy Joshua Wayne Joshua Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4152 Docket Text: MOTION to Withdraw Attorney Norman J Chackhin by Lorene Joshua, Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua, Wayne Joshua ( dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 2/5/2008 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: - Norman J. Chachkin Attorney at Law 31 Edgar Place Nutley, NJ 07110 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l0/22/2007] [FileNumber=1022555- 0] [213d777cf824ab20d17e53b3c5c67bf922eee4068a2775e3efelc72fb42adb4c74 b4 7b72df64 707695aa3b4d63cc28ef3f41536fb8234e0c204fe428375d5afl]] 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:21 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered on 10/25/2007 at 10:21 AM CDT and filed on 10/25/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4153(No document attached) Docket Text: (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER granting [4152] Joshua Intervenor's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Accordingly, Mr. Norman J. Chachkin is relieved as counsel.Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/25/07. (dmm) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger 2/5/2008 Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf _ support@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:22 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** There is no charge for viewing opinions. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/25/2007 at 4:21 PM CDT and filed on 10/25/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4157 Docket Text: LETTER/ORDER granting a 60 day response time by the Joshua Intervenors. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/25/07. (mkf) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 2/5/2008 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l0/25/2007] [FileNumber=1025783- 0] [91fddbcc4f9aea5c15f00b473b51d71da937811d78bd2ef82791680e9e20aa9d42 4a82969046042af8fbcfl80d43faa29047f08cf9d724df6de6bcedblllba35]] 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 c: Met~ ; c:.. \" fktd:;~ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS REC E WESTERN DIVISION IVED OCT 3 o ,nn1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT reAINTIFF OFACEOF v. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW DESEGREGATION MONITORING PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS PCSSD'S MOTION FOR A DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS The PCSSD for its motion, states: 1. The PCSSD believes that it has complied with or is in substantial compliance with its desegregation plan known as \"Plan 2000\". 2. The PCS SD seeks a declaration of this Court that it is unitary and should be  released from all aspects of Federal Court supervision. 3. Because the District can be eligible to receive certain financial incentives as a result of Act 395 of the 2007 legislative session if it is declared unitary by June of 2008, the PCSSD requests that a scheduling order be issued which would facilitate such a determination and decision by this Court within the deadlines suggested by Act 395. 4. This motion is accompanied by a rnemorandum brief, and a copy of Plan 2000 is attached hereto as Exhibit A.   Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 2 of 13 WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for a finding by this Court that it is unitary as respects substantial compliance with its desegregation plan, its release from Federal Court supervision and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 Isl M. Samuel Jones, III M. Samuel Jones III (76060) E-mail: sjones@mwsgw.com Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 29, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following:  Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com  Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com  John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net,yeldnef@yahoo.corn  Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net,tmiller@fec.net,brendak@fec.net  M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com,aoverton@mwsgw.com  Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com,linda.calloway@jlj.com 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 3 of 13  Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com,nmoler@williamsanderson.com  Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com,aroaf@seark.net,paramer@odmemail.com  Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov ,agcivil@arkansasag.gov,danielle. williams@arkansasag .gov  John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,lorap72297@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com I certify that on October 29, 2007, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Norman J. Chachkin Attorney at Law 31 Edgar Place Nutley, NJ 07110 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 021 73 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Isl M. Samuel Jones, III M. Samuel Jones, III Arkansas Bar No. 76060 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 E-Mail: sjones@mwsgw.com 3 , Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 4 of 13 EXHIBIT A Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 5 of 13 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAN 2000 DATED November 4, 1999 A. Scope of This Plan (1) This Plan shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Pulaski County Special School District with the following exceptions: B. (a) The Pulaski County School Desegregation case \"Settlement Agreement\" as revised on September 28, 1989; (b) Th~ Mqgn.et.\u0026amp;ct,Qol St.ipulation qated :F~Qruary 27, (c)  (d) (e) 1987; f L ,:- : . Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and . .  -~ . --; : h: - . : :, Orders -of the ~istriqt.:9ourt and the court of appeals interpre~ing orj ~.!ifqi\"Giflg sectkm~ (a). throt1gh (d) above to. the ~xt~r:it: nQ.t inconsist~nt.wi~h this Plan. General Obligation .. . . ,' . .,1_: :: ;.' : :, . -   : : .\" 1. ; ; :, :?: \\ ~ ~.: !  t' ' ' I ,  ,  , PCSSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to provide that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the oper~tion qf th-~- P,CSSD, ~nd to pr9vide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending P,CSSO schools.  .   . _ C. (1) The PCSSD shall continue to implement the current standards for the assignment of students to schoot.s~wittlim :tt,,e _district. The. PCSSD shall Inform the Joshua lntervenors of the documen:ts whi.ch set forth the details of the existing plari. This notice shall be prov1dec;l:w!ttiii:i: $0,-;d~y~_of th$. c\u0026lt;;\u0026gt;ur\\'$. a.pproval of _this Plan. (2) The PCSSO shall s~~mit.n.of iater:than-October ~5 in each school year a report concerning one race classes. the report shall set forth for each such class: (i) the school, (ii) the class including the grade level, (iii) the racial make-up of the class, (iv) a description of steps taken to elim.iilate the particular one race class and the 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW   boc~~ent 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 6 of 13 reason(s) why this proved to be infe~$ible. The PCSSD shall submit not later than March 1 of each school year a siajilar;,s,Lipple.mental report concerning any one race classes in courses commenc.i n.g ~h. 't~. e~e99nd semester of the s~hool year. ,. - . . D. Advanced Placement, G(ft~d ,and Talented .and Honors Programs   :. 'I , ' ~. , ;(  Not later than 45 days a~r. the, court's approval: of this Plan, the PCS SD shall provide to the Joshua lntervenor$)h~i taijqards then in 'place for selecting secondary students for and educating them in .~dvan~ed placement, gifted and talented, and honors programs, including standard(tp promote racial diversity in these programs. The PCSSD shall include in this submission notices which are used to inform staff members of the relevant standards. E. Student Assignment; lnterdistrict Schools (1) PCSSD and LRSD shall operate interdistrict schools in accordance with the following: ___,: .. , ,:;,,.,;,;~:: ,:,: . (a) (b) . (c) (d) (e) 136748-v1 . .    : .: i ~ ~_., :-.i1 r{it~_~ r, '.. i . /L .. : : ,, \\ . PCSSD. lntetdistrict .Schools. PCS$D shall operate Baker Elerrieritary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary ah~i any. .new elementary school which may be corisfriicfecflii the Chenal Valley area as lnterdis~rict -~~hqql,s, .( J;.  '. I ' .   I 1 \\ , LRSD lnt~rdistri~t Si~~ols. 1-RSO.shall operate King Elementary, R9rn,i111~ ;~iementary: and Washington Elementary a~j {rnt~frdl$.trict SchoQIS. ' Racial Composition. The ideal composition at the interdi~trict ~chpoJ~ snail be as close to 50%-50% as possible with. tne majority race of the host district remaining the,:1;11,aj9.{ity race at the in.terdistrict school, except that ~ak~r School shall not be subject to this requirement., '\u0026gt; :. ... . '' ' . .. .. ''{ :\\,,i\\-i11 ;_ .. , :. . . . ReservedSea'ts~'~jPC$~.D.shall reserve at least 200 seats at.Cl!n.ton:,E!~m.~rtary and. up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill El~m~ntacy for interdi~t~ict transfer students from L.RS.D. The District shall also reserve up to haif of theseats for LRSD black students in any new Chenat VaU.~ y. . S., c..h. ool . Recruitment Pcssd ~nd LRSD agree to implement programs at interdisfrict schools designed to attract interdistrict transfe~ students and to work 2 : . ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 7 of 13 F. (f} (g) Discipline cooperatively to.recruit interdistrict transfer students to interdistrict schools. Outside Students. lnterdistrict schools shall be open to students who ~esid~ outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will assist the interdistrict school In achieving its ideal racial composition.  Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the PCSSD for interdistrict transfers from Pulaski County to interdistrict schools. (1) The PCSSD will continue to gather data which allows a full assessment of its success in achieving its objective, of eliminating racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline. As a foundation for,this effort, disciplinary records shall be kept on each student concerning the nature of any discipline imposed (suspension, Saturday school, expulsion, etc.); the teacher.and sJaff member involved; and the school, race, and sex of the student. . : . . (2) Not later than 45 days after the court's approval of this Plan, the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shausubmit to the Joshua lntervenors, for comment, proposed criteria for identifying, from the data collected: (i) teachers and other staff members who are experiencing problems ;which require attention; (ii) schools which have atypically high discipline rates; and (iii) schools which have atypically high racial disparities in discipline. The Joshua .lntervenors shall have 21 days to provide comments on these proposed criteria. The PCSSD shall then complete the criteria promptly. (3) The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation and the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel shall thereafter provide for and participate in specific efforts to work with teachers anc;f other staff members and the personnel of schools, identified pursuant to the criteria set forth in paragraph 2, to promote achievement of the goal of eliminating r~cial disparities in school discipline. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall maintain records showing the specific steps undertaken. (4) PCSSD shall conduct a comprehensive study of the disciplining of African-American students, particularly male students, at the secondary level. The participants (a minimum of twelve (12)), one-half designated by the Joshua lntervenors and one-half by PCSSD and the PACT and PASS, shall consider the causes for the high rates of discipline for African-American students and possible remedies. The panel shall, among other things: review discipline records to secure an understanding of the circumstances in which African-American students are disciplined; interview and\\or 3 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 8 of 13 survey African-American students regarding their experiences in the system generally and in the discipline process; and consider the possibility of a relationship between unmet academic needs and discipline rates. The written study shall be completed not later than 150 days after court approval of this Plan and shall provide suggestions for prevention and intervention measures. (5) The PCSSD shall develop a specific initiative to reduce the rates of discipline in the PCSSD shown in ODM's report dated March 18, 1998. This initiative shall be implemented not later than 150 days after the court's approval of this Plan. (6) PCSSD shall adhere to the_ policies set forth in the Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline, as revised after consultation with the Joshua lntervenors, PACT and PASS, to provide that students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. The Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel shall be responsible for determining the fairness of student disciplinary decisions. He will delegate the student hearing function to a single hearing officer who will consider the appeal brought by parents and the position of the administrator making the recommendation and then make a decision based upon equitable factors. An aggrieved student may appeal to the Superintendent of Schools. The Superintendent may review the matter or refer it to the school board for action. The committee approach which utilizes school principals in the student appeal process has been discontinued and will not be reinstituted. G. Multicultural Education (1) The PCSSD shall continue its efforts to infuse multicultural instruction in all curriculum areas. All phases of a school's environment (M.:., instructional materials, lesson plans and lessons, library cqntents, bulletin boards, extracurricular activities, school assemblies, speaker programs, and food services) shall reflect the system's Plan to multicultural education. (2) A principal activity of the Coordinator for Multicultural Education and the Coordinator's office shall be on-site visits to individual schools to determine whether the system's policy and the provisions of this Plan are being implemented in fact. The Coordinator shall maintain records permitting an evaluation of the status of implementation at each school visited . . - H. School Facllltles (1) The PCSSD shall prepare, with the help of consultants, as necessary, a plan so that existing school facilities are clean, safe, attractive and equal. The plan shall address alternatives for funding its implementation. The Board of School Directors shall approve a plan not later than 150 days after the court's approval of this Plan. The Joshua lntervenors shall be given a-14 day period to comment on the content of the plan prior to its adoption.  4 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159  Filed 10/29/2007 Page 9 of 13 (2) An elementary school, located around 145th Street, and a middle school  or junior high school in the Crystal Hill\\Maumelle area will be built. The Board will address the development of a plan for new school construction during the term of this Plan if funds are sufficient, including its funding, and report its conclusions not later than 150 days after the court's approval of this Plan. Moreover, the PCSSD shall not close schools which are located in predominantly African-American areas absent reasons of compelling necessity (which does not include the opposition of white patrons to attending such schools).    (3) The PCSSD shall notify the Joshua lntervenors of plans for constructing new schools and for adding capacity to existing schools. The notice shall identify the capacity of the proposed facility, the area of the system to be served, and the projected impact on the racial make-up of the students in each school expected to be affected by the new construction. The Joshua lntervenors shall have a period of 14 days in which to provide input concerning each such proposal.  I. Scholars hips Within 30 days from the date that the LRSD successfully establishes its own scholarship program, PCSSD shall es.t~blish a bi-racial committee to explore a program for providing college scholarships .to designated PCSSD students. J. School Resources PCSSD shall design and carry out, in consultation with the Joshua lntervenors, a study to determine whether school.resourc;::es are allocated equitably among the schools of the district. The resources assessed may include such factors as pupil\\teacher ratio; pupil\\staff ratio; square feet per pupil; percentage of staff with a masters degree and nine or more years of experience; the turnover rate of certified staff; school size; computer\\pupil ratio; per pupil expenditure; volunteer hours per pupil; and donations per pupil. The study shall contain recommendations, where appropriate, to address any problems identified. K. Special Education (1) Not later than 45 days after the court's approval of this Plan, the PCSSD shall provide to the Joshua lntervenors the standards then in place for: (i) stressing intervention strategies and regular class modifications in an effort to prevent inappropriate referrals of black males and kindergarten students; (ii) monitoring the folders of all kindergarten students and black students who are being considered as in need of special education under IDEA and Section 504 to insure nondiscrimination in evaluation and placement. The PCSSD shall Include in this submission materials which are used to inform staff members of th.e relevant standards. (2) The Director of Special Education shall develop a specific plan for additional monitoring each year, by his\\her staff, of schools where there are atypically 5 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 0 of 13 high racial disparities in special education classification, generally or as to black male students. The PCSSD shall provide a copy of this plan to the Joshua lntervenors, which shall include criteria for Identifying schools for monitoring. L. Staff (1) The PCSSD shall recruit applicants for each available administrative position, by internal and external means, in a manner designed to communicate, broadly, its availability and to develop a racially diverse pool of applicants. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall, with the cooperation of the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, be informed of the make-up of each such applicant pool and they shall have the authority to direct that additional recruitment take place prior to the offering of the position to a particular applicant. (2) The PCSSD shall engage in recruitment so that new teachers are selected from a racially diverse pool of applicants. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall monitor the recruitment process so that recruitment is extensive and sustained, and the hiring process so that no policy, practice, or custom has the purpose or the effect of imposing an upward limit on the proportion of black teachers. (3) The PCSSD shall continue to implement programs, policies and\\or procedures which result in an increase in the number of African-American early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers, and secondary core teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers to the PCSSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. , (4) The PCSSD will allocate teachers and other professional staff in a manner which avoids the racial identification of schools. M. Student Achievement (1) The PCSSD shall implement the plans designed to improve student achievement, recommended by Dr. Stephen Ross, and shall work with Dr. Ross in their implementation. See Attachment (plans). (2) The PCSSD shall continue to implement its home-school counselor program. 6 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 11 of 13 N. Monitoring (1) The Assista.nt Superintendent for Desegregation shall: (i) develop a plan so that he (or she) and his (or her) staff focus their monitoring and compliance efforts on the specific elements of this Plan; and (ii) provide the Joshua lntervenors within 30 days of the court's approval of this Plan a list, geared to the sections of this Plan, identifying the staff member or members with particular responsibilities for its implementation and the position held by each. (2) Upon reasonable notice, the Joshua lntervenors shall have the opportunity: (i) to examine and secure copies of records relating to the PCSSD's compliance with this Plan, including records identified in this Plan, and (ii) to meet with the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation or a staff member responsible for a particular part of the implementation of the Plan. 136748-v1 (3) The PCSSD shall submit statistical reports showing the following: (a) The enrollment in each school by race; (b) The enrollment in gifted and talented programs, honors programs, and advanced placement classes, by school and by race; (c) The make-up of special education programs: (i) by disability category, including Section 504, by race, and by sex; and (ii) by school, by race, and by sex; provided that the system may comply with this reporting requirement by providing copies of materials submitted to ADE, as long as they include all information designated in this paragraph; (d) For each school and the system, the number of instances of each form of discipline, by race and by sex; for each school and the system, the number of students receiving each form of discipline, by race and by sex; (e) The racial make-up, in each school, of (i) the administrators, (ii) the faculty, (iii) other professional .staff, and (iv) support staff; (f) The racial make-up, by category, of the various categories of administrators, faculty, support staff, and other workers employed in the PCSSD. 7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 12 of 13 The information in all sub-paragraphs other than sub-paragraph (d) shall be submitted not later than November 1 of each year, and the information in sub-paragraph (d) twice a year, not later than 30 days after the end of each semester. 0. Continuing Jurisdiction (1) General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance wit'1 and modifications of this Plan. Nothing in this Plan shall affect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Plan in the manner required by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. (2) Process for Raising compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court to exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the Joshua lntervenors shall follow the procedures set forth below. 136748-v1 (a) Joshua shall as soon as reasonably practicable give the PCSSD Superintendent or his designee specific written notice which includes the following: (i) the paragraph(s) of the Plan at issue; (ii) the names of all students involved, if any; (iii) the names of all PCSSD agents or employees involved, if any; (iv) all facts of which the Joshua lntervenors are aware relevant to the compliance issue; and (v} a copy of all documents in the Joshua lntervenors' possession relevant to the compliance issue. (b} PCSSD shall conduct a reasonable investigation of the alleged noncompliance and shall provide the Joshua lntervenors a written response within a reasonable period not to exceed 30 days from the receipt of written notice from the Joshua lntervenors or such later time as agreed. 8 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 13 of 13 (c) If the Joshua lntervenors are unsatisfied with PCSSD's response, the Joshua lntervenors shall within 15 days of receipt of PCSSD's response submit the compliance issue to the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service, for facilitation of an agreement between the parties. (d) If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service, the Joshua lntervenors may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. The court may fashion relief. (e) Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, PCSSD shall be free to implement the programs, policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with this Plan. P. The Scope of Compliance Issues The compliance issues subject to enforcement in accordance with Section N. shall include the PCSSD's implementation of the terms of the Plan, as well as the standards supplied in accordance with this Plan. Q. Court Submission This Plan shall be submitted to the court for consideration after ratification by a majority vote of the PCSSD Board of School Directors. R. Financial Claims The PCSSD shall continue as a party litigant until its final claims against the state defendants and parties as well as those against LRSD have been fully and finally adjudicated. 9 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 C '. ,41/c, ;-0 1 e, ...- ~ 'f; e,, Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DI~T~~W OOFaT,ED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ~~iS. I V WESTERN DIVISION OCT 3 O 2007 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF DESEGREGATION MONITORING V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S MOTION FOR A DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS INTRODUCTION INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Federal judicial supervision over the facets of the operations of a school system was never intended to \"extend beyond the time required to remedy the effects of past intentional discrimination.\"1 Indeed, \"[f]rom the very first, federal supervision oflocal school systems was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination. \"2 The end purpose of federal judicial supervision was, and remains, \"to remedy the violation, and in addition, to restore state and local authorities to the control of a school system that is operating in compliance with the Constitution. \"3 This is necessarily the case because the return of \"schools to the control of local authorities at the earliest practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability in our government system. \"4 1 Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237,248, 111 S. Ct. 630,637, 112 L. Ed. 2d 715 (1991). 2 Dowell, 498 U.S. at 247, 11 I S. Ct. at 637. 3 Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467,489, 112 S. Ct. 1430, 1445, 118 L. Ed. 2d 108 (1992). 4 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489, 112 S. Ct. at 1445; see also Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406,410, 97 S. Ct. 2766, 53 L. Ed. 2d 851 (1977) (observing that \"local autonomy of school districts is a vital national tradition\"). Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 2 of 12 A. The current status of school desegregation in Pulaski County. The Little Rock School District has been declared unitary. The North Little Rock School District has recently filed a motion for unitary status. The school district was previously declared unitary in the area of student assignments. On June 9, 2004, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring issued a report to the federal district court5 addressing the school district's compliance with the remaini~g requirements of its desegregation plan. Contemporaneously with the execution of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the PCS SD adopted a lengthy plan which, together with exhibits, exceeded 200 pages in length and was centered around job descriptions. In the latter part of the decade of the 1990s, the then presiding district court judge urged the PCSSD to enter negotiations with the parties to formulate a simpler and far less complex plan. By that time, the PCSSD had been declared unitary in phases in several areas of operations. Joshua and the PCS SD then set about the successful process of negotiating \"Plan 2000\" which Joshua and the PCSSD jointly submitted to the District Court for approval and to which no other party voiced objection. The Plan was duly approved and a true copy is attached to the motion as Exhibit A for the convenience of the Court and the parties. The PCSSD has operated under Plan 2000 for approximately seven years and now files its motion for unitary status. While certain or'its provisions are discussed herein, others will be analyzed for the Court as the proceedings progress. 1. Student Assignments. Recent and historical data analyzed indicate that the Pulaski County Special School District is positioned to be declared unitary in the area of student assignments. During 2006-2007 a Pulaski County Special School District elementary 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 3 of 12 school was considered desegregated if its student enrollment ranged between 20 to 51.0 percent black students. 6 Only four of school district's elementary schools feature a black student enrollment outside this range. In 2006-2007 Adkins Elementary School's black student enrollment stood at 59 percent; Taylor Elementary School was 59 percent; and black students comprised 61 percent of the student enrollment at Jacksonville Elementary School. These schools exceed the upper level for enrollment of black students by relatively modest percentages,7 Plan 2000 essentially continued the student assignment zones and geo code designations that were developed in 1989 and which have occasionally been tweaked and changed, always with court approval. Since the inception of Plan 2000, the most significant change in assignment zones occurred with respect to Harris Elementary School. The changes in assignments and - strategies for attracting students to Harris Elementary were by motion, and an order entered by this Court. All of the secondary schools, save Mills, at 60 percent (2 percentage appoints above the targeted range), are within their goals. With only five of the 36 Pulaski County Special School District's schools out of compliance with the enrollment guidelines, the district believes it is in substantial compliance with the federal district court's order to the extent practicable. The \"latest word\" in school desegregation law was articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al. 5 \"The Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of its Desegregation Plan,\" Office of Desegregation Monitoring, June 9,2004. 6 The federal district court established the desegregation deviation factor for determining if a school in the Pulaski County Special School District is desegregated. It is based upon a formula. The lower range is fixed at 20 percent. The upper range is determined by taking the total percentage of the school district's black enrollment and multiplying it by 25 percent. An upper range of 51 percent resulted for 2006-2007. 7 The fourth school, Bayou Meto Elementary School, is an isolated school with a small black enrollment. Because of its isolation, it has been exempted by the federal district court from compliance with the desegregation deviation factor. 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 4 of 12 The decision has proved controversial to many and its precise impact and effects remain debated. However, even the plurality opinion does reiterate much that has been understood for decades. For instance, at page 24 of the plurality opinion, the Roberts Opinion reminds us that: Even in the context of mandatory desegregation, we have stressed that racial proportionality is not required, see Milliken, 433 U.S., at 280, n. 14 (\"[A desegregation} order contemplating the substantive constitutional right [to aJ particular degree of racial balance or mixing is ... infirm as a matter of law\" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. I, 24 (1971) (\"The constitutional command to desegregate schools does not mean that every school in every community must always reflect the racial composition of the school system as a whole\"). Further, to the extent that the racial composition of schools within the district has changed over time only because of private decisions, the fact that the PCSSD has not changed school assignment zones without court approval is of legal import. Again, the Roberts Opinion reminds us: The distinction between segregation by state action and racial imbalance caused by other factors has been central to our jurisprudence in this area for generations. See, e.g., Milliken, 433 U.S., at 280, n. 14; Freeman, 503 U.S., at 495-496 (\"Where resegregation is a product not of state action but of private choices, it does not have constitutional implications\"). 2. Faculty and Administrative Assignments. A desegregation deviation factor for the assignment of school level administrators and faculties was not established by the court or Plan 2000. In general, however, the case law provides that each school should have a staff that approximates the district-wide racial composition of its school-site administrators, teachers, and support staff personnel. 8 The PCS SD believes it is in compliance with this requirement. 8 Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1970). 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 5 of 12 The Pulaski County Special School District recently had a ratio of 4 7 .1 percent white and 52.9 percent black building level administrators. Building level administrators in these school districts are evenly distributed and in almost every instance where there is more than one building level administrator assigned to a school there is one of each race. Schools with only one building level administrator are divided fairly evenly between the races. Therefore, the PCS SD believes it is in substantial compliance in the areas of faculty and building level administrative assignments. 3. Facilities. Schools in the Pulaski County Special School District range from excellent to others in need of either extensive renovation, remodeling, closing, or replacement. However, those schools in need of renovation, remodeling, closing, or replacement are not vestiges of the prior dual system of education for the races. Further, one of the significant accomplishments of the state Lake View litigation has been the comprehensive assessment review, remedial plans and, most importantly, the multi-million dollar commitment by the State of Arkansas to upgrade all school facilities in the State. Each district has been required to submit a 10 year plan for the renovation of facilities and the replacement of those whose renovation is impractical or economically unwise. Stated another way, the funds necessary to accomplish equality in facilities in the PCSSD has been appropriated by the State from the recent State surpluses and the Court can thus be assured that the work will be done and facilities will be upgraded. B. What is a unitary system? A unitary school system is one that has complied in good-faith with its desegregation decree since it was entered and has eliminated the vestiges of past discrimination \"to the extent practicable.\"9 9 Dowell, 498 U.S. at 249-50, 111 S. Ct. 638. 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 6 of 12 \"The origin of the 'good faith' requirement c;an be traced to the United States Supreme Court's decision in [Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 1083 (1955)] Brown fl \" 10 Good-faith requires that a school district demonstrate \"to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good-faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the Constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance.\"11 A school district's good-faith commitment to the entirety of the court's orders is necessary \"in order to insure that the principal wrong of the dejure system, the injuries and stigma inflicted upon the race disfavored by the violation, is no longer present.\" 12 A history of good-faith compliance must be found by the federal district court in order that it may \"accept [a] school board's representation that it has accepted the principle of racial equality and will not ;suffer intentional discrimination in the future.\" 13 Compliance \"to the extent practicable\" with the court's decrees in the present school desegregation litigation requires that each of the existing school districts in Pulaski County demonstrate to the federal district court that they have complied in good-faith with the provisions of their respective consent decrees for a reasonable period of time. 14 Consent decrees or agreements are contractual in nature and, therefore, compliance is required as to each provision even where a provision may arguably impose requirements not otherwise required by law for a judicial finding of unitary status. 15 1 Charles L. Patin, Jr. and William M. Gordon, \"School Desegregation Cases: The 'Good Faith' Requirement,\" 159 West's Education Law Reporter, 407,407. 11 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 491, 112 S. Ct. at 1446. 12 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 485, 112 S. Ct. at 1443. 13 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 498, 112 S. Ct. at 1449. 14 See generally, William M. Gordon and David E. Bartz, \"Achieving Unitary Status Under the Combined Standards of Dowell and Pitts,\" 82 West's Education Law Reporter, 283. 15 While a federal district court may not order a remedy over the objections ofa party that is not tailored to remedy a constitutional violation, the parties to a lawsuit may settle their dispute \"by undertaking to do more than the Constitution itselfrequires ... , but also more than what a court would have ordered absent the settlement.\" Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367,389, 112 S. Ct. 748,763. 116 L. Ed.2d 867 (1992). 6 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 7 of 12 Compliance also may be required with what are commonly referred to as the Green factors although this case has likely progressed beyond this analysis and several of the Green factors are not present in Plan 2000 nor are they required to be monitored. In past cases, compliance required elimination to the extent practicable of the vestiges of the prior dual system in the areas of student assignments, faculty and staff assignments, transportation, extra-curricular or student activities, and facilities. Nevertheless, it is not unusual in the latter stages of a school desegregation lawsuit, such as regards the PCSSD here, that orders issued by federal courts may focus on specific facets of the operation of a school system where additional remedies may be required without further mention of one or more or all of the Green factors .16 Finally, when a school district is declared unitary by a federal district court, whether in whole or partially and whether upon consent of the parties or following adversarial proceedings, - judicial supervision is terminated and all orders and injunctions with respect to the declaration are terminated. 17 Control of the affairs of the school district in the area or areas in which it is declared unitary are returned to local control and the litigation as to such area or areas is concluded. 18 Thus, a party formerly adverse to the school district is not positioned, following a declaration of unitary status, to petition the federal district court in the concluded litigation to once again exercise its supervision over the area or areas in which the school district was previously declared unitary. In short, once a school district is declared unitary and in compliance with the constitution the jurisdiction of the federal district court is ended. 19 Accordingly, post-Dowell and Freeman 16 \"[A] school board is entitled to a rather precise statement of its obligations under a desegregation decree.\" Dowell, 498 U.S. at 246, 111 S. Ct. at 636, citing Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 96 S. Ct. 2697,49 L. Ed.2d 599 (I 976). 17 Dowell, 498 U. S. at 244-46, 111 S. Ct. at 635-36; Freeman, 503 U.S. at 490, 112 S. Ct. at 1445. 18 \"A school district which has been released from an injunction imposing a desegregation plan no longer requires court authorization for the promulgation of policies and rules regulating matters such as assignment of students and the like, but it of course remains subject to the mandate of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\" Dowell, 498 U.S. at 250, 111 S. Ct. at 638. 19 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 491, 112 S. Ct. at 1445-46. 7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 8 of 12 there no longer exists a post-operational period following a declaration of unitary status in which the jurisdiction and supervision of a federal district court may be reintroduced upon motion of an adverse party. Once a school district has been declared unitary, the jurisdiction of the federal courts may only be reintroduced in a subsequently filed action in which a finding of intentional discriminatory conduct in violation of the Equal Protection Clause to the Fourteenth Amendment is alleged. 20 C. Good Faith In order to establish that PCSSD should be declared unitary, the District must demonstrate that it has \"complied in good faith with its desegregation decree since it was entered.\" See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co Special School Dist. No. 1, 23 7 F .Supp.2d 988, 1027 (E.D. Ark. 2002) citing Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U .s. - 237, 249-50 (1991). See also Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995). The Supreme Court has established that \"good faith\" is demonstrated when, ... the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good-faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the Constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance. Freeman v. Pitts,, 503 U.S. 467, 491-492 (1992). In this effort, the Court noted that the duration of the school district's compliance record must be considered: ... a court should give particular attention to the school system's record of compliance. A school system is better positioned to demonstrate its good-faith commitment to a constitutional course of action when its policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations. And, with the 20 See Elston v. Talladega County Board of Education, 997 F.2d 1394, 1404 (I ph Cir. 1993), in which a previously declared unitary school district was sued for, among other things, an alleged violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court of appeals observed that: \"To establish an equal protection clause violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a challenged action was motivated by an intent to discriminate. \" (emphasis supplied.) 8 id. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 9 of 12 passage of time, the degree to which racial imbalances continue to represent vestiges of a constitutional violation may diminish, and the practicability and efficacy of various remedies can be evaluated with more precision.\" D. Substantial Compliance In addition to proving \"good faith,\" PCSSD must also establish that it is in \"substantial compliance\" with the PCSSD Plan. As this Court has stated, \"[i]t is black letter law that a school district seeking an end to court supervision has the burden of proving substantial compliance with the judicially imposed remedy.\" See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1,470 F.Supp.2d 963, 984 (E.D. Ark. 2004). This Court has given the following guidance regarding the test for \"substantial compliance\": [I]n order to determine if a party is in 'substantial compliance' with a consent decree, the trial court must examine whether any of the alleged violations of the consent decree 'were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance' and 'to cast doubt on defendant' future compliance with the constitution.' ... [A] Party can be in 'substantial compliance' with a consent decree even if it has committed violations that are 'inconsequential' in light of the party's overall performance. Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1,237 F.Supp.2d 988, 1027 (E.D. Ark. 2002) citing Code v. Hillard, 139 f.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (8th Cir. 1998).21 21 It should be noted that some time ago Joshua invoked the \"Dispute Resolution\" provision of Plan 2000. While currently languishing, this process remains technically in progress. 9 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 10 of 12 Conclusion The purpose of court supervision was to create a unitary school system from what was once a \"dual school system,\" establishing and maintaining a system in which the interests of both black and white students were equal by involving black representatives into policy making and administration. Before the last election, three of the District's seven Board members were African-American, there are black administrators at every level and each school maintains diversity in certificated staff and student bodies. For reasons set out above, PCSSD should be declared unitary and released from federal court supervision. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 Isl M. Samuel Jones. III M. Samuel Jones III (76060) E-mail: sjones@mwsgw.com Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District 10 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 11 of 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 29, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following:  Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com  Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com  John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net,yeldnef@yahoo.eom  Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net,tmiller@fec.net,brendak@fec.net  M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com,aoverton@mwsgw.com  Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com,linda.calloway@jlj.com  Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com,nmoler@williamsanderson.com  Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com,aroaf@seark.net,paramer@odmemail.com  Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov,agcivil@arkansasag.gov,danielle.williams@arkansasag .gov  John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,lorap72297@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com I certify that on October 29, 2007, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Norman J. Chachkin Attorney at Law 31 Edgar Place Nutley, NJ 07110 11 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 12 of 12 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Isl M. Samuel Jones, III M. Samuel Jones, III Arkansas Bar No. 76060 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 E-Mail: sjones@mwsgw.com 12    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.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1783","title":"Court filings regarding North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) petitions for declaration of unitary status and release from court supervision, transcripts for January 20-21 and 27, 2007, transmitted record on appeal to Court of Appeals, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2007-09"],"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--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School integration","School boards","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) petitions for declaration of unitary status and release from court supervision, transcripts for January 20-21 and 27, 2007, transmitted record on appeal to Court of Appeals, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1783"],"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":["48 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) petitions for declaration of unitary status and release from court supervision; District Court, brief in support of petition for declaration of North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) unitary status and release from court supervision; District Court, notice of electronic filing, transcripts for January 20-21, 2007; District Court, notice of electronic filing, transcript for January 27, 2007; District Court, notice of electronic filing, transmitted record on appeal to Court of Appeals; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    I - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4141 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 3 IN-THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENOR$ INTERVENOR$ PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS AND RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION Comes now Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") by and through its counsel, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P.A., and for its Petition for Unitary Status states as follows: 1. In 1984, NLRSD was found to have committed a list of segregative acts and has been under this Court's supervision with respect to its plan of desegregation for over two decades. 2. As this Court has observed, such supervision was intended as a temporary measure, which would cease when NLRSD has established that it has acted in \"good faith\" to implement its desegregation plan and has maintained \"substantial compliance\" with the principles of the plan. 3. The following exhibits, which are attached hereto, provide evidence that NLRSD has met the requisite standard of good faith and substantial compliance, as set Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4141 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 3 - out more fully in the Brief in Support of Petition for Unitary Status filed simultaneously herewith: Exhibit A March 16, 2006 NLRSD School Board Meeting Minutes indicating the unanimous authorization to seek judicial declaration of the district's unitary status. Exhibits B1- B11(g) October 19, 1988 Report to Special Master Regarding the Status of Implementation of North Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. exhibit C 1994 Self-Audit by NLRSD detailing the status of the individual provisions of its desegregation plan. Exhibit D June 9, 2004 Report by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of Its Desegregation Plan. Exhibit E July 24, 2002 Evidentiary Hearing Excerpted Transcript of Dr. Terrence Roberts, Joshua Intervenor's expert witness. 1,-\u0026gt;f\u0026gt;/,  11 4. Accordingly, NLRSD should be declared a unitary school district and released from this Court's supervision. 5. NLRSD stipulates that the Joshua lntervenors shall have an extended time period of 90 days to file an initial respcmse to this Petition. 6. NLRSD requests that the Court note that it is critical that this matter proceed in a manner which will allow resolution before June 14, 2008, so that the district will be eligible for reimbursement of its costs and attorneys fees by the State of Arkansas pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416. 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4141 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 3 - WHEREFORE, North Little Rock School District prays the Court to grant its Petition for Unitary Status; enter an order declaring it to unitary; dismiss it from this case and for all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P. A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 501-375-1122 Fax 501-375-1027 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones, Ark. Bar No. 78083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, attorney for Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District, certify I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the court using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following: Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Hon. Andree Roaf ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 3 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4142 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS AND RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION Comes now Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") by and through its counsel, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P.A., and for its Petition for Unitary Status states as follows: 1. In 1984, NLRSD was found to have committed a list of segregative acts and has been under this Court's supervision with respect to its plan of desegregation for over two decades. 2. As this Court has observed, such supervision was intended as a temporary measure, which would cease when NLRSD has established that it has acted in \"good faith\" to implement its desegregation plan and has maintained \"substantial compliance\" with the principles of the plan. 3. The following exhibits, which are attached hereto, provide evidence that NLRSD has met the requisite standard of good faith and substantial compliance, as set Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4142 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 3 out more fully in the Brief in Support of Petition for Unitary Status filed simultaneously herewith: Exhibit A March 16, 2006 NLRSD School Board Meeting Minutes indicating the unanimous authorization to seek judicial declaration of the district's unitary status. Exhibits B1- B11(g) October 19, 1988 Report to Special Master Regarding the Status of Implementation of North little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. ExhibitC 1994 Self-Audit by NLRSD detailing the status of the individual provisions of its desegregation plan. Exhibit D June 9, 2004 Report by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of Its Desegregation Plan. Exhibit E July 24, 2002 Evidentiary Hearing Excerpted Transcript of Dr. Terrence Roberts, Joshua Intervenor's expert witness. 4. Accordingly, NLRSD should be declared a unitary school district and released from this Court's supervision. 5. NLRSD stipulates that the Joshua lntervenors shall have an extended time period of 90 days to file an initial response to this Petition. 6. NLRSD requests that the Court note that it is critical that this matter proceed in a manner which will allow resolution before June 14, 2008, so that the district will be eligible for reimbursement of its costs and attorneys fees by the State of Arkansas pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416. 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4142 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 3 WHEREFORE, North Little Rock School District prays the Court to grant its Petition for Unitary Status; enter an order declaring it to unitary; dismiss it from this case and for all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P. A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 501-375-1122 Fax 501-375-1027 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones, Ark. Bar No. 78083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, attorney for Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District, certify I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the court using the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following: Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Hon. Andree Roaf ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 3 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones Page 1 of 4 From: ecf _ support@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 12:37 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Motion for Declaratory Judgment This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the ftled documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 1:34 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4141 Docket Text: MOTION for Declaratory Judgment by North Little Rock School District (Attachments:# (1) Exhibit# (2) Exhibit# (3) Exhibit# (4) Exhibit# (5) Exhibit# (6) Exhibit# (7) Exhibit# (8) Exhibit# (9) Exhibit # (10) Exhibit# (11) Exhibit# (12) Exhibit# (13) Exhibit# (14) Exhibit# (15) Exhibit# (16) Exhibit# (17) Exhibit# (18) Exhibit)(Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/5/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of 4 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-0 ] [7408cdf9227856d4a2dc8c5472dba34f9701c196844fa005057a3efc58191153622 37392e63ee5c0cb5a9e62035a723d9af46c5f2c4eccee1665780a45123d4c]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-1 ] [add65045e0898ea243flb786e3750c22c95d32b3ce2bd77f30813cf53e4d58054bf 14d5b83c5e198ad04dfb23253abed52e83dab079cab80be76e5198b8ad18d]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: 2/5/2008 [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-2 ] [4fa6ae63a4929c8fb7561a2b6d74767b9a891424ab463c461e4a4ba4a100cl96b3d 0b89bf7b7d3570ed154641dlf6d30fe0d43e3ebl5420aaa5711a75682a2b5]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_lD=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 129-3 ][39a2dflef684ce586aa3449d7ffc216a27556ea4c9f9454b846bb793cbd7e75a3e5 19e7639lca55b8df6e14c1804c67cd0e73aaa3d3e6694148c4bfDb5b51881]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-4 ] [ 483fD2ff 41f4b801869bd585e93dea4ebfl dfcfab89200f dbce28a0dd42b95642ca f725f5f82a09b252023e3f96c64581ddff34d816104d62803clc75697787b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-5 ] [afa73fb3c6c36449d6d596473611b6b5e69b07c792b7546e8f7baefdb225ada8dcb 4dfD17bla438468adf88fc23b6ecc62bd245043bb375a2120c23256d9822c]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-6 ] [67b96710d57dda80ed2558bfD99baa8b7cfd55d01a627ac3bde559f885d50cc3137 20c518ee8ef9ebeedf926e056726cec42f4d144163ee0a294cb2b36ded68b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001129-7 ][6b590142c2bad10dad3710152f2c57fd4a7e86bc75eb7db6960b93b6a5247f73895 8b2fc206844b081cb5b88130c15ceaeab2e29fd3ffc74367c3bf638b4ab04]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 129-8 ] [a9baflb89925eab70001 ldfd31c4f5eae772f6a91faad2c9895a946e28884ff5c8a aec33f8e92abd550ee8465ad02337e7af30d0079c5c4dede2178436a9c6bd]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 129-9 ] [949adb7d003686a90e6373fb8a7895cf6e9c356fc2e412153f9b00e570f779b5bfb 43a4a93551ba60569fc04dd61de206ef9e7e044186d28038691e6c158c58e]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 129-1 0] [0c7074833849c92f394ef3be8b183f2aea0b603e3a8e58dfebc71f3f520ca9e2ab aadcbc844d6bb9fe5105a81cla978b84e4ab781c51a0d7340ald7027206f6b]] 2/5/2008 Page 3 of 4 Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 1] [45cf816fd0fc42e8457aa07c80161bec62c4a4888dc093bb76cb5393cll523d42e 3de6a879d701b37c29b62616076203b3446f7d931e5520de660feddc539925]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 2] [65D981f8e397de82dc932055d5e2a3d408bae0dab8dlc6336bce88539d876d2b2 f220bb2dc7500d4f31d04e55e985ae533b3efad5bf50f8d79fcflealflcf7c]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 3] [lc9a9ea337f42743da3e3ffa9a093a8c93ceelfd47fcd4559df85d149ea6dd74d0 a7213f691ald5e00959f52ae08713d748966114f94413ccbe837cd021d05d3]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 4] [657ce428ce6d5ba36593balfd68a40552f16a0d76fcffe4cc2d8878312b5de6634 76d017ca4bfb63b9b2433d98614ec6b91d9cb697fdlbed0de37e8cb62ec0e3]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 5] [055ba6e0ccc26fc3be93t2a6fa4673b19d156b2d0e927d409ac93d5aeb63cc3483 583d3977f6a32a8cef777dab0d24f6d5dee64f8682dd401c8d97de66ed8fd8]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lOOl 129-1 6] [50885f5ca447559c0a9cae054e6405259ce5fb7ab917bfc395d3d807457cced78e 3c2f213a808184064ca0870bcba02723e3cblc2f454951c9d2c692dedbbdd8]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=IOOl 129-1 7] [2a5553ddf0a6154f8Dd0115d60d0eff8bfdb25f8dc4a102876450950074b190cb b6c3d4b10bb6cceec938eldd4ad384e21fbl541cea47f32db2bl206ad3clbl]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=IOOl 129-1 8] [78f7d4ca3flc2726b65932f02ce8ce000205f501793454e4d95e4350a5936b95a6 fcf38f2411312cb5e06c613a8a46003822ae2bde399af9e927337ba2d8036d]] 2/5/2008 Page 4 of 4 TestSystemName Page 1 of 1 Document Selection Menu - Multiple Documents Select the document you wish to view. Part Description l Main Document 3 pages 2 Exhibit 100 pages J. Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages 2 Exhibit 100 pages Q Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages .a Exhibit 100 pages .2 Exhibit 64 pages 10 Exhibit 100 pages 11 Exhibit 100 pages 12 Exhibit 100 pages u Exhibit 100 pages 14 Exhibit 100 pages 12 Exhibit 100 pages 16 Exhibit 104 pages 17 Exhibit 100 pages I.a Exhibit 100 pages 19 Exhibit 100 pages 20 Exhibit 100 pages 21 Exhibit 100 pages 22 Exhibit 100 pages 23 Exhibit 100 pages 24 Exhibit 49 pages https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show _case_ doc?4142,26052,,30254580,,,2005729 9/21/2007 TestSystemN ame Page 1 of 1 Document Selection Menu - Multiple Documents Select the document you wish to view. Part Description l Main Document 3 pages z Exhibit 100 pages l Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages _5_ Exhibit 100 pages Q Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 185 pages _8_ Exhibit 65 pages 2 Exhibit 100 pages 10 Exhibit 100 pages - 11 Exhibit 100 pages 12 Exhibit 100 pages u Exhibit 100 pages 14 Exhibit 100 pages 1.5- Exhibit 98 pages 16 Exhibit 100 pages 17 Exhibit 100 pages 1.8- Exhibit 100 pages 19 Exhibit 100 pages 20 Exhibit 100 pages 21 Exhibit 103 pages https:/ /ecf.ared. uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show _case_ doc?4143 ,26052,,8671824,,,2005732 9/21/2007 TestSystemName Page 1 of 1 Document Selection Menu - Multiple Documents Select the document you wish to view. Part Description l Main Document 3 pages 2 Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages ~ Exhibit 100 pages Q Exhibit 100 pages 1 Exhibit 100 pages .a Exhibit 100 pages .2 Exhibit 67 pages 10 Exhibit 100 pages - 11 Exhibit 100 pages 12 Exhibit 100 pages ll Exhibit 100 pages 14 Exhibit 100 pages ., .li  Exhibit 115 pages 16 Exhibit 115 pages 17 Exhibit 193 pages ll Exhibit 95 pages 19 Exhibit 43 pages https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?4144,26052,,70913858,,,2005734 9/21/2007 .l. \\,,,~UJ] .\u0026gt;L\\.lllll '4a.J.llC .l a 0 \\,, .l V.l .l Document Selection Menu - Multiple Documents Select the document you wish to view. Part Description l Main Document 3 pages 2 Exhibit 7 pages 1 Exhibit 95 pages  Exhibit 70 pages .5. Exhibit 70 pages Q Exhibit 140 pages 1 Exhibit 75 pages ~ Exhibit 65 pages .2 Exhibit 140 pages 10 Exhibit 140 pages 11 Exhibit 85 pages - 12 Exhibit 77 pages u Exhibit. 100 pages 14 Exhibit 100 pages u , Exhibit 100 pages 16 Exhibit 100 pages 17 Exhibit 100 pages u Exhibit 100 pages 19 Exhibit 84 pages https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show _case_ doc?414 l ,26052,, 13 l 19253,,,2005727 9/21/2007 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 1 :02 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Addendum This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. Page 1 of 5 ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 2:00 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4142 Docket Text: ADDENDUM filed by North Little Rock School District to [4141] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, (Attachments:# (1) Exhibit# (2) Exhibit# (3) Exhibit# (4) Exhibit# (5) Exhibit# (6) Exhibit# (7) Exhibit# (8) Exhibit# (9) Exhibit# (10) Exhibit# (11) Exhibit# (12) Exhibit# (13) Exhibit# (14) Exhibit# (15) Exhibit# (16) Exhibit # (17) Exhibit# (18) Exhibit# (19) Exhibit # (20) Exhibit # (21) Exhibit# (22) Exhibit# (23) Exhibit)(Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net - M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com 2/5/2008 Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com - Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of 5 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001182-0 ] [732ecb4e283771f778564bfdfdaba72c41 ldb5db5ad867ce5cbfb4bb71cfld0cc42 17f8dde1614980169fc7b34elf67c5ffila56c0467cd98f14dd7e75b981197]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-1 ] [ 6f9c24 78d4c3df70508774307b4010a45a47b89c0cc85d5eadf2ac7fl b0bc604 fe4 0c020e693df3dc764bc8cb86c5f2d2e0e728575ceb96ea79f3df21 e5b31 c0]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a 2/5/2008 Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-2 ] [76732e579983296a6340231f503219d4ac141a2dald2a94945b376b60b6d5be6761 efl 90defdf3e769d6bbaa40a9926672fdb0d997eaf838211 0c3e24d21 c9db]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_lD=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-3 ] [ld175534371577d523d2626dd635776ba266f838901b2cc128a6911c9de8da0a7f7 8187d3027d549a4622d91945c646d37b9a77d9d40ba4460b63ebc066c9035]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-4 ] [98b2d2f432198e182449f7964994f5d993e7e34423a14ce63120f234c0bcb8b96aa ba09c25c95824fd2c710052d1867fb2d11251ac629ed5ef959002df2c247f]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-5 ] [10b40a910f93f085227ead52fc6ae334bd81a4f4d67cbd2fb9c2ea938de1479e008 0505308e7b99b43fa8243a6bd52334b87756277e9blce8cc8f6717ab6100b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-6 ] [91846b38blafe013ea17b63baaelfe837a2dlllff4648b881768568e257b9bbea7f 103fcc3dad902c1651 lea5b6578a2f56ac7f511284fb7f016cfc3903f49a0]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-7 ] [654b19df654e9605707d590b3bclabb094fca581702381c36176fefce4016d81784 d2ce504f7c04846b0479809fl65elc4c139b3ff993a0326efcdea4917af33]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-8 ] [2a9946396101840194ee9bcc5aaf917ad921c731d0dbf334839d3120d639bbblf7e 745cbbeced9d7d2f5acffa7892320262aae42bf3dc4d6990a64fc0d379c76]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-9 ] [6eac276cbdcb5d35a0c971066a048666b8a276989a83a670819410fbd8f20a7e855 4109991c01408a7e7aa02afclb6ffc7f27c64c0e7f722a991elbc49ecf59d]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-1 0] [02a288c211cb4dbedfb0adf2e12cad68811db777f74f99e6f9dca57180ff0577ba 2/5/2008 Page 3 of 5 f5b25acb8b30d70a5c5530494997975b3972a818eb8fd3af4f0602cd79b4fa]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-1 1] [806fb6c709fd8fba43c9dee9a9ff9bfab1587335a151cc00ade4d048e4e457eef9 0b0dc2429939167fde86407ace3004781e0aa4c3dc2299840e264fbafd088b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-1 2] [22dcd9490f97ae67e1827595bfb623adllde43dlb1369t71058b01b7493e7bf4e3 ea144df5302e54894693cc223e4dade8116a047c0a434af5d1974t779de676]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-1 3] [le989d88422a9d961dlf06dcaa6195f149a31f2fdcb0b0dla9816ffcf23dl613e5 ca080d346c99d75ba3968dbc8786cl15096f3b380ef03895ccclede5acc667]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=I00I 182-1 4] [5ce49adlf4d8d8c7857d87807293c5b863504b86ae3babd575bla54b84b62b6214 f1218b63aafb8823d2d499145e71c0fdcc5ec602493c0d25351e21279e6cdl]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0I 182-1 5] [89299db8fd3e45c14674153396954082139913d3e56f4ae470e74d7eb557ac5a37 dcb9aa3 ldcl 9e3e488b92fe2fcacff65b4ebdlade38a45de3a3becbb726ca3]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-1 6] [6ale4507bc17e6e6447149c39011886df5ab107ee3951a7ff837d96bd16553c098 9cda72fbd0e769cb20cfl 4936162ffc3cc58f6e2249b61 e9b90f072d0cafl e ]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001182-1 7] [911fc117adb373dt77d04cecel216blb7d687aff9cab7b350774ebl37d4320c705 95f2a18f31b03c741b776dd623f2805blfd2968abc9dfa521774ee54506b89]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-1 8] [5c7a2c7806b9c251ad28fba24ddbe29d38a5dccfd8504t73af44b0d89baae66906 e9c8b0f41cldff8018946ee4cd61a6a02e91fa01070d2059854f88fad5ecb2]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a 2/5/2008 Page 4 of 5 Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-1 9] [3b26e538efc25c8b26d7ef36d152e0aeabd7f0e49e240033302b95a0623dccfce4 0f5c17bldb1988caa373dafd419d4226207291025dlc8eb8081896b1601876]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-2 0] [llb4a69fba2dbef7c040f82eeleb243a4698132244d752be3fb33cc7192bcc340b 79f4bd5e5979d4a7ca965c4ee3c7746ba10bba318c5e051e6d4717357ba902]] Document description:Exhibit Original f\":tlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-2 1] [4104a3ald0cclc49c62ff22bbee32adf3e88d93b64f7865lf124981e26eb747dc4 5f3f40df3ba7cb30623ee06cl 1006976aec81064315c97c73aef02a3dle7fd]] Document description:Exhibit Original fdename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l00l 182-2 2] [5a0fb371519242533b0c8ce336b9d54dd5fe6b321d7d429dfb0cdb8555a5a797ee ledle6cfc089ele3044c4d359a4df8184a0f671ac33ea3ee2a67d84392dd72]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=lO0l 182-2 3] [21b3bd817f4329aea4b8645930bb3a7d6f551d7c7ebfc0100449aa24a8blc04ddc 3202d7888f58eaaa6a23f0f040771fd28e0bfb7612d6029685390c9a2feda6]] 2/5/2008 Page 5 of 5   Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4143 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, -etal. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS AND RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION Comes now Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") by and through its counsel, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P.A., and for its -Petition for Unitary Status states as follows: 1. In 1984, NLRSD was found to have committed a list of segregative acts and has been under this Court's supervision with respect to its plan of desegregation for over two decades. 2. As this Court has observed, such supervision was intended as a temporary measure, which would cease when NLRSD has established that it has acted in \"good faith\" to implement its desegregation plan and has maintained \"substantial compliance\" with the principles of the plan. 3. The following exhibits, which are attached hereto, provide evidence that NLRSD has met the requisite standard of good faith and substantial compliance, as set Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4143 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 3 - out more fully in the Brief in Support of Petition for Unitary Status filed simultaneously herewith: Exhibit A March 16, 2006 NLRSD School Board Meeting Minutes indicating the unanimous authorization to seek judicial declaration of the district's unitary status. Exhibits 81- B11(g) October 19, 1988 Report to Special Master Regarding the Status of Implementation of North Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. Exhibit C 1-994 Self-Audit by NLRSD detailing the status of the individual provisions of its desegregation plan. Exhibit D June 9, 2004 Report by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of Its Desegregation Plan. Exhibit E July 24, 2002 Evidentiary Hearing Excerpted Transcript of Dr. Terrence Roberts, Joshua Intervenor's expert witness .. 4. Accordingly, NLRSD should be declared a unitary school district and released from this Court's supervision. 5. NLRSD stipulates that the Josbua lntervenors. shall. have an extende.d '. time period of 90 days to file an initial response to this Petition. 6. NLRSD requests that the Court note that it is critical that this matter proceed in a manner which will allow resolution before June 14, 2008, so that the district will be eligible for reimbursement of its costs and attorneys fees by the State of Arkansas pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416. 2 I I I I I I I I I I . . Case 4:82:..cv-00866-WRW Document 4143 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 3 - WHEREFORE, North Little Rock School District prays the Court to grant its Petition for Unitary Status; enter an order declaring it to unitary; dismiss it from this case and for all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P. A 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 T-elephene 501-375-1122 Fax 501-375-1027 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones, Ark. Bar No. 78083 CERTIFICATE. OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, .attomey for Separate Defendant North Little: Rock School. District, certify I electronicallyfile.d the foregoing:with the Clerk of the court using the.  ECF system which.sent notification.of-such filing;to. the following:.. . Mark A Hagmemeier,;, Assistant Attorney General. 323' Center Street;. Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 7220'f-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Hon. Andree Roaf ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 3 Christopher He.II.er. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regi:ons-Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 w. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones Page 1 of 5 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 20071 :26 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Motion for Declaratory Judgment This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 2:24 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4143 Docket Text: MOTION for Declaratory Judgment by North Little Rock School District (Attachments:# (1) Exhibit# (2) Exhibit# (3) Exhibit# (4) Exhibit# (5) Exhibit# (6) Exhibit# (7) Exhibit# (8) Exhibit# (9) Exhibit # (10) Exhibit# (11) Exhibit# (12) Exhibit# (13) Exhibit# (14) Exhibit# (15) Exhibit# (16) Exhibit# (17) Exhibit# (18) Exhibit# (19) Exhibit# (20) Exhibit)(Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn. Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/5/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of 5 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-0 ] [23f424df6165dd0af5a48c604be8a42ce88925e27b72ef8214a67b506d0d65f3b44 1781alb03a2e260ac8a1691a58a6be30062a807da4af18c95a649e7568dc7]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID=l 095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l 001262-1 ] [b60d4dc2dd43d0703e7bccebb6c759a99c85a6b3143bd382d4eccb53c908472f6b6 b95cbf8a31 e4a7b823d04 la57a90cl 02fa5f093f0f628d2bb62c9db3c3d70]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: 2/5/2008 [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-2 ] [95b30cb39c08ddbef857bd37a3f6208729e9170580a0760c14cabee327ccd472523 e2f7b5a5a415d3a280f8a34d9ede2d5dl 7f4efb 11c473624de768cl 42cdc2]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp _ ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-3 ] [79bbce6cf7005d9b8962a96fabec77cal 52a79a0383b38935c9d4 7f57b5 lfl 74b81 63546ee5blce864eba62c0243b8fd79d19fa18ac4t20fe89f840573be119b]] Document description:Exhibit Original f\"dename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-4 ] [5fc3981d411 ba53da3844250b4f5bfb96255e9fa5d803135a7a0f9dd912df44fb41 026373d67c7dc1060009a363705e30de794ela33a8e8ae959da6b2bc69f0d]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-5 ] [552ad246de56e3d60a685972b822fd5d4feea47et2f68077382c913c77eba027048 459266f4b6a42fc4d685be5b55e4f463389020a94d0ceacef0069b439e74a]] Document description:Exhibit Original f\"dename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-6 ] [16864e6278e2dla9bdddeeelf9e395084e4ccfa6233b25f96566fbc109b3a161d74 cc9cdb9d27b819457c04735c996c6e23a9511300dldff50acce0c957506ea]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-7 ] [74368ccd3cad082ca55235e44alfb32d68d6c4cblc90421606a48718db3bf320f6c 53bc6bd979fb24d7e33ba9f4ec3d8c48e3625755cd6198d9a6e881dd97f6c]] Document description:Exhibit Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-8 ] [3646c507 af00002bb44bba6793ff3a 1 aeb72175e2d06921d5c084797 ddl 29fl f0f5 39c328e61dbc0d3976889079a31435460b2138ed244d69529d9d422celcal]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp _ ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-9 ] [b5e7ee808be7c96896345bd4590e69deb2845206b0a20373f0edl6da586cab08c51 ef5faeb787614133570068e760e5fe49d8620c63a9dc39cf87al 0 166a8a92]] Document description:Exhibit Original f'dename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-1 0] [b77944eab8d772ab90aa8d690d83515dldfb911b9dllc963f4ff8t2a79a951d3aa lf612f41a3c6b952f48d9a3da6876bddl 119e68cab6892ablfcf3279d43t24]] 2/5/2008 Page 3 of 5 Document description:Exhibit Original tuename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-1 1] [72b8ad0a2180a61ae916d3cdbec0a39a66521c4aff4ded407c4478c700a68fa0c2 c80eda95ce8a9611 b944b80b6c5833fc5b0240e50fecfd266fl 4559ef5d08e]] Document description:Exhibit Original tuename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21 /2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-1 2] [816b6bd868tb0eeab0695928b04ba325dbb7b467f481bb2b910cda328f2cf82940 e71405ecbae73f4283ae574bef7149a75f20772cfde3ealeb33857704ed8e8]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21 /2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-1 3] [6e2dcc0c0b87e4c37aff0a67b95cc8a881339e6c39818a7f6906bblb88fe22feab ddllc726065eldcb8f5ff71a0413478ab80ead70074c4c8f59213bcdecff8e]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=l001262-1 4] [76ed6c79368186d379964f39ce0f2b412b168fdlb20a831193de4371ed662c4031 76631dbdca91bb61836cdcfca8f80bda71038864c2409935a67e30ca70fa6d]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-1 5] [184e7a90a8830f6fcef677231548be690cd58c04aaf40aa47b048a0eda6ede0091 f204d846f2f8c8477e5e652c77728c18cd92644fd7e96e527401078cbf7b06]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-1 6] [5cc207877d56e4e2a667e0a9e0d524d226a7f9celbe951209669762b661dfffc01 e 166bfl c205b2167f7 c36e32fde3d8160da0b2b8941fca040dfffeca33684b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-1 7] [7659051ff91d5daalcabd3ed40ea080da57ae7f7b12b2f8fl6c7dcca279ddl5da7 dc5117964ec9102b7bbfff5f3992ba743818e90eb736587d310c60c45e33e4]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber= 1001262-1 8] [5b6dlf77d04051b462070fc0fe68c6baca528cf6556elc44a7d48f38tbc4748bad bb12c6ba0c70a21dac85a8ba943b9540d5db67f8c846c7ffl7e7a94816b34~] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: 2/5/2008 Page 4 of 5  ' .. [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-l 9] [8799d0fe271b53b3295672723fcadd3a361389b54d9563ce7bbdca88005442319e 8b4c37b0030975489057651818cfaf06ed6e7a33cad120e6196655c5b3203d]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001262-2 0] [9ffc 19326b3e42:ff98ce344b6086ed4e 1706d 16e5ef85a25035201 b5cf80fl 9d 1 e aee482a7b4889333118849a87 d73e3070dal 629b2ee007f2af9f 4e 1 a00fe2d]] 2/5/2008 Page 5 of 5 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf _ support@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 3:18 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice of Docket Correction This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the flled documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/21/2007 at 4:17 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: - WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: No document attached Docket Text: NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION [4143] MOTION for Declaratory Judgment: Docket entry modified to correct docket text (incorrect event chosen; this is not a motion, but an Addendum to [4141]). Motion event terminated. (lmr) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin 2/5/2008 NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4144 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS AND RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION Comes now Separate Defendant North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") by and through its counsel, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P.A., and for its Peti.tion for Unitary Status states as follows: 1. In 1984, NLRSD was found to have committed a list of segregative acts an!'.i has been under this Court's supervision with respect to its plan of desegregation for over two decades. 2. As this Court has observed, such supervision was intended as a temporary measure, which would cease when NLRSD has established that it has acted in \"good faith\" to implement its desegregation plan and has maintained \"substantial compliance with the principles of the plan. 3. The following exhibits, which are attached hereto, provide evidence that NLRSD has met the requisite standard of good faith and substantial compliance, as set Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4144 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 3 out more fully in the Brief in Support of Petition for Unitary Status filed simultaneously herewith: Exhibit A March 16, 2006 NLRSD School Board Meeting Minutes indicating the unanimous authorization to seek judicial declaration of the district's unitary status. Exhibits B1- B11(g) October 19, 1988 Report to Special Master Regarding the Status of Implementation of North Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. Exhibit C 1994 Self-Audit by NL'RSO detailing the status of the individual provisions of its desegregation plan. Exhibit D June 9, 2004 Report by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of Its Desegregation Plan. Exhibit E July 24, 2002 Evidentiary Hearing Excerpted Transcript of Dr. Terrence Roberts, Joshua Intervenor's expert witness .. 4. Accordingly, NLRSD should be .. declared a unitary school district and released from this Court's supervision. 5. NLRSD stipulates that the Joshua lntervenors shall have an extended .\\ time period of 90 days to file an initial response to this Petition. 6. NLRSD requests that the Court note that it is critical that this matter proceed in a manner which will allow resolution before June 14, 2008, so that the district will be eligible for reimbursement of its costs and attorneys fees by the State of Arkansas pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416. 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4144 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 3 WHEREFORE, North Little Rock School District prays the Court to grant its Petition for Unitary Status; enter an order declaring it to unitary; dismiss it from this case and for all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 501-~75-1122 Fax 501-375-1027 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones, Ark. Bar No. 78083 CERTIFICATE OF.SERVICE I, Stephen W. JoF1es; attome;yfor-Separate: Defendant North Little~ Rock School: District,. certify! electr:ooicall~f filectthe:for::eg.oing,;with the Clerk ofthe .cour:tusing. the  ECF system which. sentnotificatian:.aisuctt.fi1ing.Jo,the following:_ Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney-General 323 Center Street; Suite:-200: Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P .A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Hon. Andree Roaf ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 3 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge. \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions-Center: 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 1 :53 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Addendum This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. Page 1 of 4 ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the ftled documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 2:52 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4144 Docket Text: ADDENDUM filed by North Little Rock School District to [4141] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, [4142] Addendum, [4143] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, (Attachments:# (1) Exhibit# (2) Exhibit# (3) Exhibit# (4) Exhibit# (5) Exhibit# (6) Exhibit# (7) Exhibit# (8) Exhibit# (9) Exhibit# (10) Exhibit# (11) Exhibit# (12) Exhibit# (13) Exhibit# (14) Exhibit# (15) Exhibit# (16) Exhibit# (17) Exhibit# (18) Exhibit)(Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com 2/5/2008 Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com - Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of 4 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 - James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-0 ] [0868c679307f73045a3dbfb2c95157261c84c83e3e34fe8aeclef81:f91cb0c09c74 fba6daeeff319203617a2e4ab092102f450a6309c0b64a2993c1628a81be7]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 ] [78d7342df58a134ba48a48f8b2ae80f3408be8acbb6b5ef04a29d73fb88e66d4f2e 2ed2348df8a369:f99c3a29a58d92a274:f98e7a729e213aeae53e0e96fdc41]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a 2/5/2008 Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_lD=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-2 ] [929717a9378022f4f30cbd8a7e6d9d78fb8e5d2c4b25d9c886b3988b333137fl783 e820426202101acf3797blld54e0d9429bc6626505d7157a44a3333196d71]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-3 ] [70fadb46421242f85d4251a7694c7248554a2e633adb49a95ba9b25ac5d0fb6c4bc acc31a82ec198a482008cc4766a2edl96cc73d858c30063ceabcd6872092f]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-4 ] [b4f3cda43edea69679a27f3 75267f5fc073baccd656722a31 fl 92f9bbe613e78f4e 6656488ba104869b07f3174df90e30517827d83ab599500197cd1831ae99a]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-5 ] [723dabl2b8e16d86e8bd07cbf96570d659814484d970bd27ela71de82ed9ec80216 c260de47a4327flc77823e3afDcf54b1999949620f581216ad8fbd25bc475]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-6 ][6252028fa87b8d94b112fc83becda43d44a80121bdb729d012565ce3173fe06e29d f46bc486541253b94b9ba7861e1517eab3ccedce7f7857a92c395100aafdf]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-7 ] [4b7blc17b066b4a379d6fcfea73c51flf3bea795d397f6855ec7401cf5bd9al246f bba27 al fl 2ee90fcfbba71d3f90cca99458b94be5ae0e01 f9c 1 b7b8ba0b66]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-8 ] [2e4f85557af367903dafcd9a7362ee9981754812dbf7bl2555a525ebb1130b60445 0d48eb4 l 98adbe9909f8a8fD3f3a6970579f3e 1 0ec5daf74f9d5219e9b2c5]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-9 ] [7da21bf9clale6ae693ae14840c521clc766b8df88e93a56f6al0ad87fD3fc6ba95 ec765bce51ec028183fe55e55b730229012fd082001caa61435cd5522e3d6]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 0] [35a0e81d3adb4d8268e4662471fac6f87a9909bcdbaf431f7dc9a4f4970af9910f 2/5/2008 Page 3 of 4 732e8e5a09fa8d051ed8d5376b53c891e0a361d296733e7f53f3c59558b9e0]] Document description:Exhibit Original fllename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 1] [7521baa9c85d55c35c946fdc42db853491d48fac55bb604f62eeeclfil8c386d4a6 23 387al 28a3 f26ffec2707552e04a9206fe68cd0ea353d45a913b3fa4d003e]] Document description:Exhibit Original fllename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 2] [89c8ceac288e2780blfdb2588969c9edaf72d842959b0f866d8d776a2327cebb12 efa78058c28e7fc6a53 5181000d795dal 7 5cf8eac08f96fl d2be4 7ba5208a9]] Document description:Exhibit Original fllename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-l 3] [5120f21a10ca4dc62d46dbd31dal70blec42a09eaa4468d8287ce6fe6c4ad86bd9 2f53dd8cla47f95862089bd4250f0caldaed532d4bd44b39a4f612847c072f]] Document description:Exhibit Original fllename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 4] [8a6cdb28c24306f45093ee9dc98flb4d78f0a6079255c6afaf6d91e6b57d64261f 197c492c85835c76e928aab85ee28955e54e933e00d42balale72dd248095b]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 5] [82a5d17b3ff4ele179508de437c0e515b3c971c68af27af472a55ffe55c7b0215f 53b43b03f4ae45blce786e7c5387blcce14278b6c93544628a25e5d6c93149]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-l 6] [72cf3d9bflbd4c0ba320eb60f9b94e65f720489713dalc419388eb30cfb379480a 49f4f880721 bb408fa6b9e6c8f6e7b3c32e6c31 ed571 f3a3c3260ccf9ae996]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-l 7] [71c4cd3124f67b92fec5610e5d48f3be29c62a9228edef96762b20651b08aa653d a9ebf4444aa4ab579478e08e6e86de04491ccab5718ae48164b23e8a3bd24a]] Document description:Exhibit Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001333-1 8] [afc78a3ca53f3a7abbb7eb95f77601a9f35c60661451b15b450d15b6a129ec64c7 b9c645dcld5526caebae7be0eb2c28c2fecc3cabb8 lf6ae3 7178f652b8f31 c]] 2/5/2008 Page 4 of 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 16 \\ INTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S UNITARY STATUS AND RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION As this Court has recognized, \"federal judicial supervision of school systems was intended as a 'temporary measure' [and the] ultimate objective [is] to return school districts to the control of local authorities. n Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al., 237 F.Supp. 2d 988, 1027 (E.D. Ark. 2002) quoting Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 489 (1992). Accordingly, supervising courts \"must... provide an orderly means for withdrawing from that control when it is shown that the school district has attained the requisite degree of compliance. n Id. In 2006, the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSDn or the \"District\") School Board voted unanimously to seek unitary status. A complete copy of the . 2006 school board minutes is attached to the Petition filed herewith as Exhibit A. 1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 16 In 2007, the Arkansas General Assembly passed Act 395, which is now codified as Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416 (the \"Act\"). In the Act, the State of Arkansas promises to \"compensate school districts that seek and obtain unitary status.\" These actions by the Board and the State alleviated NLRSD's political and financial concerns about seeking unitary status. Thus, NLRSD hereby simultaneously files its Petition for Unitary Status and this brief, which provides the support for its position that NLRSD should be declared unitary and released from federal court supervision. History of Plan The desegregation plan approved by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in its decision in Uttle Rock Schoo/ Dist. V. Pulaski County Special Schoo/ Dist. on December 12, 1990 (\"NLR Plan\") is actually to be found in several documents beginning with NLRSD's original plan submission in 1986. This submission was the \"Plan for Implementing the Remedial . Order of the Court of ..  Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to [NLRSD]\" which NLRSD filed on March 17, 1986 (\"March Plan\"). This initial submission addressed the interdistrict violations enumerated by the Court of Appeals in Uttle Rock Schoo/ Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special Schoo/ Dist. No. 1, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985). The district court, however, required NLRSD to provide a plan to address its intradistrict violations, as well. Therefore, NLRSD filed on October 14, 1986, its \"Supplement to Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to the North Little Rock School District' (\"October Supplement\"). 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 16 In its Order of February 27, 1987, the district court approved the NLR Plan consisting of the March Plan and October Supplement. Subsequently, some modifications to the NLR Plan were made either by petition to and approval by the district court or by operation of the settlement among the parties. The first NLR Plan modification occurred as a result of NLRSD's motion of July 21, 1987 to add an addendum that addressed the impact of Acts 624 and 762 of 1987 regarding student assignment. This motion was approved by the district court by its Order of July 27, 1987. The next modification occurred as a result of NLRSD's \"Petition to Modify NLRSD Student Assignment Plan and to Close Central Junior High School\" filed on July 20, 1988, and was approved by the district court by its Order of September 1, 1988. This modification provided for the re.organization of NLRSD secondary schools. beginning. in the 1990-91 - school year: Additionally, Central.Junior. High Scho.ol was,closedand:-the;studeat assignment zones:.for the remaining three: junior high schools were redrawn to .. -- ensure comparable racial balance. These.modifications were implemented at the. beginning of the 1990-91 school year. Additional modifications occurred as a result of the settlement among the parties. First, the parties agreed to NLRSD's \"Petition to Modify NLRSD's Desegregation Plan\" submitted to the Special Master in February, 1989 and incorporated into the parties' \"lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan,\" which was created in response to the finding that the North Little Rock and Pulaski County School districts had engaged i11 discriminatory actions that contributed to the disparity in the racial composition of the student bodies of the two districts and 3 --\"'- , ___ -\" --vv-- \" .. , '\".. \"'-''-''\"'u111c 111..,. ,..,.v , 11cu u;;J,~ 11uu, rayt::: \"+ or 10 Little Rock School District. See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special - School Dist. No. 1, 584 F.Supp. 328, 353 (E.D. Ark. 1984). Certain provisions of this Petition dealing with interim efforts to desegregate Lakewood Junior High School pending the secondary reorganization were satisfied and are no longer applicable since the secondary reorganization has been accomplished. The other provisions of the Petition have now been incorporated into the NLR Plan. Another modification of the NLR Plan occurred as a result of the \"Stipulated Compensatory Education Programs to be Implemented by the NLRSD with Settlement Monies\" filed on October 25, 1989 which satisfied paragraph VIII D. of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989) requiring a description of the compensatory education programs to be. implemented. by NLRSD with. funds to be received from the Settlement Agreement This. Stipulation also gave effect to and superseded that portion of the. original NLR Plan which described additional compensatory edtication programs whicn could be implemented, only with addittonal State funds. On April 29, 1992, the elements of the NLR Plan were consolidated and published in a single document (the \"1992 Plan Handbook\") for distribution to NLRSD officials and for their ease of reference in implementing the provisions of the plan. On August 31, 1995, NLRSD reached an agreement regarding unitary . status in the area of student assignment and Elementary Gifted and Talented. 4- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 5 of 16 The Court approved the release of NLRSD from court supervision on student assignments and Elementary Gifted and Talented on September 18, 1995. On April 10, 1998, the district court entered an order approving LRSD's Revised Plan, which stated that it \"shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders\" in this case \"and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation\" of LRSD.\" See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1, 237 F.Supp.2d 988, 993 (E.D. Ark. 2001). Thus, NLRSD is no longer required to comply with the lnterdistrict Plan, and the sole measure of NLRSD's unitary status is its compliance,with the NLR Plan. In compliance with an order of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Office: of DesegregattcmrManitoring;;(\"ODM~). was:create.d-. Se:e. Littlfl'.Ro.ck:.Scbo.ol: Dist .. K . PulaskLCa . ., Special.Schoof Dist .. Na. 1,, 92:t F.2cL t371, 1'3.8.\u0026amp; (8!h CJr. _ - 1990). Tl:ieu:ol~.of the ODM wasto; monitortbe\"c.omplianc.e;:of thecpartie.s,,with:the  settlement.plan\u0026amp;-.and:.the-, .settleme0t agreement : Se.a Id:. andddttle~'Roc~ Se.boo/', -. DisL 1,L PulaskLCa ... Spe.ciaLSchool.Dist Na .. i, .. 769. E.Supp __ .1483.; 1495. (E.D .. '- Ark. 1'991). Legal Standards The standard for determining whether a school district which is subject to judicially supervised desegregation plan is now well-established: the district must have acted in good faith to implement its plan and must have achieved substantial compliance with the requirements of that plan. 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 6 of 16 A. Good Faith In order to establish that NLRSD should be declared unitary, the District must demonstrate that it has \"complied in good faith with its desegregation decree since it was entered.\" See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1, 237 F.Supp.2d 988, 1027 (E.D. Ark. 2002) citing Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 249-50 (1991). See also Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995). The Supreme Court has established that \"good faith\" is demonstrated when, . . . the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good-faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the Constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 491-492 (1992). In this effort, the Court noted that the duratior-i of the school district's. compliance record must be considered: .... a court should give particular attention to the school system's '- record of compliance. A school system is better positioned to demonstrate its good-faith commitment to a constitutional course of action when its policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations. And, with the passage of time, the degree to which racial imbalances continue to represent vestiges of a constitutional violation may diminish, and the practicability and efficacy of various remedies can be evaluated with more precision.\" Id. B. Substantial Compliance In addition to proving \"good faith,\" NLRSD must also establish that it is in \"substantial compliance\" with the NLR Plan. As this Court has stated, \"[i]t is black letter law that a school district seeking an end to court supervision has the 6 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 7 of 16 - burden of proving substantial compliance with the judicially imposed remedy. See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1, 470 F. Supp. 2d 963, 984 (E.D. Ark. 2004). This Court has given the following guidance regarding the test for \"substantial compliance\": (l]n order to determine if a party is in 'substantial compliance' with a consent decree, the trial court must examine whether any of the alleged violations of the consent decree 'were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance' and 'to cast doubt on defendant' future compliance with the constitution.' . . . [A] Party can be in 'substantial compliance' with a consent decree even if it has committed violations that are 'inconsequential' in light of the party's overall performance. Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1, 237 F.Supp.2d 988; 1027 (E.D. .. Ark. 2002) citing..Cody V. Hillard; 139 F.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (8th Cir. -.1998). Also. in Little Rock Schoo/Dist., this Court.more succinctly set out.its: test for substantiat compliance when it stated. that it. would be,. \"required. to examine whether any-of LRSD's: failur.es-to comply wittr the Revised Plan in the  \\ six challenged areas are 'serious enough': (1) to constitute 'substantiat. noncompliance'; and (2) 'to cast doubt' on [NLRSD's] future compliance with the Constitution.\" Id. at 1035-1036. Thus, \"substantial compliance\" is not legalistic compliance with each \"jot and tiddle\" of the North Little Rock Plan but, instead, is a measure of the NLRSD's history of working to comply with its plan as a predictor of whether it has experienced a change in its operations and attitudes such that the it will continue to comply with the Constitution after the being released from court supervision. 7 \\ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 8 of 16 Record of Compliance Declaration of NLRSD's unitary status is proper because the District has maintained substantial compliance with its plan in good faith throughout the two decades it has been under this Court's supervision. The discussion below details the evidence of NLRSD's good faith and compliance with its plan. The discussion also explains how NLRSD recognizes the latest research, methodologies, laws and technology while continuing to remain faithful to the goals and values of its desegregation plan. A. Evidence of Compliance As detailed in the October 19, 1988 Report to Special Master Regarding the Status. of Implementation of North Little Rock.School District's Desegregation. Plan (\"1988. Status Report\"), NLRSD acted, expeditiously,and,comprel:tensb.tely to .. implement its original: dese.gre.gati:an plan approved:,by the; Court in 1987': A complete copy of the 1988: Status Report- with7 appendi:~esr is. attached: to the: Petition. filed .. herewith as. Exhibits: 8(1) to B.(.t1)_ NLRSD. continued to, comply with the 1987 version . of the desegregation plan, which was significantly incorporated into the plan approved by the court in 1992. Soon thereafter, NLRSD initiated and completed a self-audit (\"1994 SelfAudif). A complete copy of the 1994 Self-Audit detailing the status of the individual provisions of the 1992 plan is attached to the Petition filed herewith as Exhibit C. The 1994 Self-Audit analyzed the specific nature of the 188 plan provisions and detailed NLRSD's compliance with each. The 1994 Self-Audit also identified the following factors for each of the individual provisions: (1) the 8 \\ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 9 of 16 administrator or group responsible for execution; (2) the date of implementation; and (3) references to other audits and reports monitoring the particular compliance activity. Accordingly, the 1994 Self-Audit provides significant evidence of NLRSD's dedication to complying with its desegregation plan. After the Court approved NLRSD's unitary status for student assignment in 1995 and for elementary gifted and talented in 1996, NLRSD continued to monitor the status of the other provisions of its desegregation plan. NLRSD submitted periodic status reports detailing its findings to the Court and other parties pursuant to the lnterdistrict Plan until this plan was superseded by the modifications to the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan and the Pulaski County School District's Desegregation Plan in 1998. Thereafter, NLRSD continued to provide information. as requested by the ODM for its monitoring of the District. Moreover, from 1987 to date, no motion has been filed: by any party alleging violations of or seeking to enforce provisions of. NLRSD's plan or settlement agreements or otherwise alleging that NLRSD was not in compliance ,. with its desegregation plan. On June 9, 2004, the ODM published its report on the Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of Its Desegregation Plan (\"2004 ODM Status Report\"). A complete copy of the 2004 ODM Status Report is attached to the Petition filed herewith as Exhibit D. In analyzing the nine \"discrete divisions of the NLRSD desegregation plan, ODM relied on its direct observations of NLRSD employees, ODM's interviews with NLRSD employees,. reports from the Arkansas Department of Education and data submitted by 9 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 10 of 16 \\ NLRSD. 2004 ODM Status Report at 1-2. Taken as a whole, the ODM's independent and objective report demonstrates that NLRSD has substantially complied with the desegregation plan in good faith. B. Evolution of the Plan The very heart of NLRSD's desegregation plan is its goal to remedy the effects of the segregative acts which this Court found the District to have committed. These segregative acts, originally identified by this Court in 1984, are enumerated in the Introduction of the 1992 Plan Handbook. To ensure that the desegregation goal was accomplished, the District's desegregation plan outlined specific programs, services and activities that NLRSD used or proposed to use at the time the plan was created. However, \"[mJany of the educational approaches that were incorporated into the desegregation plan-have become outdated.\" 2004 ODM Status Report at 1. Accordingly, NLRSD has. modified the specific programs or \"has implemented different procedures and . programs intended to more effectively achieve desegregation goals.\" Id. Such modifications are not a deviation from NLRSD's desegregation plan but, instead, reflect its commitment to the principles of its desegregation plan as educational standards and best practices evolve. Indeed, it is critical to remember that desegregation \"plans are a floor, not a ceiling when analyzing whether NLRSD has met the standard of substantial compliance with the plan. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special Schoof.District No. 1, et al. , 769 F. Supp 1491 , 1495 (E.D. Ark. 1991). NLRSD . never agreed to adhere to plan specifics into perpetuity. In fact, this Court Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 11 of 16 instructed the districts to maintain \"sufficient flexibility to deal with changing conditions and meet unforeseen developments\" with regard to their desegregation plans. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al., 769 F. Supp. 1483, 1490 (E.D. Ark. 1991). Moreover, the 2002 testimony of the Joshua Intervenor's expert witness, Dr. Terrence Roberts, further supports this position. Dr. Roberts was one of the \"Little Rock Nine,\" who continued his education by obtaining a bachelor's degree is sociology, a master's degree in social work and a doctorate in psychology. Dr. Roberts specifically warned against what he termed \"compliance mentality,\" instructing the districts to focus \"not on the letter of the plan, but the spirit of the plan.\" See the Excerpted Transcript of July. 24, 2002 Evidentiary Hearing,. attached .. to. the: Petition filed: herewith as Exhibit Eat p ... 630. and p .. 649. NLRSD has done~exactly that.. After implementing:the:plan in: the:ear1y 1990s, specific. NLRSD programs: have: evolved. or hav.e bee' replace.a b.y more effective- or:- perfected. programs, which continue to combat segre.gative. effects .. while. als.o.. recognizing the mandates of state and federal laws, the enlightenment of research and numerous advances in technology and instructional methodology. This evolution is characteristic of the foresight of NLRSD. The District takes great pride in preserving an understanding of the latest research redefining best practices, implementing cutting edge programs that ultimately become the requisite practice or the norm, improving programs that have become archaic and replacing programs that have become obsolete. 11 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 12 of 16 The following examples illustrate the necessity of educational program evolution and NLRSD's continuing good faith commitment to its desegregation goals as outlined in its plan. The NLR Plan provides for a Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youth (\"HIPPY\") to \"be established in lower socio-economic attendance zones.\" NLR Plan page 34. As a Compensatory Education program, HIPPY was designed to prepare lower socio-economic pre-school children for success when they entered kindergarten. The year after HIPPY was originally implemented; it served fifty (50) fouryear- old students, utilizing home instructors to educate parents by providing reading. material to use wjth their children ... The. HIPPY program eveataally- evolved. with. the District.taking. a more- active. role .in the .. pre,..schoaUearning. by, offering classroom-basect-early childhood':edu.catio:tt and:ihcr:easing, the capacity,  of the program .. In more recent years, the program replaced the .home instructors,. with. a \"parent liaison\" trained in Minnesota Early Learning Design. The parent liaison \"teaches parents the child development principles that pertain most directly to school readiness [by] maintain[ing] parent contact [and] conduct[ing] workshops[.]\" 2004 ODM Report p. 23. NLRSD's current Early Childhood Program, the perfected progeny of HIPPY, serves approximately five hundred (500) three-year-old, four-year-old and five-year-old children, whose eligibility for admission is based on certain factors including poverty, low birth weight, abuse or neglect, and English as a second language. Id. The program also offers an 12 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 13 of 16 infant and toddler section the children of older NLRSD students, preparing these children for education, while preventing their parents from dropping out of school. Additionally, NLRSD's Early Childhood Program supplements  the curriculum developed by the Arkansas Department of Human Services' Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education by emphasizing readiness for kindergarten but allowing teachers to begin reading instruction if they deem a child ready. Id. Early childhood programs like NLRSD's are widely found to be beneficial, though they have not been implemented on a wide spread basis. Other significant examples of NLRSD's continuing commitment to the principles of its plan are the District's Compensatory Programs Aimed at Dropout Prevention, which include. the Alternative School program and. Student Assignment Classes program. NLR Plan page, 37-38 .. NLRSD's original Alternative S,c hool served students identifieda s at risk of dropping out o.f school and was located: at the: Boys and Girls Club. However, the Distri-ct \"decided to develop its. own alternative. programs using. District resources~ when budg.et issues and a series of personnel changes at the Boys and Girls Club \"resulted in a weak and ineffective alternative program.\" 2004 ODM Report at page 47. Currently, NLRSD has five sites that serve as alternative schools based on the age of the students. Additionally, the SAC program, included in the provisions of the 1992 plan, prevents students from dropping out of school by providing an inschool suspension program, removing the students from the classroom but keeping them in a supervised educational environment \"These classes have 13 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 14 of 16 '\\ been a consistent force in providing students an opportunity to continue their education while they are ... in the discipline system.\" Id. NLRSD now \"goes beyond the [original programs set out] in its desegregation plan by offering a dropout retrieval program at Shorter College and providing a highly focused program for credit deficient students in the Graduate Academy.\" Id. at 50. In its 2004 report, the ODM \"commend[ed] the NLRSD for the many programs it has in place to serve as alternatives to putting students out of school [and b]ecuase the NLRSD allows students and parents to choose among alternative education placements and home suspensions, a student's educational future is determined by the home in conjunction with the schooldistrict\" Id .. Conclusion The purpose, of. court supervisien was-, to create a:. unitary schael: s.ystemc. from what was once a \"dual school system, establis~ing and maintaiming ..: a. system in which the interests. of. both black. and white students were equal. by involving black representatives into policy making and administration. Today, three of the District's seven Board members are African-American, there are black administrators at every level and each school maintains a bi-racial committee. As a district which \"has been largely characterized by an absence of rancor and dissension, NLRSD has consistently avoided \"potentially volatile decisions\" and made smooth transitions in its programs. 2004 ODM Report at page 45. 14 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 15 of 16 \"The NLRSD superintendent has been an admirable force for collaboration and accord as he has involved both the internal [faculty, parents, students] and external community in many weighty district matters. .. demonstrating wise sensitivity to the adage that people will support what they help create ... By avoiding surprises, meaningfully involving in changes those who are most affected by those changes, maintaining a congenial and professional demeanor, and consisting treating others with respect, the district's CEO has fostered the growth of cohesiveness in tt,e NLRSD and promoted significant level of harmony between the district and the community.\" Id. NLRSD's School Board reflects the racial make up of the community. As a cooperative group, the Board weighs the interests of each student and parent equally irrespective of their race; so that it is no longer necessary for the Court to be an artificial voice for the black students. Thus, NLRSD has been an exemplary model of a district that has substantially complied in good faith: with the goals of its desegregation plan and, as a result, has become unitary. As Special Master Aubrey Mccutcheon observed, \"desegregation is- a state- of- mind:.\" NlRSD has certainly achieved this ultimate goal. The Court should note that NLRSD has stipulated that the Joshua lntervenors may have an extended time period of 90 days to file an initial response to this Petition given the significance of this matter. The parties agree that this would not affect the schedule for discovery or any hearing dates. Additionally, the Court should be aware Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-416 provides that the District would be eligible for reimbursement of the legal fees associated with seeking unitary status if the Court makes such a declaration by June 14, 2008. Therefore, it is critical that this matter proceed in a manner that will allow resolution before this date. 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4145 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 16 of 16 '\\ For the reasons set out above, NLRSD should be declared unitary and released from federal court supervision. Respectfully submitted, Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P. A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 501-375-1122 Fax 501-375-1027 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones, Ark. Bar No. 78083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, attorney for-Separate Defendant North Little-Rock School District; certify I electronically. filed:-the foregoing with the Clerk of the court using the ECF system which s.ent notification of such filing to the following: Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Hon. Andree Roaf ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 16 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Stephen W. Jones Stephen W. Jones Page 1 of2 polly- From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21 , 20071 :55 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Brief in Support This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 2:55 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4145 Docket Text: BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by North Little Rock School District re [4141] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, [4142] Addendum, (4143] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, (4144] Addendum, (Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec .net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec .net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 9/21/2007 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.wilJiams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001351-0 ] [4c7a2035bcb4d01765100e68f45091 ed54db0d635bcdf80e700083875ad9b5d353c c3f894c270c4b9a54ecd47e7f0ed13a826f81bc0ad20af9d8b8lc92266dal]] 9/21/2007 Page 1 of2 From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 3:21 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice of Docket Correction This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/21/2007 at 4:20 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: No document attached Docket Text: NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION [4145] Brief in Support: Docket entry modified to correct docket text referring to 4143, Addendum. (lmr) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electrQnically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Cbachkin 9/21/2007 NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 9/21/2007 Page 2 of2 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, September 21, 20071 :55 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Brief in Support This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, Stephen on 9/21/2007 at 2:55 PM CDT and filed on 9/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 - Filer: North Little Rock School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4145 Docket Text: BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by North Little Rock School District re [4141] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, [4142] Addendum, [4143] Motion for Declaratory Judgment, [4144] Addendum, (Jones, Stephen) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/5/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/21/2007] [FileNumber=1001351-0 ] [4c7a2035bcb4d01765100e68f45091ed54db0d635bcdf80e700083875ad9b5d353c c3f894c270c4b9a54ecd47e7fDed13a826f81bc0ad20af'9d8b81c92266dal]] 2/5/2008 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:59 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Appeal Transcript This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered on 9/27/2007 at 9:59 AM CDT and filed on 9/27/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4146(No document attached) Docket Text: TRANSCRIPTS filed for dates of 1/20-21/07 Compliance Hearing before Judge William R Wilson, Jr, re [4115] Notice of Appeal, Court Reporters: Cheryl Nelson, Judith Ammons. (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 2/5/2008 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:01 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Appeal Transcript This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/27/2007 at 10:01 AM CDT and filed on 9/27/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4147(No document attached) Docket Text: TRANSCRIPT filed for date of 1/27 /07 Compliance Hearing before Judge William R Wilson, Jr, re [4115) Notice of Appeal, Court Reporter: Christa R Newburg. (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 2/5/2008 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:07 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Appeal Record Sent to USCA This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/27/2007 at 10:07 AM CDT and filed on 9/27/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4148 Docket Text: Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals: 3 volumes transcript of 1/20-21/07 \u0026amp; 1/27 /07 Compliance Hearing re [ 4115] Notice of Appeal, ( dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 2/5/2008 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp _ ID= 1095794525 [Date=9/27 /2007] [FileNumber= 1004 704-0 ] [97eab3e6780fb09ea7784309543659d76e08dec9db6dce657f7d7822323351423d4 a79fe0418ad40882c95eb21f56dl b293280c15851a77699e4468d4118bf19]] 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatilfn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org September 28, 2007 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza RECEIVED 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 OCT 1 - 2007 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of September 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Siner~,::::-' cDs~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott Richardson, Attorney General's Office STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Jim Cooper, Melbourne Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia  Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton MaryJane Rebick, Little Rod\u0026lt;  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for September 2007. Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on September 28, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. San1uelJones,ill Mitchell, Willian1s, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 cikttfh co m IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW OCT 1 - 2007 OFACEOF PLAINTIFFS DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2007 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_ su pport@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 3: 18 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 9/28/2007 at 4:17 PM CDT and filed on 9/28/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4149 Docket Text: NOTICE of filing the ADE's Project Management Tool for September 2007 by Arkansas Department of Education ( dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 2/5/2008 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=9/28/2007] [FileNumber=1006413-0 ] [b5cc 13fb999668db3c36be094 79de878fl e3b5f 459c26302c403f897 a88cbe0edf5 327e62134 752a29520865fc5bbad02007ftb3b95435dc 186490941 ca8eaa]] 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2    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.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1763","title":"Court filings regarding motion for extension of time, Joshua intervenors' arguments concerning funding of Office of Desegregation Management (ODM), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to appellants' motion to stay, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["2007-07/2007-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","School districts","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Joshua intervenors","Education--Finance","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding motion for extension of time, Joshua intervenors' arguments concerning funding of Office of Desegregation Management (ODM), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to appellants' motion to stay, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1763"],"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":["40 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time; District Court, response to Joshua intervenors' arguments concerning funding of Office of Desegregation Management; District Court, letter-order; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to appellants' motion to stay; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order; District Court, amended order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project mangement tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEIVED JUL -9 2007 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF/,\\PPELLEE V. CASE NO. 07-1866 JOSHUA INTERVENORS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Come the Joshua Intervenors, et al., by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfuU~, request an additional fifteen (15) days in order to allow time to have this matter resolved between the parties as set forth by the Court's Order Qr in which to have appellant's brief filed. This request is made with the understanding that no further extensions for filing appellant's brief would be requested or allowed in the event that this matter was not 1Iediated or otherwise disposed of. , Appellant's counsel has been unable to make direct contact with appellee's counsel on either !uly 5 or July 6, 2007 and can not state whether appellee's counsel objects to Lll! delay. There is no prejudice to the appellee by the request. Respectfully Submitted, ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker, AR Bar #64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (fax) Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass 02421 (781) 862-1955 Certificate of Service ' I, John W _ Walker, do hereby state that on this 6th day of July, 2007, a copy o:f the foregoing Motion has been electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the C M/EF, which.shall send notification of such filing to the following: Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net brendak@fec.net tmiller@fec.net M. SatnuelJones,m siones@mwsgw.com aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj .com linda.calloway@jli.com Scott Paris Richardson . Scott.richardson@arkansasag.gm: agcivil@arkansasag.gov and to the following counsel via United States Mail, postage prepaid: Mr. Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Mr. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ls/John W. Walker 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 USDC Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4131 FilAn 011111200? IN Tl IE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EA.STERN DIS .l .l(ICr 0.t AKKAMSA:S W .b:sT~KN Vl V 1:SION PAGE 03 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT . PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL . DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATIIERlNE KNIGIIT, ET AL RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S A n.rTJ'l .1 .,-.~.,..,...... ~,..,..,..,-.,-..\"'-,.,... ,..,..,.Y,...9-- --. _,..._, I 00YuJ.1u .. c11:1 \"''''\"--'.\u0026amp;.=.ru,11,u ru.1,1111,..u ur u.uw1 For its response to the arguments of the Joshua Intervenors at a telephone hearing on June 27, 2007, the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) states: 1. Joshua argues that \"Little R.ock is appropriately stiU in [this case) because there's relief that still must be provided by Little Rock in order to facilitate the agreements of t'he other 'two districts, so that it would-still be appropriate for Little Rock to make financial contributions to this matter.\" (Tr. of June 27, 2007 telephone hearing, p. 6) Joshua also makes the following argument: Id. atp. 7. Llttle Rock whHe as the plaintiffs sought the relief, and part of the ,-.-Jjpf jo ;,.,,.~,H c-,.,.;M ~ncl'bfll\"l:I anA foJ..oftOI ;.- lA- tn. l\\A tt,.,tt,,. 1'1 ~,..., - --- ,..., ..,_..., __ ,._,  - , .... __ ... .., ....... , --  ,w  '\" -.v ,A - \"'- _, A,11, ._,.,,, 1\\6 .,.,,f .... __ ...... . \"\"A \"\"'\"'\" .......... -A.-h ,..A1,,,.AA,,,..  .,.,J...:.-J,.. _,, -\u0026amp; ..... ,.._ ,,,_ __ ;_ AAf .. .o. ... .,,,,.,., ~ ' \"\"''\"' ~..,.., .,,...,. .\u0026amp;MU!J\u0026amp;\u0026amp;\"' ..,~,,vu.a~ wuu.,,, cau VA.\"''\"''\"' Cl.A\"' .1.1a, a;;G Llt\"J.~ Rvek :.;till !i@ a w11ti.r,~lli,,\u0026amp; vtlige1tivJ, tv ii.~ tv ~t t~4.at what W.ili i'c'1u11cd l:,y tl1e p,iui.lc:, wiil, Jl:;:,pc~i iv. ihc uli,c, ui::il,j~t:s i:s iwpiCJlltmicu. Page 1 of 3 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 USDC PAGE 04 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4131 FilP.r1 07 /11 /?007 Pag~ 2 of 3 2- These arguments do not justify or authorize the court to continue to require LRSD's par6cipation in the lunding of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ''ordC1'ed the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to assist the district court in its supervision\" of the desegregation efforts of LRSD. PCSSD and NLRSD. LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d 528, 529 (8th Cir. 2006). This Court has released LRSD \"from all further supervision and monitoring from the Court, ODM and Joshua based upon its having subs~ntially complied with all of its obligations under the Revised Plan, the September 2002 Compliance Remedy, and the June 2004 Compliance Remedy.\" Order Declaring the little Rock School District Unitary, February 23, 2007, p. 49. This Order has not been stayed and r,ernains in effect pending appeal. 3. Since ODM was created ''to assist the district coun in its supel'Vision\" of LRSD, and the Court has held \"that LRSD is released from all further supervision and monitoring,\" then tbere is no practical reason for requiring LRSD to continue to participate in the funding of ODM. More importantly, however, LRSD has achieved unitary status and is no longer subject to the Court's jurisdiction to impose further remedies such as a requirement to continue to fund the '. ODM- Board of Edu.catwn v. Dowelt 498 U.S- 237, 247 (1991) (\"From the very first, federal supervision of local schooJ ~ystems was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination.\"); Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 490 (1992) (\"Returning schools to the con_trol of local autttorities at the earliest practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability in our govemmental system.\") WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Joshua's request that LRSD continue to participate in the funding of OJ\u0026gt;M should be denied. Page 2of3 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 usoc Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document4131 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 3 of 3 Respectfully submitted, ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 400 We!it Capitol Little :Rocle, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE PAGE 05 I certify that on July ll, 2007, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of th .. r'r\"1..+ ,,ci,,n- ~hp. r\\1~r1: ~ 1'tA.., u1ftirl, f'.lht.:!:ll 11,.,...,~ nl\":-- ,_.,. ..:,}:;_ ...,._.,, ,.c, - ---- \"'JY .....A J\u0026amp;Af  .... -   'tlllll-- ..,_,,_ ,,V-,1;.,,A;!..'.~.U-;-!'\u0026amp;\\'!'\\, Vn 4~ ~t\"\"-'t6, '....\".. ~f' .1.;.,.;,'1_\",',\u0026gt;e1:\",!' ,1.1~ . ~~~- F-,.,JJ-nu.._.r..;..n. e,. Scott. rjchardson@ai.state.ar. u~ sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@J1j.com johnwalkeratty@aol com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Hon. Andree Roaf r)ff;.,..D .,,,./ Tl.o~.t!l,~ .t!!!J -,;.,,..,,,, ~l_,.n ;,_., ~, - ........ - ..,._ --Vi'lol't:,,'..,.0'--'..._v,, AAv .. \"\"\"\"\"\"\" 1 TT-: ..-. .... 1'.Y .. ...: - - - 1 n1 .... ,.. .. ~ VUAVU ~Cl.1.,1.VUCi41. A 4,04,0 ,..,,... TJ7 r,.ro_:_.,,,. , c,  . ,: . .. iD,-,~ A.k-r YT., \"\"\"'1}'1\\Vl, JUAL'-' .J.U7.J T :~.,'t .. '\"-   '  -\" 'T\"t. ,..,,,_,.../'1,4 J..,j.LL.lC ~\"'-\"-, ~ / ,1,,,,1,VJ.. Mr. Qayton Blackstock ivir. Mark Burnett iOiO W. Third 5treet Little Rock, AK 72201 JudgeJ. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Pase 3 of 3 Isl Christopher Heller 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 USDC Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4132 Filed 07/12/2007 Page, of 1 Mr. John W. Walker J,..1-,., UT ,111,..11,.~r n \" .,..., , . ,. ,.     ~..,, A,a ol; JV UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTEAN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICH-\"RO SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 6w W. CAPITOL, r.iuOM 423 Facsimilei /e01) 004-51\u0026lt;69 July 12, 2.007 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, ~t al, 4:82CV866WRW Dear Mr. Walker: PAGE 02 I have received and reviewed LRSD's response to your suggestion that it should continue helpinp; fund the ODM. It appears to me that LRSD is rip;ht. I am in the process of preparing an order covering the \"new direction\" of the ODM and plan to exclude LRSD from the program. If you have any ~pecific statutory or case law support for your position, please send it to me by noon, Thumi:iy; .Jn\\y J.9, ?007. Original to the Qerk of Court cc: The Honorable Joe Th.Qmas Ray Other Counsel of Record Cordially, Isl Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 USDC Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4125 Filed 0o_/')7/'XJ07 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE CUO VW , ...,._,-, 1 UL, HUUM 423 , , .,,,-rt r .n,.,,,._,,. ,. ,.,,.,11.,,..,.,,. _,,,,.,.,.,. ,,.,.,.,. ._. f --- .,..,._,,, -fllY\"ll'IV-,. ILLV T~.,) FacslmMe (5011 604-5149 June 27, .2007 Mr. Christopher J. Heller Friday, F,ldrecl~e \u0026amp; f'.l~rlr. T .T ;p - T Ittl_,. ~.t:\"t:-.k Region.c: rentAI' 400 WP.-d. r-.1-1,:n-i-tn--l -A---\"'-\".\"... \"-'-\" S.tlt~ 21]1)1) T ,tt! .. 1),-.,-\\,- \"1) ,.,..,,,1'11 -,,.n,, _ .......... _ \"\"\"'\"'-\"'' .. _, '--v ... ...,_.,,.J Re: LRSD v. PCSSD; et al, 4:82-CV-866 Dear Mr. Heller: PAGE 06 P~nA 1 nf 1 ~ . I held a telephone conference tx.,day with all the parties except the LRSD. The primary purpose was discussing Judge Roaf's appointment as the new Director of 0DM. She was present durinjt the telephone conference. Mr. Walker expressed the opinion that LRSD is still 14in the case\" for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the 0DM, including Judge Roaf's i:alllry r J:i:1n n.,:it ~v~ri ttiJs point much th,;mght, but had concluded th.at J . R.~n i41 ''01Jt'' ~i.nr~ It ~..J.1.~ ~~ 4'!d.a.re\u0026lt;l .mita.\"J. JJn!et e., c!-c-c.!TT:e, the Cc'(!rt nf An~~lc ,f,.,.lo,.,,.c tn thP ,.,., ... ~\"' . -- ..  :,:,;  - __ .. ,,,_., _ _ - . , . .. .,._ ..... - .. J  I would like your response to 1his. You will probably want to order a transcript of the telephone ,c~nferen-c-e C~fer~ ~Z-r'f.d1r.i; :,v tha.t yvu ~, ~ ~~r. 11/G~kriic'~ ~-~\"t-fiL.- iX'irtLS. ,Please let me have your response by noon, Wednesday, July 11, 2007. Original to the Ocrk of the Court cc: Thr1 H.nnor:it:,)1'1 .Ji:,l'I Th,:1m~s R?.y 0th,-,- r,mng.oJ nf Jl.o,v,r,-1 Page 1 of 1 Cordially, /s/ Wm, R.WilsonJr. I 07/13/2007 14:13 5016045237 USDC WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR. united states District Judge bU0 West Capito~, Room 4~~ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501.604.5140 Fax - 501.604.5149 fax *: 19-371-0100 da'te: July 13, 2007 !'\u0026gt;nbj~ct:: I T.Rsn ___________________ ...... NOTES: I 5 including cover page I I think this is more than what vou I are lookina for, but better toolmuch than too little!! If this I isn' t what vou are lookina for. lolease call~me at 604-514i and I l~ill continue the search. I Mary I \\\" PAGE 01 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 July 12, 2007 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, 4:82CV866WRW Dear Mr. Walker: RECEIVED JUL 1 3 2007 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING I have received and reviewed LRSD's response to your suggestion that it should continue helping fund the ODM. It appears to me that LRSD is right. I am in the process of preparing an order covering the \"new direction\" of the ODM, and plan to exclude LRSD from the program. If you have any specific statutory or case law support for your position, please send it to me by noon, Thursday, July 19, 2007. \\ Original to the Clerk of Court cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Other Counsel of Record Cordially, Isl Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. \\ Case : 4 : 82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 \\ MIME-Version : 1 . 0 From : ecf_ support@ared.uscourts . gov To:ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain  essage-Id: \u0026lt;950536@ared . uscourts . gov\u0026gt; cc: ubject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al Order Content-Type : text / plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge . To avoid later charges , download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U . S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was e ntered on 7/12/2007 1:45 PM CDT and filed on 7/12/2007 Case Name : Little Rock School , et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number : 4 : 82-cv- 866 http://ecf . ared . uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer : WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01 / 26/1998 Document Number : 4132 Copy the URL address from the line below into the l ocation bar of your Web browser to view the document : http : //ecf.ared.uscourts .gov/cgi-bin/show_case_ doc?4132 , 26052 ,,MAGIC ,,, 2005701 Docket Text: LETTER/ORDER Joshua intervenors are to file any specific statutory or case law in support of their position re. ODM funding by noon July 19, 2007 Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr . on 7/12/07 . (dac) 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to : Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com \u0026amp;:hilip E . Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net ~ hristopher J . Heller heller@fec.net , brendak@fec . net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel J bnes, III sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, linda.calloway@jlj . com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Claybb rn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net , yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag . gov, patsy . dooley@arkansasag.gov 4 : 82- cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General ' s Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Li ttle Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewel l yn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A . A Post Office Box 818 W,rort Smith , AR 72 90 2- 0818 Office o f Desegregation Monitor One Union Nat iona l Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson  Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. ost Office Box 818 ort Smith , AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction : Document description: Main Document Original filename : n/a Electronic document Stamp : [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=7/12 /2007 ] [FileNumber=950535-0 ] [6eeb968ba3a74ea39c6ded7f0a1968bddaaf99clldb3e7159930b41aebbda760ac6dd4299be529c f01534577b554f6792c2992da40e8b8753fb9437be068dac4] J  llfJ L ,~ DURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coURyAS'TERN d~cT~BAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL 1 g 2007 WESTERN DIVISION   LITILEROCKSCHOOLDISTRICT v. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: ~CLERK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On July 17, 2007, I received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2006-2007 fiscal year. I have attached a copy of the budget to this Order, and if there are - any objections, parties must respond within five (5) days; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this _if.!_ day of July, 2007. RECEIVED JUL f O 2007 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION Jt10NITORING ~------ STATESDrsTRICT JUDGE Office of Desegregation Monitoring l.ln!t9d stal8s Ola1rlct Cell.It  Eastam District of Arlcarllas RECEIVED July 17, 2007 JUL 2 3 2007 OFFICE OF The Honorable William R. Wilson DESEGREGATION MON/TOR/NG Judge, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol. Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Dear Judge Wtlson: One Union National Plaza 124 West Cspltol, Suite 1895 llttle Rock, Arlc:ansas 72201 (601} 37'6-620\u0026gt; Fax (fi01) 371-0100 Attached for your approval is the proposed ODM budget for 2006-07, the fiscal year just concluded. The format of the budget document follows that ofODM's previous budgets, including annotations to explain revenue calculations, definitions of budget categories, and the budgeted allocations for the year by category. The LRSD has requested that we provide the amount of accumulated vacation days for the ODM staff so that they may discharge their accrued shared of this :financial obligation. However, we  have not included this sum in the 2006-07 budget pending resolution of the iss~ of the future operation of ODM and ofLRSD's participation in the 2007-08 budget In addition, we have a small amount of money ($2,603.25) from the sale of smplus furniture that will be carried over to the 2007-08 fiscal year. I will promptly provide any additional information upon request. Sincerely yours, ~ft,,)/ Director, Office of o\"::::l.on Monitoring Enc. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 2006-07 BUDGET REVENUE 2005-08 2005,08 200M7 Budget ~ Proposed Budaat State of Arkansas 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 LRSD Budget allocation 119,348.00 119,348.00 112,358.00 Minus aedll from pnwlous year (1,283.00) (1,283.00} 4,324.00 Equals LRSD'a share of the budget 120,831.00 120,831.00 108,032.00 NL.RSC Budget allocatlon 43,327.00 43,327.00 41,786.00 Mlnua aedll from prrricus year (-488.00) (-488.00) 1,608.00 Equals NLRSO's shara of the budge! 43,793.00 43,793.00 40,178.00 PCSSD Budget allocaClon 84,084.00 84,084.00 77,999.00 Minus credit from previous year (904.00) (904.oo) 3,002.00 Equals PCSSD'a share of the budget 84,968.00 84,988.00 74,997.00 Interest 2,398.58 Tolal Revenue 446,739.00 '148, 138.56 432,141.00 Nole: 1118 un of1he cndlB In lhe above chm1 II the unspent amount of our previous year's budget, lndudlng bank lnlnat eemed. EW!ll'J budget C'/dl, 00M aJllies lhls amount IDwmd each IChool dlllrtcl'8 bu\"'8IBd allocallon. Bolh 1hat allocallon and the c:nldlt .. delelmlned ~ the proposed budget by lhe pnMOUS ,_., OclDber 1 erlRll!nent numbn, than adjuslBd accordlngly wlWI Iha erllDllment numbn fir' the CUITlnt yw become avallabla. EXPENDmJRES 200\u0026amp;-08 2005-GI 2D04MJ7 Budget ExpenclltUla Proposed Budfd Communk:atlorm 8,000.00 8,380.12 4,805.00 Dues and Fees 276.00 0.00 0.00 Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 FoodSenllca D.00 0.00 0.00 Management Servtcea 0.00 0.00 0.00 Per1odlcals 0.00 135.00 108.00 Priming \u0026amp; Binding 6,250.00 4,114.54 4,331.00 Prof \u0026amp; Tech Servicea 1,700.00 722.50 783.00 Rent 62,584.00 51,246.16 41,\"54.00 Repelra\u0026amp;Malnteralce -400.00 0.00 162.00 Resource Library 0.00 0.00 0.00 Salariee 300,803.00 300,803.00 302,181.00 Beneflla 74,322.00 73,681.16 76,020.00 Staff D881opi1ient 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUpplJe8 3,500.00 1,785.38 1,711.00 Travel 1,525.00 90.32 0.00 Insurance 800.00 601.00 606.00 Tatal Expendlluraa 448,739.00 439,338.17 432,141.00 Dlffllrwlc:e (Income minus EJq,erxllturw 0.00 8,933.87 0.00 ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR 2006-07 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]be amount previously ordered fur the Pulaski County :Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied towatd the budget of the office of the MetropolitanSupen,isor .... Thebalaor.eofthebudgetwillbeapportionedamongtbe school districts on a per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]be officeprmously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office ofDategregation Monitoring. ... 20lll-07 lludgat 1ar1 %al 200l-47 2DOIMl8 200I-01 EnralJ- TCICld Budget Crwdlt 8udglt ment Enroll- Allaclllaa (Budglt Pa.,rmnt ment not~ LRSO 28,470 41.40 112,388 4,124 108.032 NLR8D 9,842 18.00 41,7115 1,808 40,178 PCSSD 18,374 33.80 TT,\u0026amp; 3,00'l 74,997 SIIIBafM 200,000 200,000 .. Tdal 64,886 100.00 ~141 8,1134 423;Jm Desmibed below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the chart above, that we use to cfetemri~ eacli district's contribution to the ODM budget: 1. The State of Arbosas' contn\"bution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on this year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contnl\u0026gt;Ution). 3. Each district is cn:dited with its pro nta share of ODM's unspent budget for the previous year. 4. The S1Dil is the amount each district is to contribatc to ODM's budget. The districts will be notified before the close of the current fiscal year of the exact m:nount due fur its share of ODM'sbudgct. - EXPENDITURES N.: Definitions of expense categories are based on the .Arkansas School Finalfclal Accounting Manual. Communieadom: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages \u0026lt;\u0026gt;r information. This category includes telephone services aa well as postage machine rental and postage. 1-=1 ~ .. 1-~1 The decrw In 1he 2006-07 budget 1B due ID a negolalBd ,die wllh a 118W aervlca pruvldar flld a reduced number of phone Ines Wti1 !he ollk:a. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or aiae,,smeot fi\u0026gt;r m.eDJbcrship .in professional or other organi:zatfons or mmociations or payments to a paying agent for services provided. such aa conference registration fees. Equipment: Expenditures fbr the initial, additional, and repl8'YMlent items or equipment. such as ~ and machinery, 0.00 Manageu.ent Serriccl: Services pex~ by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy atca or in gem:ral operations. This category includes consultants, indmdually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in confelence ur through systematic studies. --:1 ~J-.:::1 Pagc3 - Periodkals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at R:gular iDtcrvals ofless than a ye,ar and continuing for an indefinite period. 1-~00l ~~1-..::1 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design aod printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2005-08 Budget 200MB 2006-07 PropoNd ExpencllturN Budget 5,460.00 4,114.54 4,331.00 Professional and Teelmlcal Sea vie\u0026amp;; Services which by their nature can be per.fanned only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 1-=1 ~1-..:::1 Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary end long-range use. 200l-08Budgat 200s-GI 2008-o7 Propoaed l!xpendllurN Budget 52,564.00 51,245.18 41,-464.00 The decnsa8e In 1he 200\u0026amp;-07 budget 18 due to a radudlon In office apace. Repaln and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and roairrtenaoce !la'Vices which restore equipment t.o its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contmctua1 agreements covering the mainter,an~ end operation of equipment and equipment systc.ms. 1-::1 --=:001-~1 Page4 - Salaries: Salarus are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a pennaneot or temporary nature. 200\u0026amp;-48Budget 2005-08 2008-G'TPropoeed Expendltulva Budget . 300,803.00 300,803.00 302,181.00 Below is a breakdown of each employee's budgeted 2006-07 salary, reflecting a 3.29% annual base increase, which is equal to or less than the annual step increase on the salary scales of the local districts. flllmeof -- 20GI-07 Em..,_ 8alaJy Salary Andl98Roaf' 1,373 GenaJonas' 63,438 48,480 Margie Powell 74,880 77,354 HonamSmllh* 74,890 84,694 Polly Ramer 66,212 68,081 UndaBlyarlt 31,173 32,189 Total 300,803 302,181 1Judge Andrea Roaf began a !he Oll9dDr d ODM on June '/1, 'l!X1/. 'Gaut Jona raduc:ad his wm time fnJm 415 ht 2005-08 ID 315 llme for ~7. In addllloo, Gene elacfl 1D recelw payment for fGUIU8I lneunmcapnlffllana In Beu af1he lnlUl'ance benetllsand lllsaalary ra1lacll lhatdedalon. Gene l8Slgned 3-15-07. His sallly Includes 45 dayl of aa:umulallld vatlarl. 31-knce Smllt realgnad ~-Hie aalary lndudaa 33.5 day\u0026amp; of 8DCUIIIJlalBd vacabl. Bencfia: Benefi1Bare1he amounts paid on behalf of mnployees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and abo~ Such payments an, fringe benefit payments. 20CHl,08 Budgat 2GO\u0026amp;,,OI 2Qae.o7Propoeed E!xpendlturN Budget 74,322.00 73,881.16 78,020.00 Beow a breakdown .ofeachemnw,cc's2006-07 . 1 is bv \" : . .  frirui benefits Name car 8oclll RilClnt- Hoapllal,- Litt Dental Hoapltal Short Total Allowance Sec:urftr ,_ -lzdan lnL fndela1111J Tenn ..... Roaf 105.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 105.03 Jena 720,00 3,783.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,'4\u0026amp;5.92 POMJII 1200.00 5,1173.13 10,997.80 3,137.98 32.84 275.79 60.98 82.88 21,740.93 8mllh 1200.00 8,326.44 12,025.17 3,143.84 32.84 275.78 80.118 62.88 23,128.49 Rimer 4,364.21 8,128.48 3,162.72 32.84 275.78 60.88 62.81 18,077.93 Biyant 2,G\u0026gt;.17 4,507.80 3,137.98 20.40 275.78 80.98 82.88 10,485.83 Tdal 3,120.00 22,941.80 35,651.03 12,582.28 118.32 1,103.04 243.84 251 .62 78,019.93 Pages Supplies: Expcnditurcs for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid fur material items of an expc:ndablenature that are consumed, worn 01!4 or detcrlo.rated in use or items that lose their identity through filbrication or incorporation into different or more complex uoits or substunces. 200a-o8 Budget 20ff.fl 2006-07PropoNCI ExpendlturN Budget 3,600.00 1,785.38 1,711.00 Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with naveling or business, such as puking fees. Payments fur per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 90.32 IDJurancc: Expenditures fur all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 2GOI-08 Budgllt I ..... I 2008-07 Proposed I e.pendHurw ~ . 800.00 801.00 608.~ Page6 Case : 4:82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Li ttle Rock , AR 72201 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts .gov To:ared_ecf@localhost . localdomain 6:~~age-Id : \u0026lt;955298@ared.uscourts . gov\u0026gt; W;bject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv- 00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al Order Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 7/19/2007 1:41 PM CDT and filed on 7/19/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School , et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf.ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4134 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf . ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?4134,26052, , MAGIC, ,, 200S707 Docket Text: ORDER parties have five days to file any objections to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ' s proposed budget for the 2006-2007 fiscal year. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 7/19/07. (Attachment: # (1) ODM ' s Proposed Budget) (dac)  82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: ayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw. net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Christopher J . Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec . net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast . net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 A ames M. Llewellyn, Jr Wl,ompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 A 11iam P . Thompson ~ ompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename: n/a Electronic document Stamp : [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=7/19/2007] [FileNurnber=955297-0) [6c47df384b878d59fd66b8156lcflc07443ffbcac49763a0c6f65d4f08918b352ee5f46825al6f0 7e330e6ceeldd6f6528d0a3be42b7224da38ebel00b94eca4)) Document description : ODM ' s Proposed Budget Original filename : n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=7/19/2007) [FileNurnber=955297-1) [70fa24bb774a735fll633220c3a4c5lfcb2dac89a5d943a47929d3b362649218ca83633c04a44f8 2fb9lc8lb7c64c65b015f9c8220cfa9bc5376dbc5293a0daa)) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Case No. 07-1866 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee V. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DALE CHARLES, ET AL., RECEIVED JUL 31 2001 Off\\CEOf DESEGREGAl\\Otl MOtl\\lORlMG V. PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors \\ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S  RESPONSE TO APPEALLANTS' MOTION TO STAY For its response, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: LRSD agrees that this appeal should be stayed during the time the parties are engaged in the mediation process. Respectfully submitted, Christopher Heller (Ark. Bar #81083) Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-2011 Atto~ Christopher Heller '------ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 27, 2007, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Scott.richardson@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Hon. Andree Roaf Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Case No. 07-1866 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee V. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. RECEIVED DALE CHARLES, ET AL., JUL 31 2007 OFFICE OF v. DESEGREGATION MONITORING. PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors/ Appellants \\ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO SECOND AMENDED MOTION TO INTERVENE For its Response to the Second Amended Motion to Intervene, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. A group of taxpayers, parents and patrons of the LRSD (\"proposed intervenors\") claim to represent the legitimate interests of LRSD and seek to intervene in this appeal. See Second Amended Motion to Intervene, paragraphs 21 - and 24. The proposed intervenors assert that the LRSD Board of Directors \"is unable to represent the interests of the District because the majority of the Board - members are under the influence of [Appellants' counsel].\" Id. at paragraph 25. They ask the Court to dismiss this appeal or, alternatively, to enjoin LRSD from seeking to resolve this appeal through the Court's prehearing conference program. Id. at paragraphs 31 and 32; see Rules for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 32A; Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 33. 2. The director of the Court's prehearing conference program has scheduled a prehearing conference for August 9 and 10, 2007 at Little Rock. Appellants have presented LRSD a \"settlement proposal\" which will likely represent their opening position at the prehearing conference. The proposed intervenors believe that the Appellants' settlement proposal should be rejected. See Second Amended Motion to Intervene, paragraph 9 (\"[T]he proposed settlement will create a nightmare for the District\"); paragraph 8 (\"The settlement prop'osed by Mr. Walker would provide Mr. Walker unwarranted contractual leverage over the District);\" paragraph 14 (LRSD's attorney advised the LRSD Board that the \"settlement proposal would unduly bind the District\" and \"likely would violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution .... \"). LRSD has not agreed to Appellants' proposal, however, or decided to do anything more than participate in the Court's prehearing_ conference program. 3. The Intervenors do not provide the Court a sufficient basis to justify the extraordinary use of federal power to prevent opposing parties in litigation from even talking about their differences in an effort to resolve them. The federal 2 - courts have always respected the democratic process and the legitimate auth0rity of local officials. Even in cases involving constitutional violations ( and no illegal acts of any kind are alleged here), federal courts have recognized the importance of returning control to locally elected school officials at the earliest possible time. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 490 (1992) (\"Returning schools to the control of local authorities at the earliest practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability in our governmental system.\") 4. The proposed intervenors want to intervene to ask the Court to dismiss this appeal \"for failure to prosecute or, in the alternative, on mootness grounds.\" Second Amended Motion to Intervene, paragraph 31. Appellants have been ~anted two extensions of time but those have been within the authority of the clerk to grant. Rules for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 37B{a). In a separate response filed today, L~D agrees with Appellants that this appeal should be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the prehearing conference. There has therefore been no sanctionable failure to prosecute this appeal. 5. The question of the viability of the Joshua Intervenors as a class will be addressed by the Appellants. LRSD simply sees no legal impediment to its participation in the Court's prehearing conference program and then, if necessary, - seeking to have the District Court's Order affirmed on the merits of this appeal. 3 6. The proposed intervenors contend that the \"[t]he interests of the District and the community represented by the proposed intervenors cannot be ' served by regular school board elections.\" They argue that \"[t]he ballot box is an inadequate remedy in this case.\" Second Motion to Intervene, paragraph 24. The LRSD Board members are the elected representatives of the people. They are free to exercise all of the authority granted them under Arkansas law. The proposed intervenors do not accuse the Board of having acted illegally or beyond the scope of its authority, but only in a manner which the proposed intervenors consider to be \"contrary to interests of the District.\" There is no reason for this Court to determine who represents the interests of LRSD. The voters have already done ' that. If the proposed intervenors disagree with the legal actions of the LRSD Board of Directors, the ballot box provides not only an adequate remedy, but the only 'remedy. 7. In the absence of an alleged constitutional violation, the exercise of federal jurisdiction to limit or control a school board's legitimate exercise of its statutory authority also offends the right of the State of Arkansas to exercise governmental power through the creation of political subdivisions such as school districts. Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 US 161 (1907); See also, Sailors v. Board of Education, 387 US 105 (1967). 8. The proposed intervenors \"are not entitled to intervene based merely on the belief that their representatives on the School Board are not aggressively 4 defending the instant lawsuit.\" Graham v. Evangeline Parish School Board, 223 F.R.D. 407, 435 (W.D. La. 2004); citing United States v. Franklin Parish School Board, 47 F3d 755, 757 (5th Cir 1995). The proposed intervenors have not overcome the \"presumption that government institutions represent the interests of the public at large.\" Graham v. Evangeline Parish School Board, 223 F.R.D. 407 at 435; citing United States v. Louisiana, 90 F.R.D. 358, 363-364 (E. D. La. 1981). The Second Amended Motion to Intervene should be denied. WHEREFORE, LRSD respectfully requests that the Court deny the Second Amended Motion to Intervene and grant it all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted, Christopher Heller (Ark. Bar #81083) Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Appelle~ ChriSt- ~~ 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 27, 2007, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such fihng to the following: Scott.richardson@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com Jess L.Askew[jaskew@williamsanderson.com] and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Hon. Andree Roaf Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol A venue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 6 - ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .  Educatilfn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org July 31, 2007 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring  One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 LittleRock,AR 72201 RECEIVED Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III AUG -1 2007 OFFICE OF - DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: fer an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of July 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. 1~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott \u0026amp;sb\u0026amp;40P, M2wsx Qeperaj's Ptfiss STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro ., Jim Cooper, Melbourne Dr. Calvin King, Marianna ., Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia  Dr; Ben Mays, Clinton MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED AUG -1 2007 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for July 2007. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on July 31, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: \\ Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 J?:. ti Jq-c_, Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW .r AUG -1 2007 (fRCEOF PLAINTIFFS DESEGREGATIOU MOr.rmruNG DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS  INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions - of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year: 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2007 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation.  1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. 4:82CV00866 WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG -1 2007 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS As discussed, without objection, in the June 27, 2007 telephone conference, the Honorable Andree Roaf is appointed as Director of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Her - annual salary will be $119,000, which will be paid by the parties through the annual ODM budget. Additionally, with no objections having been filed, the ODM's Proposed 2006-2007 ' Budget1 is accepted and effective immediately. Since the Little Rock School District has been declared unitary, it has no obligation with respect to this budget. IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of July, 2007. Isl Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1Doc. No. 41 34, Ex. 1. Case: 4 : 82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 MIME-Version:1.0 From : ecf_support@ared.uscourts . gov To : ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain . essage-Id:\u0026lt;963593@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; w ee: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing . U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 7/31/2007 3:54 PM CDT and filed on 7/31/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf.ared . uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4135 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared .uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?4135,26052,,MAGIC,,,2005709 Docket Text: ORDER, the Honorable Andree Roaf is Appointed as Director of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring . The ODM'S Proposed 2006-2007 Budget is accepted and effective immediately. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr . on 7/31/07 . (dac) 4:82 - cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: a 1ayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@rnbbwi.com 9 hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net , nmoler@kbmlaw.net Christopher J . Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol . com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@rnbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast . net, yeldnef@yahoo . ~om Scott Paris Richardson scott . richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag . gov, patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office .Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610  ames M. Llewellyn , Jr hompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. ost Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 'lliam P . Thompson ompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P .A. ost Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902- 0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction : Document description : Main Document Original filename: n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=7/31/2007] [FileNumber=963592-0] [3c22accd0728a391213cb920e00ab7b73lae8a76e918889d7234b31538af24e74d7955929890362 c0399ab5lfd9facf067fl3f95eaa90381233bl2a05c958c5b]J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. 4:82CV00866 WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. AMENDED ORDER RECEIVED AUG - 2 2007 (ffCEQF rnDllM! IISHRBlllOII IOIITunma PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS As discussed, without objection, in the June 27, 2007 telephone conference, the Honorable Andree Roaf is appointed as Director of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Her - annual salary will be $119,000, which will be paid by the parties through the annual ODM budget. Additionally, with no objections having been filed, the ODM's Proposed 2006-2007 \\ Budget1 is accepted and effective immediately. Since the Little Rock School District has been declared unitary, it has no obligation with respect to future budgets. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2007. Isl Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1Doc. No. 4134, Ex. 1. Case: 4:82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts . gov To:ared_ecf@localhost . localdomain - ~~age-Id: \u0026lt;964503@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; Subject:Activity in Case 4 : 82 - cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al Order Content-Type: text / plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge . To avoid later charges , download a copy of each document during this f i rst viewing.U . S . District Court Eastern District of Arkansas  Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 8 / 1 / 2007 3:33 PM CDT and filed on 8/1/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number: 4 : 82-cv-866 http : //ecf . ared.uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin/ DktRpt . pl?26052 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01 / 26 / 1998 Document Number : 4138 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document : http://ecf . ared.uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin/ show_case_ doc?4138 , 26052 , ,MAGIC,, , 20057l9 Docket Text : AMENDED ORDER since the LRSD has been declared unitary, it has no obligation with respect to future budgets re [4135) Order Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 8/1/07. (dac) 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to : Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com a hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw . net , nmoler@kbmlaw . net - hristopher J . Heller heller@fec . net, brendak@fec . net , tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw . com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail . com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark TerrY'.Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John ,Clayburn Fend l ey, Jr clayfendley@comcast . net, yeldnef@yahoo . com Scott Paris Richardson scott . richardson@arkansasag . gov, agcivil@arkansasag . gov, patsy . dooley@arkansasag.gov 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to : Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General ' s Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building .323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock , AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr A Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. W ?ost Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 18 95 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson ompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. st Office Box 818 rt Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document (s) are as s ociated with this trans action : Document description : Main Document Original filename : n / a Electronic document Stamp : [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=8/l / 2007] [FileNumber=964502-0) [559cf8fcaldbd9b7a 9dc60la8clffd8f9596dfc3b78205332flf93ea5544b2418b9f6189ce49all 87122c48809a7b52ba74dff4edfe772albbf7e20cb05ad9le)] \\ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4140 Filed 08/30/2007 Page1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ir--- FILED  U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN OISTRICT ARKANSAS  AUG 3 O 2007 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Cowt's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Dep;ll'tment of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project  Management Tool for August 2007. \\ 1~1- General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 RECEIVED AUG 3 O 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ''\"\";\"1'\"' ,;' ., Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4140 Filed 08/30/2007 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on August 30, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Marlc Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes. Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-151 0 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M.SamuelJones,ill Mitchell, Williams,. Selig,. Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201. J~~ C Smith I  Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 3:59 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 8/30/2007 at 4:59 PM CDT and filed on 8/30/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski.Cty School, et al . Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas Department.of Education WARNING~ CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number:-4140 Docket Text: NOTICE Of Filing AD E's Project Management. Tool for August 2007 by Arkansas-Department of Education (available in paper format only). (mkf) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to:_ Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec .net, tmiller@fec .net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, 1orap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin 8/3 1/2007 NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated. with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date=8/30/2007] [FileNumber=986709-0] [638fbf95750fdb2bcc38d438al 759982e6393219filca65cfc6afbfedl 6b241432el 9 4ccf6c1097234311a6eab7650d2f8c784aed51ed8blcdlae3ed31fac7cel]] 8/31/2007 Page 2 of2    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.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"}],"pages":{"current_page":6,"next_page":7,"prev_page":5,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":60,"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}}]}}