{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1761","title":"Court filings concerning Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Rezoning of Schools in the Sherwood Area of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion for extended time to file responses, and a situation involving a child in the Little Rock School District.","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":["2004-01/2004-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School districts","Little Rock School District","High schools","Sylvan Hills High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Joshua intervenors","School enrollment","School integration","Students","Parents","Teachers","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Rezoning of Schools in the Sherwood Area of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion for extended time to file responses, and a situation involving a child in the Little Rock School District."],"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/1761"],"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":["60 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, joint stipulation; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Rezoning of Schools in the Sherwood Area of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time in which to file reply and response to cross-appeal; District Court, motion; District Court, order; a situation involving a child of the Little Rock School District.    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JOINT STIPULATION RECEIVED JAN G 200~ OFFIC~ OF DESEGREGA110N MON\\10R\\NG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS On December 23, 2003, the Pulaski County Special School District No. I (PCSSD) filed a motion seeking court approval for \"two temporary portable buildings at Sylvan Hills High School.\" The Joshua Intervenors, having been sufficiently informed regarding capacity figures, school assignments, transfer practices, and the racial balance at Sylvan Hills High School which now exceeds 40% African American students, and the PCSSD seek prompt approval of the motion because of exigent necessity for the requested additional school facilities. These two parties hereby stipulate that the PCSSD request is meritorious and that it will not otherwise undermine existing desegregation and education obligations of the PCSSD. WHEREFORE, these parties respectfully request that the Court approve the PCS SD motion. M:,,Samuel Jones, III,,AR Bar No. 76060 Respectfully s~_pmitted,, / . C. ---,X'f-_/ ..  , \u0026lt;- \u0026lt;.:..-., I~ ~: / .:..' X,::. u ?'\\....A..,,..._. v I .. L---' v l-'-- '-  r( _,t__ _ Jo}:in W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 / l_ .. / WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 371-0808 (501) 376-9442 (Fax) Attorney for the Pulaski County Special Special School District JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Attorney for Joshua lntervenors CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On January 7, 2004, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall QOM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 249234-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samu~I Jones Ill ( / -  -,_____ _/ 2 r~~ THE L~lITED STATES D1STPJ:CT C01JRT T\"' , _.._,..._\",T ~.--_..,....,..,-.._ \"..-, J _,.r' .\": -...'I'(\" t \u0026lt;\"' ,.t\\..::\u0026gt; .l L.l'\\.l 'I v.1..:, .l ~'--.l vr .a~\"\"r\\..::, i..iTTi.E ROCK DiV1SiQ7; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LO!H'NE JOSHUA, ET AL. Ki~\"'TP...EPJNE Kl\\qIGHT, ET .A .. L. ORDER Fu en ILL-U' 'I c:\" M I CTOl(\"\"T r.()URT eASTEi:tN 01s'rR1c, ARKANSAS JAN - 9 200~ 6y ---------;:;;c\"Ecprc~LE\"'RR,\u0026lt; PLAiNT.iFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Pending is Puiaski County Special Schooi District's Motion for Two Temporary Portable Building at Sylvan Hills School (Doc. No. 3826). No parties have Objected to the t'CSSD's motion, and their time for doing so has now expired. ln its motion, PCSSIJ requests authorization to lease two portable bmldings for the second semester and for the 2004-2005 school year at Sylvan .Hills High School. due to the unexpected increase m enrollment ct,:u-ing the current school year. PCSSD and the Joshua lntervenors have stipulated (Doc. !'To . 3828) that the request is meritorious a.~d ,.vill not underrr1ine eristing A t\"-,...,.. _ _ ,., ...__._: ,,.. _ ,.._,..J ...,,.:: ,,,..,.. .., ; __ .,.. t..1 ; __ ._ :...., _ .... ,,.. .\u0026amp;'-1., - D/'\"\"-C\"C,~ '-\"'--.:,\"-'!'S\"\"\"!S\"'UUJ.J. a.u.u. .... uu.\\..a\\.J.UJ.L UUHl!!::,aUU.iL,=:, U.L UJ.C ),. \\...,..JLH . ./. Because no parties have objected to the motion and based on the stipulation between PCSSD and the Joshua intervenors. the PCSSD's Motion for Two Temporary Portabie Building at Sylvan Hills School is GRANTED. .,......_ IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of January, 2004. , / / -~J~ . It I fl /4 r ~..--- _ ---f If {/f.,,1 / VIA.~ /IV IJ ~ UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT JUDGE WM. R. WILSON. JR. TO: DATE: JTNTTED ~T ATF.~ fl!~'T'R lf'\"f ( ,(ll l R'T' EASTJ!,RN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris .Heller Sam Iones ~teve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier l1 nn tv1'o.-Qho 11 liK ., ..... t,. D-. -. - o +4-.o '- \"' \"''\"\"'-'-A),, J-''\"4.1. AA\"-''-'-\\,,, I__, () I L  ~ -../ Telephone: 501-604-5140 F:ix Nnrnher: S01-604 Sl 49 376-2147 3 76-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 6R2-2591 371-0!00 .\".l, .',~.., 10Af\\ J..  .T V There are 0ages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. -4 /} ,4 ~ . ~ , #' ,~L- -~7~,V-, 'II .~,,- 1 // Ottice of Judge Wm. R. Wi1s9)( Jr. U.S. District Court / 600 West Capitol. RoOI#23 Little Rock, Arkam a\" 72?0) ,~1att ~1orgaJl, LRSD La1vv Clerk: t;\" A'I r l\"\\ A :; \u0026lt;t A 1 JV J VV\"?~ J \"? .( I  I I I I I I I Ill I I I I I I I REZONING OF SCHOOLS IN THE SHERWOOD AREA OF THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor SECOND UPDATE January 14, 2004 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Horace R. Smith Associate Monitor L... L... u u.,. J.  J. ,. WILL BOND cone \u0026amp; ~namcer11n BOND \u0026amp;. CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKS0t14\"Yl~LE, AAiW'iJSAS 72U76 501 J 882 - 9414 p.2 NEIL CHAMBERLIN January 22, 2004 TELEPHONE: (501) 982.9081 FAX: (501) 982-9414 VIA FAX (314)244-2780 Michael E. Gans, Clerk Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 24.329 Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 S. 10~ Street St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 244-2400 RE: United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, Case No. 03-3088 - Motion for Extension Dear Mr. Gans : Attached is a Motion for Extension of Time in the abovereferenced case. Please file and return a file-marked copy to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. TWB:ab Atch(s) cc: Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher Heller John W. Walker P.A. Mark Burnette Stephen Jones Ann Marshall Karla Burnett Tim Gauger With Warmest Regards, Will Bond l.sc.hool district detach.ment.e1ghth circuic.appeal\\clerk.jan.22. 04 uu 11u ac wr1c:1mue r - 1 1 n l!:\u0026gt;Ul I 982 - 9414 m..TITED STATES COURT OF ~-.?PEALS ~OR TE:E XIGHTK CIR~ul~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINT:tFF V. No. 03-3088 PULASKI COO?,.'TY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRXCT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERUm KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, ET AL. APPELLBES INTERVENORS INTERVENOR$ APPELLANTS MOTION POR BXTlfflSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE REPLY AND RESPONSB TO CROSS-APPEAL Come the Appellants , the proposed Bollen Intervenors, by and through their attorney, Will Bond, and for their Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Their Reply Brief and Response to Cross-Appeal, state: 1. On or about December 23, 2003, Appellees filed a Response and Cross-Appeal to Appellants Brie. Appellant's Reply and Response are due January 22, 2004. 2. An extension of time in which to file Appellants' Reply and Response to Cross-Appeal is necessitated because: (a) Appellants' counsel, Will Bond, is a State Representative elected to represent the City of Jacksonville, Arkansas in the Arkansas House of Representatives. The Arkansas General Assembly is currently in special session. The special session began on December 8, 2003 and is still ongoing. It is the longest special session in history. Appellants' counsel has p.3 ouria.,. 1.,namcer11n l~Ul J ::H:lc - ::1414 been the lead sponsor on legiBlation during the session and nas been unable to complete the Reply and Response Brief. 3 . Although the Reply and Response will be very short, Mr. Bond requests an additional eight (8) days in which to file his brief. This would make the brief due on January 30, 2004 . Respectfully Submitted, Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin Trial Lawyers 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Telephone (501) 902-9081 Telefax (501) 982-94i4 By: Will Bond ~.R Bar 95145 CERTIFICATE OP SERVICE r. Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing plea.ding by tJnit:ed States Mail I add.reseed to such attorney or party with suffici~l}.t prepaid postage to ensure rirst-class delivery this ,.Q.;2.fiiciay of January, 2004: Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste. 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Telephone (501)371-0808 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock. AR 72201 Telephone 376-2011 Via Fax@ 376-9442 Via Fax@ 682-4249 Via Fax@ 376-2147 2 ...,c:311 L..L.. L..UV\"'T J,.V  J.\"'T cone \u0026amp; Lnamoer11n John W. Walker P.A. 1723 S . Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Telephone {501)374-3758 (501) 982-9414 Via Fa..'X @ 374-4187 Mr. Mark Burnette Via Fax@ 375-1940 Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 378-7870 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P .A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring , n.,,.;,.....,.., 1\\T::iti ...... ,..,::,l Pl;1za 124 w. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Little Reck, ]).R 72201 Telephone 340-8285 Ti~ Gauger Senior Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201- 2610 Telephone 692-2586 By: Via Fax@ 375- 1027 Via Fax@ 3 7 1 -0100 Via Fax \u0026amp; 340- 8282 Via Fax \u0026amp; 682 - 2591 Will Bond, AR Bar 95145 l.  chool di  trict det  chmnt . eigh~b circuit.appeal . .mo tion Lor exceru;ion.jan.22.04 3 p.S ...,-  ._._ ._.....,....., I .L U .L \"'T oursu\"' L.namoer11n lb: Ann Marshall From: Win Bond Fax: 371-0100 Pag- Including Coversheet 5 Dair. Jaooary 22. 2004 Re: Littte Roel\u0026lt; School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. The informatton contained In this tu nnsrnttal Is confldentlal attomey-dlent privileged information and Is iranded solely tor the uee of the lndlvldual or entity named as recipient. If this inauase its received by -one other than the :rn..r~ TiClpief'K, you are prohiblied from I ny dillumlnatioll, dielribution or copying d this communication eXC9PI to the add,.._ If this communication ha9 been nte8Mld by you In error, or If you arc not s1on1 al It. intend.d dilltrtbutlon, please notify lhe a~ced office at 1-aBa-2A5-1ffl. p. 1 . ,',--.- RECE\\\\JED FE.B :- l\\ 2004   :- \". .;  ' OFflCEOF .. ;,:  . OiSEGREGAl\\ON MOtUlOR\\MG : . ~::'\u0026gt;\u0026gt; -_. ,. .. . . .~ .... IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MOTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT The court has entered an order limiting the Joshua Intervenors' counsel with respect to monitoring activities. Although the court's order is on appeal, counsel has sought to abide by the letter and spirit of the court's order. Counsel, however, brings to the court's attention an egregious situation involving a child of the Little Rock School District, who elected to attend a PCS SD school Clinton Elementary, with a request that the court assign the matter for inquiry and report to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. ( see Enclosure) Respectfully submitted, Jqhn W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway _ Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187(fax) J 0119,w . walker  I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing pleading has been served on all counsel of record on this 3rd day of February 2004 by placing copy in the United States mail postage prepaid. '!Ti Lj son., , Lee. ......I.., _ _ -J 01 _..o , o r_ \" TH+r i _u . :i o.,.. . s+ -u. olQ__.~,... ct ,.. ,c t_,~ rr l ____ \\_T\\ .. , 1' Y'iu q v-u...,.t I:. le..n\"- . Lee.. 1 .$ Lo U e- Q .tt_/ ~ ccni ... J ~ - \\.). t , 1..ul I I j  . J he, 1 s i n + h.s;., I' 1 ~ r a de_ . L1 l'L Fe h -- 1.J c. ,~_l:j J.., 1 .;:z L'G ~ Lee.s ie o c. he. r 5 en+ I-LUY\\. J1ome --l'=rum St \\rioo C  LL, , 'f h '-I\", c, S h:::,e s l)n. h..t. s -f-e e i: . +I er h c, n1 e I s {Y'\\ rs En\", s. On Feb ;J., 1 i. Luo s ~Lu n, n5 c-\"':'d C1 I S O + /,e., -it. rr, { l t. \"IC, 'tLVt..L LU Q S 30 . ft C) o-\\ u -FT l4 }, , s b u s eel -10~ 1o... mo, r o c_ CV.d Luc, \\ k_a cl .t,. ~ unu d, G ih 'fron r u c'.- +o ,;!(,;r\"'- V cu, e, u r -c n Lu NY\\ I S o w =\u0026lt;j S ore h e.- 10 cv::i f\\ c-d j-Qt e d ,.,J.!f J,.,v) ~ ,., 1,J ..__. li., R..Luu1,..__,c.,; h,V) ,nus e k 10t_n R.-LlfUo_; ~q L , , .,, \" \u0026lt;' f-,, ,. ,., ., A _.,  -.. .J1 1 ~, ~ 1 r U v\\.....,/u:_, ,.J , ) 1 c._ t'\\....L, '9 1 .. CJ,..'i..,l.J'--q Cu,~ h..t I:_ u1.tl dJ\"-T '1'Yll, v e.. h , s +e ct , rv e u1-,JJ cr1 P:icvv L~fJ Io, I K, J__ c_ u i L, cl ;' Fm S Cu1d ~'-) c Qnu__ +c, ~ r-ic 17v__, GLn d i: I\\.., ct_,l_.,, d cf- e. e. -i-o, d ~ . 171 e rns ice, s +r ':\\ \"'j -lo , b r , 'j :i)rn e., htQ:.t bacK I ruo 1--v, s 6~. J_ c,, i so ccruuctrd ~ L. Po V ~ -e... ,j e() t ~ -tu:, K. o  efo rt Cl.rd cl-10/1.1: d Truv:i :-r-Jn \\ s Lui -+k__ E ndan3-e (r, +1-u___ Lue\\ fo.r -e.,, o-f Cl ~Or(.  L lt\u0026lt;) o tor1...:i uc 't-e. d Sn-e I loo OU u. -u;---,. e,_, p t b' u;-,t- ~ - -, d cn~t- 1 ru__y 1yj CLA'l... t: to --t-a k...t__ ~--L ~ e..ro rt - j h ; S 1 S th_ -e_ kJo r- s t . ')~ of' . nuj L 1 fe., buc,.,u~ i T , S e e m._,s ,L : k.t., no o ~ l\u0026lt;.)a.rul: s +o do Q ~-lkc.,~ cu00Lct -th.vi . Cu-u.fuzl -ij ou er-eq S G .De--e c:...-t m-c -+o Som e 00.Ju who C.etf -r .s Q o Lct Lc) h.cL;t ~ o__,p_p-e1u1 cl +o n~ '5 i. x ...t.~UV\\__; o 1 cl o t\\. Fe 6 {)., _ :1 co ~ . RECEIVED FEB 1 o 2004 - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FEB -6 1004 CORMACK, CLERK JAMES W  Mc oEP cLERK .B'f PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In their motion filed February 3, 2004 (Doc. No. 3832), Joshua Intervenors assert that \" [t]he court has entered an order limiting the Joshua Intervenors' counsel with respect to monitoring activities.\" I have no idea what order Joshua Intervenors are referring to. I do not believe that I have entered an order that would, in anyway, limit Joshua Intervenors' counsel's duty to represent his clients, or to take appropriate steps to address the \"egregious situation\" alleged in the February 3 motion. To the contrary, I would expect counsel to \"do the necessary\" with respect to clients. Accordingly, Joshua Intervenors' Motion (Doc. No. 3832) is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED this ~ay ofFebruary, 2004. WM. R . WILSON, JR. Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 de Case: 4:82-cv-00866    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_1746","title":"Includes corrected order, notice of filings, brief of appellant and appendix, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for enlargement of time to file appellee's brief, ADE project management tool, report by Office of Desegregation Management, and PCSSD motion for two temporary portable buildings at Sylvan Hills School.","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":["2003-11/2003-12"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","High schools","Sylvan Hills High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Magnet schools","Education--Finance","School enrollment","School integration","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Includes corrected order, notice of filings, brief of appellant and appendix, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for enlargement of time to file appellee's brief, ADE project management tool, report by Office of Desegregation Management, and PCSSD motion for two temporary portable buildings at Sylvan Hills School."],"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/1746"],"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":["176 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\u003eDistrict Court, corrected order; Court of Appeals, notice of filing, brief of appellant and appendix; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for enlargement of time to file appellee's brief; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2003-04 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for two temporary portable buildings at Sylvan Hills School; Court of Appeals, notice of filing, joint brief of appellee/cross-appellant and separate appendix; 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.    FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT co~rtNg',if~1ifil~~SAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION NOV  3 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR - PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. CORRECTED ORDER JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By:_, ____ -=--~== PLAfN'fml( DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS lNTERVENORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools ' final budget for rhe 2002-2003 school year and proposed - budget for the 2003-2004 school year. The MRC communicated the budget to the Court in a letter dated July 31 , 2003 (attached). I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond withi~ five days; otherwise, the MR.C's final budget for the 2002-2003 school year and proposed 2003-2004 budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day ofNovember, 2003. -w1,.... oocu1v1c:.1\" i r::.,'I' c:.,--.c ... ~ ,,;~ I n,;, p  ~'C - E~T 1  -.; COiv1 ... :,-.,~ '- 00CKET SH c:. 1 ' . -  - .NIT~ULE 58 AND/0~- 0NJJ--?j., BY UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT JUDGE WM. R. WILSON, JR. WILL BOND NEIL CHAMBERLIN VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 November 5, 2003 Michael E. Gans, Clerk Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 24.329 Thomas F . Eagleton U.S. Courthouse lll S. 10~ Street St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 244-2400 RECEIVED NOV 1 0 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING TELEPHONE: (501 ) 982-9081 FAX: (501 ) 982-9414 RE: United States Court of Appeals for the 8t h Circuit, Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. l, et al. , Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Katherine Knight, et al., Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker, Case No. 03-3088 - Brief and Appendix Dear Mr. Gans: Enclosed is an original and eleven copies of Appellants' Brief and an original and three copies of Appellants' Appendix for filing in the above-referenced case. The Addendum on Appellants' Brief is in excess of 15 pages. This is a unique case in which the Judge essentially made his ruling from the bench. I have included the transcript of the Judge's ruling in the Addendum as instructed by your office. After the Brief and Appendix is filed, please forward filemarked copies back to me . I have included a large envelope with postage for your convenience. If you have any questions or concerns , please do not hesitate to contact me. By copy of this letter I have forwarded counsel for all parties involved in the litigation at the lower court copies of the Brief and Appendix. I have also forwarded a copy to the local district judge. Regards, TWB:tt Michael E. Gans November 5, 2003 Page Two cc: Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher Heller John W. Walker P.A. Mark Burnette Stephen Jones Ann Marshall Tim Gauger Judge William Wilson I i le I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I le I I RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 03-3088 GREG BOLLEN, et al. Appellants v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Appellee . Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., District Judge BRIEF OF APPELLANT Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin  602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 AR Bar #95145 Attorney for Appellants NOV 1 O 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING I - I I I -I I 1e I I I I I I -  II RECEIVED NOV 1 0 2003 OFFICE OF IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DESEGREGATION MONITORING FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 03-3088 GREG BOLLEN, et al. Appellants V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, J.r., District Judge APPENDIX Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin  602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 AR Bar #95145 Attorney for Appellants u.fl~~l?RT EASTEAN CIS'fA!Oi ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO1URT NOV 1 0 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LfITLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W McCOAMACK, CL.ERK By: -------,=E=P.\"\"\"C..,...,LE\"\"R-K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV0086.6 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is Pulaski County Special School District's fee petiti,c\u0026gt;n (Doc. No. 3804). The Arkansas Department of Education has responded (Doc. No. 3814) ai1d the PCS SD has replied (Doc. No. 3816). In its fee petition PCS SD seeks a total fee award of $78,32650, an amount which includes attorney time expended both in this action and a related state court action. Additionally, the attorney time is billed at counsel's standard hourly rate, rather than the lower hourly rate counsel charges its client, the PCSSD; therefore ~e PCSSD's fee petition will be reduced for the following reasons: 1) C.ounsel for PCS SD seeks compensation from the ADE at $215 per hour, his standard hourly rate. However, counsel nonnally bills PCSSD at an hourly rate of $150. Therefore, $150 an hour is the rate which will be used to detennine compensation owed by the ADE in the current action. 2) Total compensation will include only time spent on the federal issues. Time spent on matters related to the state court proceeding is not closely enough related to this award of attorney's fee. 3) Because work performed by counsel in March 2001 and AJpril 2002, were not necessary to present the PCSSD's Motion to Enforce, and was work that would have nonnally been perfoIIDed for PCSSD, counsel is not entitled to compensation from the ADE for those hours. 4) PCS SD requests payment for time spent addressing appellate issues following the August 18, 2003 hearing. This request is premature and will not be i;(lcluded in the total compensation. 5) A total of five hours will be allowed for preparation of PCSSD's fee petition . . With the limitations established above, the award here breaks down as follows: 'lli,te Perfonned May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August2003 September 2003 Total Total Amoynt 5,715 .00 10,667.50 18,835.50 9,152.50 750.00 $44,820.50 Upon review of both PCSSD's fee petition and the ADE's response, and based on my findings of fact and conclusions of law, counsel for the PCSSD is entitled to compensation from the ADE in the amount of $44,820.50 . .IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of November, 2003 u)'! ,~./l.llhA1, f'r UNITED STA TES DISTRICT JUDGE WM. R. WILSON, JR. TO: DATE: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette //- /O,D3 Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 There are .3 pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: ~ U.S. District Court 600 Wes1 Capitol, Room 423 Little Ro,;k, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGIITH cmcUIT GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY and SUE ANN WHISKER V. CASE NO. 03-3088 CASE NO. 03-3404 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PCSSD MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE APPELLEE'S BRIEF RECEIVED DEC -1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING APPELLANTS APPELLEE Appellant's opening brief was originally due on October 15, 2003 . Appellants obtained an enlargement of time until and including November 6, 2003, to file their opening brief. The PCS SD requests an equivalent period of time until and including December 23, 2003, within which to file its opening Appellee's brief. The PCSSD brief is currently due on or about December 6, 2003. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an enlargement of time until and including December 23, 2003, within which to file its appellee 's brief. 463029-v1 Respectfully submitted WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On November 26, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following : Mr. Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Senior Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 442823-v1 2 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 TOM COURTWAY Interim Director State Board of Education JoNell Caldwell, Chair Little Rock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Luke Gordy Van Buren Calvin King Marianna Randy Lawson B- ville MaryJane Rebick Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capito/Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 December 2, 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us ~1ECEIVED DEC - :1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. s~; o.JA ~smt? General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al 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 November 2003. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, # Attorney, 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 2, 2003, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 .. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENEJOSHUA, ETAL INTERVENOR$ KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL 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 November 30, 2003 Based on the information available at October 31, 2003, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I  II ~ ~ --- -- ' - ' ' I I I r I 01- ..:;;__, 1 G  \"'3 L ,._ ...; 2003-04 ENROLLMENT AND RACIAL BALANdf:~~cc, ,, . ., . ~:-~ cu~::;, ,. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DIST~-~-~ .r. Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor December 16, 2003 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Polly Ramer Office Manager L.~ ,-' C.:lL. ~ RECEIVED RECEIVED OEC 2 6 2003 DEC 2 6 2003 OESEGREGr{iW~ ~~1mORIHG IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OFFICE OF EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 MOTION FOR TWO TEMPORARY PORTABLE BUILDINGS AT SYLVAN HILLS SCHOOL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. On December 16, 2003, the ODM issued its annual report concerning enrollment and racial balance in the PCSSD. At pages 5 and 16 of the report, the ODM concludes that Sylvan Hills High School is currently operating at 103% capacity. It should be noted that this capacity reflects the District's recalculation of building capacities for the 2003-2004 school year. (ODM Report, p. 5). 2. The ODM report simply confirms a problem with which the PCSSD has struggled with thus far during the first semester. It is short at least two classrooms at Sylvan Hills High School. 3. The purpose of this motion is to seek an order of this Court approving the acquisition and use of two portable buildings for the second semester at Sylvan Hills High School. As a practical matter, the PCSSD must seek approval to utilize those _ ___ ,p. ortable buildings for the 2004-2005 schoo ear since it is highly unlikel.J-----\"-'-th...a,,,..._,,,_,_.__ _____ 468157-v1 - informed judgment can be made regarding permanent additions at the Sylvan Hills campus this year. 4. The use of these portable buildings will not have negative racial balance consequences. As the ODM report notes at page 9: \"Sylvan Hills High, which once had an enrollment less than 20% African-American, has been within the target range for the last 14 years.\" 5. The Sylvan Hills High School enrollment over time is depicted at page C-9 of the current ODM report. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an Order of this Court authorizing it to install and utilize two portable buildings for classroom instruction at Sylvan Hills High School beginning with the second semester and continuing through the 2004-2005 - school year, and for all proper relief. 468157-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By __ ....::._---l1----......,..-t--::-;__ ______ _ 2 0) nty Special ct CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December 23, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via facsimile and U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895  Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 468157-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 EDWARD L. WRIGHT ( 1903-197'7 ) ROBERT S . LINDSEY ( 191 3- 1991 ) ISAAC A . SCOTT, JR . JOHN G. LILE GORDON S . RATHER , JR. ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD . JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLEST . COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JON ES BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN JOHN D. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY \\VRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R . LINDSEY JAMES R . VAN DOVER Wri ter 's Direct Dial No . 501-212-1273 mjoncs@wlj .com . December 23, 2003 KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. CO X. JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK 0 . WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING MARY ELIZABETH ELDRIDGE BLAKE S. RUTHERFORD PAUL D. MORRIS Lk~ w pnctio:: bdff I Uaitoi Suter PMl1:DI ~nd Tndt:twrk Ollie,: RECEIVED VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DEC 2 R 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORlNG Mr. Michael Gans, Clerk of the Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Court House Room 24.329 111 S. 10th Street St. Louis, Missouri 63102 RE: 03-3088/03-3404 Greg Bollen, et al. v. Pulaski County Special School District Dear Michael: I have enclosed the original and 11 copies of the Joint Brief of Appellee/Cross-Appellant and Joshua Intervenors together with the original and four copies of Separate.Appendix in this matter. Please file the brief and appendix and return file-stamped copies to me in the enclosed envelope. I have also enclosed a diskette containing the brief in Acrobat format. By copy of this letter, I am serving two copies of the brief and appendix, along with a diskette, on counsel for appellants. If you have questions or comments, please contact me. MSJ:ao Enclosures 459324-vl Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP Cf- WRIGHT , LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP December 22, 2003 - Page2 cc/w/encls.: Mr. Will Bond (2 copies with diskette) Mr. Scott Smith (1 copy w/o diskette) 459324-vl Mr. Christopher Heller (1 copy w/o diskette) Mr. John W. Walker ( 1 copy w / o diskette) Mr. Mark Burnette (1 copy w/o diskette) Mr. Stephen Jones ( 1 copy w / o diskette) Ms. Ann Marshall (1 copy w/o diskette) Mr. Tim Gauger (1 copy w/o diskette) Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.(1 copy w/o diskette) NO. 03-3088/03-3404 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS -, FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT GREG BOLLEN, et al. V, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLANTS APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT On Appeal From The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. Presiding Judge JOINT BRIEF OF APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT AND JOSHUAJNTERVENORS John Walker John \\Valker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 Attorney for Joshua Intervenors 4593',4 VI M. Samuel Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District -... I I I NO. 03-3088/03-3404 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT GREG BOLLEN, et al. APPELLANTS I V. I I I  I I I I I I I ' I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway On Appeal From The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. Presiding Judge SEPARATE APPENDIX OF APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT AND JOSHUAINTERVENORS M. Samuel Jones, III Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Attorney for Joshua Intervenors 467883-vl Attorneys for Pulaski County Special SchoolDistrict fOM COURTWAY [nterim Director ;;tale Board of Education loNell Caldwell, Chair ~ittle Rock :ihclby Hillman, Vice Chair '.:arlisle Sherry Burrow Tonesboro Luke Gordy Van Buren '.:alvin King 14arian11a ~andy Lawson 3en ue vfary e Rebick 'ine Bluff eanna Westmoreland lrkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Liitle Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 December 30, 2003 Mr.M. SaniuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us RECEIVED ~ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG RECEIVED Jt\\i~ 0 2 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I ani filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of December 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. -\u0026amp;::~~/.~ ~ Gener:;tl Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al 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 December 2003. Respectfully Submitted, ~A~ sCIIlith, #922 Attorney, 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 30, 2003, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, 2201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS 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 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 AD E'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 December 31 , 2003 Based on the information available at November 30, 2003, the ADE calculated ihetqualization Funding for FY,03/04,' subject to penodic adjustments: B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    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_1748","title":"Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to report by the Office of Desegregation Management, PCSSD's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and filing extension, PCSSD's response to court's order dated October 16, 2003, 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. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","High schools","Sylvan Hills High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School enrollment","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to report by the Office of Desegregation Management, PCSSD's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and filing extension, PCSSD's response to court's order dated October 16, 2003, 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/1748"],"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":["51 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, notice of filing, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to report issued by the Office of Desegregation Management on the implementation of Plan 2000; District Court, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for an award of attorneys' fees; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief and reply to response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for an award of attorneys' fees; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time in which to file their brief and appendix; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to the court's order dated October 16, 2003; 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.    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. NOTICE OF FILING RECEIVED OCT 2 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD hereby gives notice of its filing of its response to Office of Desegregation Monitoring Report dated May 8, 2003. 451168-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 1, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 451168-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT September 29, 2003 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann: 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 - Enclosed is Pulaski County Special School District's reply to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring Report on the Implementation of Plan 2000, May 8, 2003. Department heads and others with responsibilities to the Plan have submitted responses to the status report in consultation with the Office of Equity and Pupil Services. If you have any questions please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, w~ Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services B /l-1.-....t-  16~)-.a.-o-- Dr. Brenda Bowles, Director of Equity and Multicultural Education C Dr. Don Henderson, Superintendent of Education Sam Jones RESPONSE TO REPORT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN 2000 RECEIVED OCT 2 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dr. Don Henderson Superintendent of Education September 2003 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE RECEIVED OC1 7 1003 Off\\CE Of DESEGREGAllOK MOtll10ft1KG Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar. us October 6, 2003 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the Arkansas Department of Education's Response to PCSSD's Motion for Attorneys ' Fees which has been filed today. MAH Enclosure cc: Mr. Scott Smith Very truly yours, --yri~-~ MARK A. HAGEMEIER Assistant Attorney General / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. RECEIVED OCT 7 2003 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR AN AW ARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES Comes now the Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\"), by and through its counsel, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier, and for its response to PCSSD's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees (\"Fee Petition\"), states as follows: I. Introduction Legal counsel for PCSSD seeks a total fee award of $78,326.50 for work allegedly associated with its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and For Allied Relief (\"Motion to Enforce\") filed with this Court on July 25, 2003. On August 18, 2003, this Court conducted a three-hour hearing on issues raised in the Motion to Enforce, and later that same day it issued an order ruling that the State Board of Education's (\"SBE\") action authorizing an election on the issue of detachment of the Jacksonville Area School System from PCS SD violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. For the reasons stated below, ADE submits the fee petition of PCSSD is unreasonable and should be reduced accordingly. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT - 9 2003 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ -=:,-=,-- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHQA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED () e,t, 1 '1 ?nn~ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is Pulaski County Special School District's Renewed and Supplemental Motion - Regarding Sylvan Hills Band Room (Doc. No. 3809), which was amended on September 26, 2003. 1 Also Pending is PCSSD's Motion for Temporary Portable Buildings at Robinson High School (Doc. No. 3810). No parties have responded to the PCSSD's motions, and their time for doing so has now expired.2 Sylvan Hills' Band Room In its motion regarding the Sylvan Hills Band Room, PCSSD requests authorization to lease a portable building to use as the Sylvan Hills band room for the remainder of the 2003-2004 1On September 26, 2003, PCSSD filed an Amended and Supplemental Motion Regarding the Sylvan Hills Band Room (Doc. No. 3811). In this motion, PCCSD revoked its request for permission to build a new permanent band room at Sylvan Hills, which was in the original motion (Doc. No. 3809); accordingly, I will not address the issue of a permanent band room at this time. 2See Local Rule 7.2. oEP CLERK 8 1 5 school year. PCS SD asserts that this portable building is necessary because of recurring water problems with Sylvan Hills' current band room. Robinson High School Portable Buildings According to PCCSD, for a variety ofreasons, the emollment at Robinson High School has significantly increased for the 2003-2004 school year. Because ofthis increase, Robinson -High School is presently conducting classes in the cafeteria, band room, auditorium, and gymnasium. As a temporary remedy to accommodate this increased emollment, while permanent classroom additions are considered, the PCSSD requests permission to lease two portable building for the remainder of the 2003-2004 school year. CONCLUSION The PCSSD's Amended and Supplemental Motion Regarding the Sylvan Hills Band Room (Doc. No. 38011) requesting permission to lease a portable building for the Sylvan Hills band room, for the remainder of the 2003-2004, school year is GRANTED. The PCSSD's motion (Doc. No. 3810) requesting permission to lease two portable buildings, for the remainder of the 2003-2004 school year, to accommodate increased emollment at Robinson High School is GRANTED. IT JS SO ORDERED thi/day of October, 2003. I ;;/J, 0 ~ 4tt UNIJL~J~~ THIS DOCUMENT El\\ffER!::u ui'-J DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WIT~1LE...;)8 AN~cr . ON{O ~ 0~ BY S\u0026gt; \u0026amp;- WM. R. WTLSON, JR. 2 __ EDWti:~t,i,ll'.,f1G.HL ______ -4.,.,-R-I6H-T-;-J:;-JN-1:\u0026gt;-S-EY--\u0026amp;-J-E-N-N-I-N6S- J:;-J:;-P------ ~~~BfR2U~~~ TUCKER ROBERTS. LINDSEY TROY A. PRICE (1913 - 1991 ) ATTORNEYS AT LAW PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . KATHRYN A. PRYOR JOHN G. LILE 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE J . MARK DAVIS ~g~~~~ -SG~~~~~! JR . SUITE 2300 ~~t:~\\,5,H~:NsN~~~COCK C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR . LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201-3699 JERRY J. SALLINGS PATRICK l. GOSS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON ALSTON JENNINGS , JR . (501) 371-0808 MICHAEL D. BARNES JOHN R. TISDALE STEPHEN R. LANCASTER ~~~~'..Ytfe~~~~:~ 111 FAX (501) 376-9442 ~uy~1 ~~~~CsooNN WILBER ~i~NJ.W~tilt:1o~IVEY 111 www . wlj .com iRis~~ ~~i::-::o~N N.M . NORTON J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY CHARLES C. PRICE M. SEAN HATCH CHARLES T. COLEMAN l. ANDREW VINES JAMES l. GLOVER OF COUNSEL JUSTIN T, ALLEN ~~~~~i/t:~HER, JR. ALSTON JENNINGS ~~g~;':.L;D~E!A1i_~~ERLING GREGORY T. JONES RONALD A. MA y PATRICK D. WILSON H. KEITH MORRISON BRUCE R. LINDSEY REGINA A. SPAULDING BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN JAMES R. VAN DOVER MARY ELIZABETH ELDRIDGE WALTER McSPADDEN BLAKES. RUTHERFORD JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Wri1cr ' s Dircc1 Di al No . 501 -212-1273 mjoncs@wlj .com October 10, 2003  LioetlJlod,opncticebehretbt: UaitedSUta h1t:111ADIIT111doswtO/lia RECEIVED OCT 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed is a courtesy copy of the PCSSD's brief and reply to response to PCSSD's motion for an Award of attorneys' fees. The reply is accompanied by my supplemental affidavit. We ask the Court to consider both items. Thank you very much. MSJ:ao Encl. cc/w/encl.: 453145-vl Cordially yours, 2:~EY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP e_:;mre/ones, m Honorable J. Thomas Ray (via hand delivery) Mr. Timothy Gauger (U.S. Mail) All Counsel of Record (U.S. Mail) RECEIVED ---- .1-------------------------lJOlv-C.\\l--.1i._::,4;__,7u,Dn..,u..3,.'---- 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. 0FFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S BRIEF AND REPLY TO RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR AN AW ARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES The PCSSD for its reply, which tracks the format of the State's Response, states: IV. Argument A. An Hourly Rate at $215 Per Hour is Appropriate. While counsel for the PCSSD voluntarily grants the PCSSD a 30 % discount, the State is not entitled to the same discount for violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The State's only current financial consequence for violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement is its exposure for attorney's fees. Indeed, if the State could be assured that future violations would warrant no more exposure than the discounted rate given to the PCS SD, then the State would have even less incentive to hew the line and abide by the Settlement Agreement. B. The Number of Hours Expended is Reasonable. Significantly, the State does not directly challenge the total number of hours expended. Rather, it seeks to avoid attorney fee responsibility in some instances by questioning, without citation to authority, the forums before whom the legal efforts were initially made. As we will explain, the relevant cases demonstrate the fallacy of the State's position. 452284-v1 The United States Supreme Court has squarely addressed these issues in Pennsylvania, et al. v. Delaware Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air, et al., 478 U.S. 546 (1986). In 1977 a citizens group, Delaware Valley, filed suit to compel Pennsylvania to implement a vehicle emission inspection program. A consent decree was entered in 1978 calling for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to seek legislation instituting the program. Id. @ 549. Thereafter, the Pennsylvania legislature balked at implementing the provisions of the consent decree. In this protracted case, the Supreme Court divided the procedural history after the consent decree thereafter into nine phases. For purposes of this analysis, only the relevant phases will be referred to. Phase IX of the case included work done by Delaware Valley in hearings before the Environmental Protection Agency in which the State unsuccessfully sought the EPA approval of a reduced emissions program. Delaware Valley then filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs for all work performed after issuance of the consent decree including the work before the administrative agency. Id. @ 553. Among other matters, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had affirmed the District Court's fee award including an award of fees for time spent \"commenting\" on the State's proposed emission regulations promulgated during Phase II. It likewise approved the award of fees for work done at the administrative level citing the Supreme Court case of Webb v. Board of Education of Dyer County, 4 71 U.S. 234 ( 1985), in which the Supreme Court held that time spent on \"optional administrative proceedings\" may be compensable under  1988 if the work was \"both useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to advance the ... litigation\" to the point where the parties succeeded. Id. @ 556. 452284-v1 2 -- - - --- ------------- The Supreme Court rejected challenges from the State that the proceedings involved in Phases II and IX were not judicial in the sense that they did not occur in a courtroom or involved traditional legal work. The Supreme Court reasoned that the work done by counsel in these two phases was as necessary to the attainment of adequate relief for their client as was all of their earlier work in the courtroom which secured Delaware Valley's initial success in obtaining the consent decree. Id. @ 558. It said: Protection of the full scope of relief afforded by the consent decree was thus crucial to safeguard the interests asserted by Delaware Valley; and enforcement of the decree, whether in the courtroom before a judge, or in front of a regulatory agency with power to modify the substance of the program ordered by the court, involved the type of work which is properly compensable as a cost of litigation ... . Id. @ 558. Finally, the Court observed that: Several courts have held that, in the context of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C.  1988, postjudgment monitoring of a consent decree is a compensable activity for which counsel is entitled to a reasonable fee. Id. @ 559. After engaging in a discussion concerning the similarities between 304 (d) (the Clean Air Act) and 1988 (the Civil Rights Act), the Court noted that: 452284-v1 Given the common purpose of both  304 (d) and  1988 to promote citizen enforcement of important federal policies, we find no reason not to interpret both provisions governing attorney's fees in the same manner. We hold, therefore, that the fact that the work done by counsel in Phases II and IX did not occur in the context of traditional judicial litigation does not preclude an award of reasonable attorney's fees under  304 (d) for the work done during these portions of the present action. Id.@ 560. 3 Many other cases support the position of the PCSSD in these regards. For instance, in Schlimgen v. City of Rapid City, 83 F .Supp.2d 1061 (D.S.D 2000), the plaintiff was fired as a city employee after he opposed a new real estate development. He appealed his termination to the Department of Labor claiming his termination was a violation of his civil and constitutional rights. Id. @ 1065. The Department of Labor agreed. Plaintiff then filed an action in Federal Court seeking damages and attorneys' fees. Rapid City claimed that as a matter of law Schlimgen was not entitled to attorneys' fees related to the earlier Department of Labor hearing. In interpreting 42 U .S.C.  1988, the District Court disagreed. As the District Court explained: The claim must be for specific portions of work product from an earlier administrative proceeding. The work done must be useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to advance the civil rights litigation to the stage it has reached. 42 U.S.C.  1988 awards are not limited to work performed after the complaint is filed . ... fees may be awarded for \"research or investigation done in connection with\" a related proceeding, to the extent it \"proved directly relevant to the successful prosecution of the later civil rights\" action. The District Court also noted that Mr. Schlimgen's DOL action was not one to enforce a specific civil rights statute. Id. @ 1071. Here, however, the efforts of the PCSSD in opposing the detachment were all directed toward preventing the State from violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement, an effort which this Court has previously ruled triggers  1988 including liability for attorneys' fees. (Please see orders cited at pages 2 and 3 of counsel's initial affidavit.) Lambert v. Fulton County, GA, 151 F.Supp.2d 1364 (N.D.Ga. 2000), is to the same effect. Lambert was an employment discrimination case in which the procedural history included an appeal to the Fulton County Personnel Board before the federal court action was 452284-v1 4 I I initiated. Id. @ 1368. The defendant claimed that the time spent on the appeal to the Fulton - County Board was non-compensable. Id. The District Court disagreed. The District Court began its analysis by noting that: The starting point for calculating reasonable attorneys' fees is \"the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate\" for the attorneys' services. After calculating the lodestar, the court may within its discretion adjust the amount upwards or downwards based on a number of factors, such as the quality of the results obtained and the legal representation provided. Id. @ 1369. In further addressing the lodestar issue, Judge Thrash explained that: As to the work performed, compensable activities include pre-litigation services in preparation of filing the lawsuit, background research and reading in complex cases, productive attorney discussions and strategy sessions, negotiations, routine activities such as making telephone calls and reading mail related to the case, monitoring and enforcing the favorable judgment, and even preparing and litigating the request for attorneys' fees. Id.@ 1369-70. As to the time spent on the administrative proceeding, the Court noted that: A court should award attorneys' fees for time \"spent on administrative proceedings to enforce the civil rights claim prior to the litigation.\" The District Court also noted that: In this case, Plaintiffs' appeal to the Fulton County Personnel Board was not required for them to file this suit ... . Because the proceedings before the Fulton County Personnel Board were not mandatory, time spent on them is not automatically compensable. The Court, however, concludes that time spent on these proceedings should be compensated because they were \"useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to secure the final result obtained from the litigation.\" Here, of course, the PCSSD would have likely committed procedural suicide by not opposing the detachment proceedings initiated by the State Board of Education. Despite that fact, and at a minimum, the State Board proceeding served as a vehicle to conduct discovery through the FOIA, to delineate and brief the myriad legal issues and importantly served as a 452284-v1 5 vehicle whereby the State was presented with an opportunity to avoid its current liability by - comporting its actions with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. 1. The State Court Case. At least three observations are appropriate here. First, \"but for\" the State's passage and activation of the detachment statute, the State Court case would have never been filed. Second, most of the work involved in the State Court case involved identifying, researching and setting forth the legal issues which were generated by the passage of the statute and its activation by the State. Third, most if not all of the issues could have been brought as part of the Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as matters of pendent jurisdiction. 2. The State Board of Education Proceedings. Had the PCSSD not opposed the detachment process before the State Board of Education, the argument would have undoubtedly been made that it waived its right to seek relief in this Court by not exhausting its administrative remedies. The PCSSD, as a signatory to the 1989 Settlement Agreement, had no choice but to argue to the State Board of Education, among other matters, that the Board's actions were violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement in at least two particulars. Further, the motion and brief ultimately filed before this Court was in substantial measure an adaptation of the written submissions the PCSSD made to the State Board. Thus, most of the submissions made to this Court by the PCSSD were largely researched and documented as part of the process of opposing the detachment before he State Board of Education. Again, but for passage of a statute which violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement, there would have been no appearances before the State Board because the State Board would not have had this process to engage. 452284-v1 6 3-4. The Passage of the Legislation. The Settlement Agreement itself requires the PCSSD to identify, every biennium, those recent legislative acts or regulations which impede desegregation. Here, the PCSSD identified the legislation while it was still pending and, had the legislature heeded the opposition of the PCSSD to the legislation, and refused to pass the detachment statute, the State would have no _pending fee petition to defend against. 5. Appeal Time. The State's observations concerning premature appeal time are probably correct. C. Other Practices. 1. All of the time entries presented in the petition are for work directly associated with the detachment issue. Except for those entries which have been lined through, counsel for the PCSSD had no other issues pending for the PCSSD during the relevant time period. 2. That which the State regards as \"file maintenance\" is actually part of the on-going effort to maintain a \"computer searchable data base\" for the documents, orders, pleadings, etc. generated in this case. This permits a voidance of time-consuming manual searches and assists counsel in locating decades old documents, orders and pleadings through key word searches. 3. The PCSSD believes that the clippings review helped supply a more cogent and refreshed context for many of the events which surrounded the drafting and legislative journey of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Given Arkansas' singular lack of formal legislative history, the PCSSD believes that the results of these efforts fall within the broad framework of Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 452284-v1 7 4. The docket review was to locate orders, pleadings and Court of Appeals - decisions which bore upon the issue of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and other potential issues. 5. The fee petition contains no \"block billing\" whatsoever. Most if not all of the alleged \"block billings\" are clearly described and invariably relate to a discreet issue or activity. Conclusion. Significantly, the State does not contend that any time was wasted or that excessive time was recorded. The absence of such an argument helps to bring the issue full circle to the core question' of: Was the time reasonably expended toward the end of securing relief from a State created process which both violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement and previous orders of this Court? Having reviewed the State's response, the answer to this question appears to be clearly \"yes\" . But for the State's consideration of, passage of and activation of this detachment statute, there would be no fee petition for this Court to consider. 452284-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By ______ +--------1,-------- M. Atto cial Sch 8 I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 10, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 452284-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 UJonesIII 9 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. SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF SAM JONES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. All of the matters contained herein are responsive to positions and statements made by the State as respects the fee petition of the PCSSD. 2. All of the time entries for which the PCSSD seeks reimbursement were directly related to and in furtherance of prevailing on the issue of the Jacksonville detachment effort. 3. The activities which the State characterizes as \"file maintenance\" are actually on-going efforts to maintain a computer searchable database for all of the documents, orders, pleadings and other paper generated in this case to promote efficiency and avoid wasted time in retrieving such documents, particularly documents which are several years old. 4. The clippings review was both necessary as a historical and legal exercise but was particularly time-consuming because it involved, among other matters, an era during which the State still had two statewide newspapers, generated news stories on the \"school 453181-v1 case\" on an almost daily basis, and involved hundreds of newspapers stories for the period of time in 1989 reviewed. 5. The \"document review\" was appropriate to locate those pleadings, orders, etc. which might have significance for the interpretation and implementation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 6. The fee petition does not contain any block billing. The time entries are clearly described and all relate to the legal effort to defeat the detachment issue. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this 10th day of October, 2003. My Commission Expires: dean\"ie Lacour, Notary Public Pulaski County, Arkansas My Commission Exp. 12,20.2008 453181-v1 Public 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 10, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 453181-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 WILL BOND BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 NEIL CHAMBERLIN October 14, 2003 VIA FAX (314)244-2780 Michael E. Gans, Clerk Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 24.329 Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 S. lO ili Street St . Louis, MO 63101 (314) 244-2400 TELEPHONE: (501) 982-9081 FAX: (501 ) 982-9414 RECEIVED OCT l fl 2003 OfflCEOF O~tGRi'GATIOtl M0Nff08Ul6 RE : United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, Case No. 03-3088 - Motion for Extension Dear Mr. Gans: Attached is a Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Brief and Appendix in the above - referenced case. Please file and return a file-marked copy to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. TWB:ab Atch(s) cc: Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher Heller John W. Walker P.A. Mark Burnette Stephen Jones Ann -Marshall Karla Burnett Tim Gauger l.school district detachment . eighth circuit.appeal \\ clerk. oct.14 . 03 st Regards, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No . 0 3 - 3 0 8 8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. _MRS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER DEFENDANTS (APPELLEES) INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS/MOVANTS (APPELLANTS) MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE THEIR BRIEF AND APPENDIX Comes the Appellants, the proposed Bollen Intervenors, by and through their attorney, Will Bond, and for thei r Motion for Ex tension of Time in Which to File Their Brief and Appendix, state: 1 . On or about August 20, 2003, Appellants filed an Emergency Motion for Expedited Review Requesting Suspension of the Rules pursuant Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Motion for Emergency Stay of Judgment o f the District Court. This request came immediately following the decision of the District Court which was adverse to the Appellants. Appellants had received approval from the Arkansas State Board of Education to proceed with an election concerning detachment from Pulaski County Special District. The election was to take place on September 16, 2003. The request for expedited review and the stay was denied by this court. 2. Leading up to the filing of the appeal and the Motion for Expedited Review, Appellants' counsel had spent significant time preparing for and appearing in front of the Arkansas State Board of Education, the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and the Federal District Court. Appellants' counsel has been and continues to work on the case on a pro bona basis. Appellants' counsel is in a partnership with one other attorney and two staff members. The issue of detachment, and the litigation leading up to the current appeal, has taken a significant amount of office time and attorney time to pursue. Following the denial of the stay, Appellants' counsel essentially had to get back to work on matters which pay the bills. 3. The need for expedited review of the case has become moot. The election date has passed and the next possible election upon which the issue of detachment could appear on the ballot would be a school election occurring in September of 2004 or the general election occurring in November of 2004. 4. An extension of time in which to file Appellants' brief and appendix is necessitated because: (a) Appellants' counsel himself has been \"strapped\" in court appearances and dealing with trial dates and briefing schedules in numerous cases from August 20, 2003 until October 13, 2003. 2 (b) Appellants' counsel's administrative assistant was out numerous days in late September undergoing medical treatment and was on vacation October 6 through October 10. (c) Appellants' counsel has also spent significant time since August 20, 2003 dealing with Legislative issues related to education because of his service as a State _Representative in Arkansas. The Arkansas Legislature is dealing with the impending State Supreme Court deadline dealing with the inequities and inadequacies of the Arkansas Public School System. 5. Appellants request an extension of time until November 6, 2003 in which to file their brief and appendix. A short extension will allow Appellants to properly prepare the appeal. Appellants' counsel does not believe any further extensions will be necessitated short of his death. Respectfully Submitted, Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin Attorneys for Plaintiff 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 7 76 Telephone (501) 9 -9081 Telefax (501) 9 By: Wil CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC I, Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing pleading by United States Mail, addressed to such attorney or party with suff/Ft prepaid postage to ensure first-class delivery this day of October, 2003: Mr. Sam Jones Via Fax@ 376-9442 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste. 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 3 Telephone (501)371-0808 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 376-2011 John W. Walker P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Telephone (501)374-3758 Via Fax@ 682-4249 Via Fax@ 376-2147 Via Fax @ 374 - 4187 Mr. Mark Burnette Via Fax @ 375 - 1940 Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 378-7870 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 340-8285 4 Via Fax @ 375-1027 Via Fax@ 371-0100 Via Fax \u0026amp; 340-8282 Tim Gauger Senior Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 Telephone 682-2586 By: Via Fax \u0026amp; 682-2591 l.school district detachment . eighth circuit.appealmotion tor extension.oct.14 . 03 5 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS lNTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OCT 1 6 2003 UTILE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK By: , DEPCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPE:CIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET Al.. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATIIERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS lNTERVENORS On July 29, 2003, I .received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2003-2004 fiscal yea.r.1 I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and ifthere are any objections, parties must respond within five days; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of October, 2003. THIS DOCUfvic.1'-11 c:NTEH~C, ON JOC!\u0026lt;ET SHEET ,N COMPLIANCE NITH feLE 58 i~N~~mC[ oN_j_O t~/(} 3 BY~ t, t vJ~k~ UNITED STATESD!STIUCDGE W~l. R. WILSON, JR. 1Althou~ the proposed budget was oriJ?inally presented in April, pursuant to an order of this court, action was postponed in consideration of any decisions made by the 8th Circuit while - the case was on appeal. Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business, such as parking fees. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 2002-'13 Budget 2002-03 \u0026amp;pendltures 2003-04 Budget 200.00 184.66 2,459.00 ,~ .. . .. , ., /J,J, last year, the budget includes gUErSt parking and reimbursement to support staff ror the mileage they drive in their own vehicles on official business, an amount bud,eled at $175. The remainder is for travel and lodging associated with the two training events explained above in Due and Fees, one for $1 ,132 and the other for $1,152. amounts that are the average of the previous costs for each of lhelie two events. Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgmeints. 2002~1 Budget 2002-03 Ellpendltures 2003-04 Budget 544.00 544.00 712.00 '---------- ... , Our Insurance has increased to the ;amount shown. We were unable to find an underwritel\" at a lower rate. Page 7 Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid in behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 2002-03 Budget 2002.03 Expenditur'ff 2003--04 Budget 91,166.00 92,935.16* 80,018.00 ..... ,..,.,,_ .. \"Expenditures exceeded budget Ill; an unforeseen result of provisions In Act 11 of 1999, which govems certain aspecla of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan (T-Orop), which Ms. Marshall entered at the conclusion of Iha 2002-03 fiscal year. Below is a breakdown by categoiy of each employee's 2003-04 budgeted fringe benefits. Increases in this category are due in part to recently-enacted legislation that changed retirement contributions. Some decrease resulted from Ms Mar:,hall's entrv into T-Droo. - Name car so,:tat Retire Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Slloct Total Allowance 8ec:1Jrtty meni !Qtlon\" lne. lndemnit.)' Term Benefits Marshall 1.800.00 7,119.82 1,208.22 2,478.43 44.16 250.32 60.96 62.88 13,024.79 Jones 960.00 4.573.78 -0- -0- -0- -0- --0- --0- 5,533.78 Powell 1,200.00 5,451.79 9,281 .48 2,478.43 44.16 250.32 60.96 62.88 18,840.0Z --\"\"'\"\"\"'' ......  .. --- .... _ --.. - --.-- .... ....... , ..... ., ...- -.-~,., ,._. ... .~ . .. -.................... _.. ................ ~_. ... .... ... _._, ______ Smith 1,200.00 5,481 .79 9,281 .48 2.478.43 44.16 250.32 60.96 62.88 18,840.02 Ramer 0.00 4,030.71 6,849.57 2,478.43 44.16 250.32 60.86 62.88 13,7n.03 , Bryant 0.00 2,235.25 3,798.47 2,478.43 27.60 250.32 60.98 62.88 8,913.91 Act 11 of 1999 403.08 684.97 1,088.05 T~I 5,180.00 2!1,286.22 . 31 ,104.19 12,392.15 204.24 '  1,251 .6Q 3Q4.80  314.40. so.011.00 . \"Rates for hospitalization have increased this year, but the exact proportion that will be charged for each employee will not be known until LRSO negotiations have been finalized. F,,r budget preparation, we have estimated the Increase at 10%. Staff Development: Serv:ices petfonned by persons qualified to assist in enhancing the quality of the operation. ---~ -- -03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 0.00 0.00 ., ... -  .. -... , ... _..,.,. ..... - - . .... --.... ~--~-- - 2003-04 Budget 0.00 Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of atn 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. 2002-03 Budget 2002..03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 6,643.00 4,999.77 6,000.00 - ---------  -- ---Hh - Page6 Repairs and Maintenan1te; Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original :rtate 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. 2002.()'3 Budget 2002..03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 400.00 408.85 400.00 ----- - -- -~- Resource Library: Expenditures for regular or incidental purchases of library books available for general use. 2002--03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' ----- -- Salaries: Salaries are the :amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 2002~3 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 110,770.00 422,618.40\" 405,419.00 .. *ExpendilUres exceeded buoget as an unforeseen result of proV1s1ons in Act 11 of 1999, Which governs certain aspects of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan (T-Drop), which Ms. Marshall entered at the conclusion of the 2002-03 f1SCal year. Below is a breakdown of each employee's budgeted 2003-04 salary, reflecting a 2% base increase for Ms. Marshall and, for the remaining employees, a 3.29% base increase, which is equal to or less than the annual step increase on the salary scales of the local districts. - -.. -  N\u0026amp;Jine of Employee 2002-03 Salary 2003..CJ4 salary AnriMarshall 116,688.00 119,022.00 Melina Guldin 1 21 ,842.00 0.00 Gene Joneti 2 57,021.00 58,828.00 Margie Powell 67,960.00 70,196.00 Horace Smith 67,960.00 70,196.00 .. --- ----- --..   --'- --- Polly Ramer 51 ,011 .00 52,689.00 Linda Bryant 28,288.00 29,219.00 ..,.,. __. _, ., ... _...,.._..,J,. ,., J_,._,._. ___ _.. . ,. . .. ..........,. .-..~ ....- ---.--\"\"' Act 11 of 1999 s 5,269.00 . Totial 410,770.00 405,419.00 'Melissa Guldin retired on September 30, 2002. 2Gene Jones, who works 4/5 time, 1?1ected to receive payment ror annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. 3Polly Ramer will complete her 28111 )'8ar under Iha Arkansas Teacher Retirement System on June 30. 2004 and will enter the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan fr-Drop) on that date. Act 11 of 1999 entitles Ms. Ramer to receive the amount noted. which is compensation for unused leave, as she enters TDrop. Pages - Management Services: S,ervices 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. I-~  3 Budget 2002-03 Expenditur9s 2003-04 Budget 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 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. ~ - - 3Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 80.00 79.94 121.00 -- The budget covers the cost of !he 1\\rkan\u0026amp;as Democrat-Gazette, a daily source of current information on events that directly affect the school districts we monitor. Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and bindmg, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003--04 Budget 6,000.00 4,902.74 6,000.00 Professional and Technkal Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 1,700.00 1,700.00 1,700.00 ..-~-- - Rent: Expenditures for lea.sing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use . .... ~ ....... 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-G4 Budget 47,896.00 47,256.02 48,880.00 Page4 - EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expmse categories are from the Arkansas School F'inancial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or infonnation. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postag,:. ~ 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 9,700.00 8,416.88 8,000.00 -~ ~ We were able to reduoe this budgeli category by arranging to operate on fewer phone lines. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided. such as conference registration fees. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 ExpenditurN 2003-414 Budget ..... 439.00 439.00 735.00 The allotment for 200304 includes regis1ration fees for two professional events that are integral to maintaining staff skills that directly serve the mission of ODM. One is the International Association of Facilitatons, a one\u0026amp;-a-year intense training event in which Ms, Marshall hes participated fur a number of years to hone her facmtatlon ekilla by learning and pracliclng new techniques and methodologies fur facilitation, negotiation, promoUng dialogue, team building, problem solving, and conflict resolution among the parties, school perBOnnel, and patmna. The second is the National Counselors' Conference for ODM associate Ms. Powell, who is a nationally board certifl8d counselor. The conference provides professional development pertaining not only to counseling, but to special education, gifted and talentEd education, alternative learning, discipline, and achievement, all areas that she is charged with monitoring. Equipment: Expenditure:; for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. , ......... dget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-414 Budget 0.00 0.00 500.00 One of our printers, an old machine, has quit working. The repair service has told us the machine is not salvageable due to Its age. The amount budgeted in lhis categ~ry is to replace the printer, which is indispensable office equipment. Food Services: Ex:pendi1tures for food or preparation and serving of food. which may include catering. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003--04 Budget 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---~--- Page3 ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR2003-04 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order ,'.)f 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 ofDet:-ember 12, 1990: ... [11he office previ,:msly known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .... 10/1/02 %of Total 200~ 2002-03 2003-1)4 Enrollment Enrollment Budget Crull Estimated Allocation (Budget Budget not spent) PaymJlt LRSD 25,430 48.43 177,217 724 176,493 --~ .... NLRSO 8,796 16.75 61,292 250 61,042 PCSSD 18,283 34.82 127,415 520 126,895 - - '\" \"- State of AR NIA NIA 200,000 NIA 200,000 _,_,,,,_ .. Total .52,509 100.00 565,924 1,494  564,430 This chart shows that the 2003-04 Budget Allocation, the 2002-03 Credit and the 2003-04 BudgetPayment are apportioned among the three school dilitricts according lo last year's OCtober 1 enrollment numbers. After the finel 2003-04 enrollment has been tallied, we wiU adjust the figures according~, and notify each district of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's 2003-04 budget Described below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the chart above, that we use to detennine each district'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 the previous year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share ofODM's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share ( or estimated share) of ODM' s unspent budget for the previous year. 4. Each district contriibutes that sum to ODM' s budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's budget before the close of the cU1Tent fiscal year. . ' OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONIT., O. RING. BUD-GET FOR 2003-04 Rf:VENUE 2002-03 2002-03 2003-o4 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET State of Arkansa1; 200,000;00 200,000.00 200,000.00 - - - LRSO Budget alloca~,t\u0026gt;n 184,295.00 184,295.00 177,217.00 Minus credit fn:,m previous year ________4_., 4 ___,_7__0__9___.0___0__ _ ........4..4...,.7..0...9....0...0.. . 724.00 ..... .......................... Equals LRSD's share of the budget 139,588.00 139,586.00 176,493.00 NLRSD Budget allocati,:,n 63,740.00 63,740.00 61,292.00 Minus credit frc,m previous year 15,463.00 15,463.00 250.00 ----------------------- uunuon onuu ............. ________________ Equal!! NLRSD's share of the budget 48,277.00 48,277.00 81,042.00 PCSSO Budget allocati,;,n 132,503.00 132,503.00 127,415.00 Minus credit frtrn previous year 32,144.00 32,144.00 520.00 OOOHOO OOOH o  o      n o ............................ Equals PCSSO's share of the budget 100,359.00 100,359.00 126,895.00 - Interest 0.00 5,441 .10 0.00 Total Revenue 580,638.00 585,979:10 565,924.00 Note: The sum of the credits in the chart above is the unspent amount of our previous year's OUdget, including bank interest eaml!d. Every budget cycle, ODM applies this amount toward each school district's budgeted ;illocatlon. Both that allocaUon and the credit are determined for the proposed budget by the previous yea(s October 1 enrollment numbers, then adjusted accordingly when the enro!lment number.; for the current year become available. -  ' EXPENDITURES 2002-03 2002--03 2003-04 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET Communications 9,700.00 8,416.88 8,000.00   .- __,-, , .Y  \"-_, Dues and Fees 439.00 439.00 735.00 ,_.., _____ -- Equipment 0.00 0.00 500.00 Food Seivices 0.00 0.00 0.00 Management Seri,icea 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 -Pe-riodicals 80.00 79.94 121.00 Printing \u0026amp; Blndln{1 6,000.00 4,902.74 8,000.00 Prof \u0026amp; Tech Services 1,700.00 1,700.00 1,700.00 -- ------- -.. Rent 47,896.00 47,256.02 48,860.00 Repairs \u0026amp; Maintenance 400.00 408.85 400.00 Resource Library 0.00 0.00 0.00 Salaries 410,no.oo 422,618.40 405,419.00 Benefits 91,168.00 92,935.16 80,018.00 -- ------ Staff Developmerlt 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supplies 6,643.00 4,999.77 6,000.00 Tfl!vel 200.00 184.-66 2,459.00 Insurance - 544.00 544.00 712.00 Total El(pendltu~s 580,538.00 584,485;42 565,924.00 Difference (Income minus Expenditures) 0.00 1,493.68 0.00 TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 There are l pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. R. Wils U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 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. KA THERINE KNIGHT, E'I'. AL. RECEIVED OCT 2 2 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER DATED OCTOBER 16, 2003 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS This responds to the Court's Order dated October 16, 2003, regarding the ODM proposed budget for the 2003-2004 fiscal year. I am authorized to state that so long as the allocations proposed are not changed, the PCSSD has no objection to the proposed budget. 455118-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 0) ounty Special I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October}, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM  One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 455118-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower . 425 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Raymond Simon Director State Board of Education JoNell Caldwell, Chair UttleRock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Calvin King Marianna Randy Lawson Bentonville A aneRebick - Rock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Liltle Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 October 31, 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:l larkedu.slale.ar.us RECEIVED f\\!OV 3 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, 11~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al 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 October 2003. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Smitn,#92251 Attorney, 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 October \u0026amp;\u0026gt;-rl.\\ , 2003, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS 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 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, 2003 Bas~d on'th.~ 'iqfor,friatio~'availab!e. at .Septen.,~( 301'2003, the ADE, calcuiated the Equaiizat,oi;iJl:ilridin9tor i=Y63i64;:sob;ecf fo:penoic adjustmerlfa. 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.    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_1752","title":"Includes motions and responses regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD)'s motion for an award of attorneys' fees and temporary portable buildings at Robinson High School, Sylvan Hills band room, 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. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-09"],"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","Sylvan Hills High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School enrollment","African Americans--Education"],"dcterms_title":["Includes motions and responses regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD)'s motion for an award of attorneys' fees and temporary portable buildings at Robinson High School, Sylvan Hills band room, 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/1752"],"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":["108 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\u003eDistrict Court, order; District Court, motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) for an award of attorneys' fees; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for an award of its attorneys' fees; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for temporary portable buildings at Robinson High School; District Court, renewed and supplemental motion regarding Sylvan Hills band room; District Court, amended and supplemental motion regarding Sylvan Hills band room; 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.    FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP - 2 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK CLEF By: I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is PCCSD's Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Fee Petition (Doc. No. 3797). On August 19, 2003, an order was emered granting the PCSSD's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief \"Bollen\" Intervenors appealed this judgment and requested a stay from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals has yet to address this matter on appeal. According to this Court's Local Rule 54.1 and Rule 54 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure a party has fourteen (14) days following the entry of judgment. However, PCCSD requests a stay for its motion for attorney's fees and costs until twenty (20) days after the Court of Appeals issues its ruling. Because no party has objected to the motion, the requested extension is GRANTED. OEP CLE, 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. RECEIVED SEP 1 5 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION OF THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES The PCSSD for its motion, states: ',   1. Ori August 18, 2003, at the conclusion of a hearing on the \"detachment issue, this Court announced its ruling that, inter alia, the State Board of Education's authorization of an election on the issue of detachment of the Greater Jacksonville area from the PCSSD violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. A written order was entered that day and a corrected order was entered on August 19, 2003 . 2. A motion to stay said order was heard on August 20, 2003, and denied. 3. This Court has previously and exhaustively analyzed the entitlement of the PCSSD to an award of attorneys' fees for successfully enforcing the Settlement Agreement. (Please see Order dated January 30, 1998, at page 2). Counsel's regular hourly rates are to be utilized as the \"lodestar\" for determining the award even though the PCSSD received the legal services at discounted hourly rates. Id. at page 4. 4. Exhibit A to the accompanying affidavit sets forth in narrative fashion those legal services for which a fee award is sought. The narrative includes a modest amount of 446311 -v1 time devoted toward evaluating the initial legislation, monitoring its progress through legislative committees and testifying against the passage of the legislation. The narrative also includes a small amount of time devoted to objecting to the legislation once it was passed as required by Section ill D of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 5. The remainder of the narrative commences on May 16, 2003, when the petition . proposing detachment was filed with the Arkansas State Board .of Education. The ensuing legal activities track tire development of the PCSSD's position before the State Board of Education and the two hearings before the State Board as well as the efforts of the PCSSD to identify, research and develop the legal issues which the passage of the legislation and the filing of the detachment petition generated. 6. Beginning on or about July 14, 2003, the Court will see a shift in the activities from the proceedings before the State Board of Education to the development of the successful ,, Fourth Motion to enf~rce Settlement Agreement as well as the separate action commenced in State Court. Indeed, it is anticipated that an argument will be made that activities devoted exclusively toward development and prosecution of the State Court action are not compensable and that the PCSSD should be denied fees for those efforts. Accordingly, the PCSSD has segregated those entries which relate exclusively to the State Court action as a separate portion of the narrative. 7. However, the PCSSD submits that all of the efforts and activities described in the fee narrative are compensable. It cannot be logically disputed that but for the passage of the detachment legislation (which this Court found violated the Settlement Agreement) and but for the State Board of Education's acceptance of and activation of the legislation (which this Court found violated the Settlement Agreement), none of the activities described in the 446311-v1 2 narrative would have been necessary or would have occurred. Thus, it is respectfully submitted, the only position which could have any legal vitality would be an argument that the PCSSD \"wasted time\" on issues that were not somehow reasonably related to the end of nullifying the election authorized by the State Board. 8. This Court did not reach the issues of special and local legislation and the equal ' . protection issue preferring to leave those two issues for resolution in State Court. Nevertheless, it cannot be reasonably gainsaid that these were not issues that the PCSSD was reasonably obligated to identify and develop toward the ultimate end of prevailing on the election issue. 9. Further, the PCS SD spent a modest amount of time developing other subsidiary issues as described in the State Court complaint. However, it cannot be reasonably said that '1' ., the identification and modest research associated with those issues was somehow a waste of ' time. Indeed, the PCSSD believes it submitted substantial separate issues to both reviewing forums any one of which in isolation was sufficient to nullify the election. 10. This motion is accompanied by an affidavit which further explains the history of enforcement of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the bases for the district's entitlement to a fee award and the narrative description of legal services rendered. 11. The PCSSD seeks a total fee award of $78,326.50 as reflected in Exhibit B to the affidavit. 446311-v1 3 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 ' (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 11, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. , P.A. 51 Wingate Drive  Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 446311-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 4 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 446311-v1 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 5 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. RECEIVED SEP 1 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING AFFIDAVIT OF SAM JONES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The legal services described in Exhibit \"A\" to this Affidavit have either all been billed - to and paid for by the PCSSD or, in the case of the most recent entries, will be b~led to and paid for the PCSSD. Since at least 1993, the hourly rates for partners charged to PCSSD have been frozen at $150 per hour in recognition of the financial circumstances of the PCSSD. The principal partner timekeeper for purposes of this fee petition is Sam Jones whose current hourly rate is $215 per hour. This represents a discount to the PCSSD of just over 30% of regular hourly rates. Several other partner timekeepers appear briefly in this petition and their rates have likewise been frozen at $150.00 per hour. For purposes of this petition, and consistent with prior fee awards to the PCSSD in this case, reimbursement is sought at the current regular hourly rates of all timekeepers. The effort associated with the exposition of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, especially before the State Board of Education, was difficult and time-consuming. The files, documents, 446157-v1 orders and transcripts a decade old had to be located and thoroughly reviewed. While in the final analysis this Court appeared to have little difficulty in interpreting the clear meaning of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the PCSSD necessarily had to prepare for an argument that the language in the agreement is ambiguous and that parole evidence was necessary for a full and complete understanding of the key provisions. The PCSSD submits it would have been .remiss in not completely reviewing the exhaustive history of kc;:y provision of the Settlement Agreement both in an, effort to make the State Board understand and to supply a full context for this Court. On an issue of this moment, the PCSSD perceived that thoroughness was absolutely required. It is my considered judgment that the activities described in Exhibit A were all , ' completely required for compliance with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and were - appropriate for the ultimate purpose of prevailing upon this most significant and far-reaching issue. Indeed, failure was not an option. This Court first awarded fees to the PCSSD as a prevailing party in the matters of \"workers' compensation\" and \"loss funding\" . That petition covered work performed from 1994 through 1996. See Order dated December 10, 1996 (Docket 2880) and as corrected on December 12, 1996 (Docket 2883). This Court later awarded Mr. Jones $160.00 per hour, $170.00 per hour, and $175.00 per hour for 1996. (Order dated December 31, 1997, see also Court of Appeals Decision 97-1350EA dated October 14, 1997). This Court also awarded fees to counsel for the PCSSD as respects the pooling issue. In that Order, the Court awarded fees for the years 1993 through 1997 at $150.00 per hour, 446157-v1 2 $160.00 per hour, $170.00 per hour, $175.00 per hour and $180.00 per hour for 1997. (Order dated January 30, 1998). On August 27, 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit awarded fees to counsel for the PCSSD for the successful prosecution of the teacher retirement and health insurance appeal. It awarded $185.00 per hour for work done during 1998. (Order ' -dated August 27, 1998, 97-1794EA). STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this 11th day of ' September, 2003. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 446157-v1 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 11, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201  Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P:.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205  Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldred~ \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkans~ 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall . QOM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 446157-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. Mc.Kinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 4 C. 6Y\u0026gt;'1/\u0026gt; /~/.-e. Copy \"~ t;.,J-,. '/.\u0026gt;t'I /-J IS t .'/(:J : ltssD - J,,c.l\u0026lt;sc,w, lie Se/, I-FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: Date Timekeeper 03/19/01 MS Jones, III 03/20/01 MS Jones, III 03/21/01 MS Jones, III 03/21/01 MS Jones, III 03/22/01 MS Jones, III 03/23/01 ~s Jones, III 03/28/01 MS Jones, III 03/28/01 MS Jones, III 03/28/01 MS Jones, III 03/i~/01 MS Jones, III 03/29/01 MS Jones, III TIMEKEEPER SUMMARY 2001 Telephone conference with Gary Smith Prepare for Senate Education hearing Meet with Governor's staff regarding HB 1882; confer with Dr. Smith and Mr. Manfredini; attend entirety of Senate Education Committee hearing Telephone conference with Dr. Smith Telephone conference with Dr. Smith Appear at Senate Education hearing regarding HB 1882 Testify before legislature regarding HB 1882 Telephone conference with David Colbert Telephone conference with Gary Smith Review letter from John Walker to Representative Pat Bond Review letter from John Walker to Judge Wright HOURS/RATES/VALUE MS Jones Total 55404-v1 9 . 8 $150 $1,470.00 $1,470.00 Hours 0 .2 0.7 3.9 0.2 0.2 2 . 2 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 I EXHIBIT 8 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. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) hereby gives notice of its appeal from a portion of the order of the district court filed on August 18, 2003 , and the corrected order filed on August 19, 2003 , as respects the District Court's interpretation of the 8th Circuit - Court of Appeals' decision dated November 19, 1986 as reported at 805 F.2d 815, (8th Circuit, 1986). 447430-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By ~(}''-'-----'( ~  / 'M. Samue Jones mp6~60) ( Attorneys r Pulaski-County Special , School 806 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas Office of the Clerk 600 West Capitol, Room 402 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 September 16, 2003 Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals 111 S. 10th Street, Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 Case No . 4:82CV00866 WRW Re: LITTLE ROCK SHCOOL DIST vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL Dear Sir : Enclosed please find in duplicate, copies of the following in the above case: Notice of Appeal Docket Entries [certified] Order filed 8/ 18 / 03 Order filed 8/ 19 / 03 RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The appellant is in non-compliance with Eighth Circuit Rule 3B for not submitting an Appeal Information Form (Form A) with the Notice of Appeal. Accordingly, we are providing the appellant (Form A) to complete and submit to the Court of Appeals and (Form B) to serve upon the appellee. Sincerely, Ja~. McCormack, Clerk . ,  r~~ By:~~ Doris Collins, Deputy Clerk cc: w/ encs. Counsel of Record U.S. COURT OF APPEALS - EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPELLEE'S FORM B Appeal Information Form CASE NAME (Underline name of Appellee): GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTIIA WHATLEY, SUE ANN WHISKER vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT IS THE ALIGNMENT OF PARTIES, NAMES, ADDRESSES, AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS Appeal Docket No. 03-3088 CORRECT ON APPELLANT'S FORM A? t8J Yes O No Ifno, list corrections below. IF YOU WISH TO CLARIFY THE JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT OR GENERAL STATEMENT, LIST THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES OR COMMENTS. Whether or not the District Court erred in his interpretation of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision dated November 19, 1986 as reported at 805 F.2d 815, (8th Circuit, 1986) DO YOU BELIEVE THIS CASE IS SUITABLE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS COURT' SETTLEMENT PROGRAM? 0 Yes. t8J No. Ifno, state why. Appellee has no desire or motivation to discuss settlement. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL COMPLETING THIS FORM: M. SAMUEL JONES III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 371-0808 Copy 1 - Send to Appellant Copy 2 \u0026amp; 3 - Send to Clerk, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Copy 4 - Retain 445092-vl EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903 - 1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991 ) ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A . PRYOR GORDON S. RATHER, JR . ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J . MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JO HN D. DAVIS JI/DY SIMMONS HENRY Michael Gans, Clerk of the Court 200 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501 ) 376-9442 www . wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONA LD A. MAY BRUCE R . LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOV ER Writer's Direct Dia l No . 501-212- 1273 mjoncs@wlj .com September 16, 2003 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Court House, Room 24.329 111 South 10th Street St. Louis, Missouri 63102 RE: 03-3088 Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley, J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLER. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T . ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D. WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING  .Lkeasted1opn,tCIK:ebelamtbt: Uai Sates hlt:DI mt/ Ttadt:awr Of6ce RECEIVED SEP 18 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Sue Ann Whisker (Appellants) vs. Pulaski County Special School District (Appellee) On Appeal from the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas; USDC No. 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Michael: Enclosed are two copies of Appellee's Form B - Appeal Information Form. By copy of this letter, I am forwarding copies of the above to the attorney for the Appellant. MSJ:ao Enclosure cc: Mr. Will Bond All Other Counsel of Record Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP t:..- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v . No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED SEP 2 3 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOfffNG PLAINTIFF . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR AN AW ARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES Comes now the Arkansas Department of Education, and for its Motion for Extension of Time, states: 1. On September 11 , 2003, PCSSD filed a Motion for an Award of Attorneys ' Fees with this Court. 2. A response is currently due to this Motion on or before September 25 , 2003. Due to undersigned counsel's travel and deposition schedule, he has been unable to prepare a response to date. Undersigned requests a ten-day extension of time to respond to PCSSD's Motion, that is, until October 6, 2003. 3. Pursuant to local rules, undersigned contacted opposing counsel, Mr. Samuel Jones III, with regard to this Motion, and opposing counsel does not object to the extension. WHEREFORE, the Arkansas Department of Education requests that the Court grant its Motion for Extension of Time. Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General #94127 Assistant Attorney Gen al 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on September :l )., 2003, a copy of the foregoing document was be served by first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mark A. Hagemci IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL . DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED ' S O1 ~TR' C1' COURT L!.   1-s---1cT A''KANSAS c:ASTERN ' '' \" SEP 2 \u0026gt;2003 JAMES W. McCORMACK. CLERK By; OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is the Arkansas Department of Education's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 3807) to reply to the PCSSD's fee petition (Doc. No. 3804). The ADE requesi:s an exte1;1Sion - to October 6, 2003, ten days from the original deadline, to respond, and opposing counsel does not object to the extension. The ADE's motion is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED1his 23rd day of September, 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTEREO ON TJNfi/Jli'l:ff.4~~ OOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WM. R. WILSON, JR. WITH RULE 58 AN~~ FRCF oN 9-a~-0-1-sv~wc + TO: DATE: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKA1~SAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette 9 ... z::; ~ 05 Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 There are 2 pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmissioni MESSAGE SENT BY: rt; Office of Judge Wm. U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 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. RECEIVED SEP 2 9 2003 omcEOF ~st{3{E~AllON MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION FOR TEMPORARY PORTABLE BUILDINGS AT ROBINSON HIGH SCHOOL The PCSSD for its motion, states: 1. For the 2002-2003 school year, the 11th day enrollment at Robinson High School was 593 students. 2. The 11th day enrollment for the current school year is 681 students of whom 307 are African-American and 374 are other. 3. The increase in enrollment is attributed to an increase in M-to-M students, the closing of Faith Christian Academy's secondary program which was a predominately AfricanAmerican institution and the change in 9th grade athletic participation instituted by the Little Rock School District. 4. Robinson is currently holding class in the cafeteria, the band room, the rAW auditorium and the gym. 449094-vl 5. To accommodate the increased enrollment for the balance of the school year and to evaluate the propriety and necessity for permanent classroom additions, the PCSSD requests permission to lease two portable buildings for the balance of the school year to accommodate the current enrollment. 6. If during the coming weeks the PCSSD determines that the increased enrollment is likely permanent, it will evaluate the prospect of classroom additions to the campus and apply to this Court at the appropriate time for permission to construct such additions should they prove necessary. 7. These circumstances are more fully explained in a memo dated September 4, 2003, from the principal at Robinson, which is attached as Exhibit A to this motion. WHEREFORE, and as an interim measure, the PCSSD requests permission to lease two portable classrooms for the balance of the 2003-2004 school year and for all proper relief. 449094-vl Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 School  trict 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 23, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following : Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mr. Clayton Blackstock 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 449094-vl Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  09/18/2003 14:58 5014901352 EQUI1Y PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 03/03 SEP O 9.2003 Robinson High School 21501Hwy10 Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 Phone: 501-86~400 Joy L Plants Principal Emall-jplants@pcud.org MEMO To: Dr. Brenda Bowles From: Ms. Joy Plants )( Date: Thursday, September 04, 2003 Fax: 50.1-868-2405 Dr. Yoloundro Williams Assistant Princ:ipal Emoil-ywlJliams@pcssd.org John Pearee As~istant l'rlnc:ipal fmail-Jpearce@pcssd.org - Re: Increased Enrollm':fJtlFaci/ity Needs Due to a larger than usual influx of students, we are in desperate need of three portable classrooms. This year we have had an increase of Minority to Majority enrollment from 33 percent to 45 percent. This enrollment change was in part due to the closing of Faith Christian Academy's secondary program which is a predominately minority institution. As well as, Little Rock School District's change In ninth grade athletic participation. We also have had some students that have moved from the private sector to Robinson High School. In effort to hold true to Desegregation Plan 2000, we have continued to welcome students to our school. These are indeed excellent problems to have. However, our total enrollment has increased from 594 at the end of last year to 682 to date. We have at present classes being held in the cafeteria, the band room, the auditorium, and the gym. We also have some teachers sharing classrooms at the same time. To accommodate our increase in numbers, we have also had to hire two new teachers. We continue to be in the midst of schedule changes to accommodate students and balance classes. Yet and still with those changes, we still need classroom space for .classes. EXHIBIT I ---'I)_,,____ 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. RECEIVED SEP 2 9 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITCi1lNG RENEWED AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION REGARDING SYLVAN HILLS BAND ROOM The PCSSD for its motion, states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. On March 11 , 2003, this Court entered its Order authorizing the PCS SD. to temporarily utilize a portable building, until the end of the 2002-2003 school year, for the Sylvan Hills band room because of persistent water problems. 2. In the interim, the PCSSD solicited proposals from contractors toward the end of \"correcting\" the water problem. The Sylvan Hills band room is built partially underground. 3. Counsel is informed that one contractor agreed to guarantee his work for one year and that all other contractors declined to extend any guarantee whatsoever. 4. Because the problem persists, the PCSSD has made the decision to abandon efforts to correct the water problem and to commit to new construction on the same campus. 5. Accordingly, the PCSSD now requests two approvals from this Court: First, authorization to lease a portable building to be used as the band room until permanent construction is concluded, and second, to approve construction of a replacement facility on the 447293-v1 current Sylvan Hills campus. Neither authorization will affect the capacity of the Sylvan Hills school. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for authority to lease a portable building to be used as a temporary band room and for further authority to construct a permanent replacement for the current band room on the Sylvan Hills campus. 447293-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 School District 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 23, 2003 , a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 447293-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 3 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903  1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913  1991 ) ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER, JR . ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR. PATRICK I. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR , JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMBS J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JOHN D. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201  3699 (501) 3710808 FAX (501) 3769442 www.wlj.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER Writer 's Direct Dial No. S0l-212-1273 mjones@wlj .com September 26, 2003 KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F . COX , JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY IBRRY I. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C . TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY l . CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW JR.BY PATRICK D. WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING MARY ELIZABETH ELDRIDGE BLAKE S. RUTHERFORD  I...iot!mod1opn,;tic,:bt:Afftbt: Uaill:lt!Sarcs h1e111 ud Tndt:llwk O/fk% RECEIVED VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 SEP 2 6 2003 OfRCf OF OESEGREGAT!Oti MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: I am informed that the PCSSD Board is taking another look at the potential for repairing the Sylvan Hills band room. Hence, I have amended our motion, courtesy copy enclosed. MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: 450331-vl Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 6~ Honorable J. Thomas Ray Counsel of Record 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 NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED SEP 2 6 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION REGARDING SYLVAN HILLS BAND ROOM The PCSSD for its amended and supplemental motion, states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The PCSSD filed a motion on September 23, 2003, seeking certain reli~f as respects the Sylvan Hills band room. That motion remains pending. 2. Today counsel for the PCSSD was informed that the Board has reconsidered the issue of a permanent replacement for the structure and has instructed the Assistant Superintendent for Support Services to re-examine the prospects of securing a workable and practicable repair solution to the water problems in this band room. 3. Accordingly, the PCSSD hereby amends its pending motion to drop, at least for the moment, its request for permission to build a new structure while it re-examines the prospect that a less costly but effective repair solution can be pursued. 4. The PCSSD retains its request for permission to lease a portable building to house the band program for the balance of the current school year, and states that it has located an \"acoustically appropriate\" structure for lease. 450309-v1 WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court permitting it to lease a portable building for the balance of the school year to house the band program at Sylvan Hills and for all proper relief. 450309-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 B ~:....::::::::::::::._~~~~~=----ch o o l 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 26, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S . District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 450309-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Raymond Simon Director State Board of Education JoNell Caldwell, Chair Littls Rock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carfis/s Luke Gordy Van Bursn Robert Hackler Mountain Home caMn King Marianna Randy Lawson Bentonville - ~ebick I. I Diane Tatum I I Pine Bluff I l Jeanna Westmoreland I Arkadelphia :l i :1 :i ,1 !l ;, ;J if 1J I l 'l /j Department of Education #4 CapiJol Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 September 29, 2003 501-682-4475 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:/ larked11.state.ar.,u RECEIVED SEP 3 o 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREG~TIOH MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 2003 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: Mark Hagemeier - --- ---- - - - - - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al 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 2003. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, #92251 Attorney, 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 29, 2003, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 PLAINTIFFS 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 AD E'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, 2003 B.ased :on.~e' informat,onjivailabie at August 31 ;-: 2003.,tpe APE calculated the Eqllalizaiio'n Furidirig for;fY03i04;' s~bjecf to penod1c adjustments'. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    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_1756","title":"Includes Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to all responses regarding its fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement, District Court motion for stay of judgment and order made pursuant to Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 8.A of the Eighth Circuit Rules of Appellate Practice.","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":["2003-08-12/2003-08-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Includes Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to all responses regarding its fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement, District Court motion for stay of judgment and order made pursuant to Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 8.A of the Eighth Circuit Rules of Appellate Practice."],"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/1756"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["158 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, letter order; District Court, memorandum; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) consolidated brief in support of its reply to all responses to its fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, two orders; District Court, corrected order; District Court, motion for stay of judgment and order made pursuant to Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to Rule 8.A of the Eighth Circuit Rules of Apellate Practice; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appeal; Court of Appeals, emergency motion for espedited review and suspension of the rules pursuant to Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Apellate Procedure and motion for emergency stay of judgment of the district court; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for enlargement of time to file fee petition; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, order of transcripts pursuant to Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; District Court, corporate disclosure statement; District Court, order    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    - BILL WILSON JUDGE To: Mr. Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 West Main UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRIC'r OF ARKANSAS 800W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 . LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201--3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 804-5149 August 12, 2003 BYFAX Jacksonville, Arkansas 72075 LETTER-ORDER RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, Case No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR- August 18th Hearing - Dear Mr. Bond: This is in response to your letter of yesterday, August 11 , 2003, regarding Mr. Fendley's conflicting schedule. I often reschedule hearing when they conflict with long standing vacation plans; and, on occasion, I have allowed a lav-,-yer to participate by telephone. In view of the crucial and immediate interests involved, I believe the hearing must be held as scheduled. Participation by telephone is a little unwieldy, and I do not think it would appropriate in this instance. cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Other counsel of record Original to Clerk Cordially, [;~~ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. - ---- --- - - - - -------- - - ----- - - -- BILL WILSON JUDGE TO: All Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 804-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 August 12, 2003 BYFAX MEMORANDUM RE: Knight lntervenors' Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel Pending is the Knight Intervenors' Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel. The Knight Intervenors assert that former cow1sel, Richard W. Roachell, has retired from the practice of law and requests to withdraw as their counsel. The Knight Intervenors have engaged Clayton Blackstock and Mark Burnette as counsel to replace Mr. Roachell. This issue will be addressed at the commencement of the hearing scheduled for 10:00 a.m., Monday, August 18, 2003. cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Original to Clerk Cordially, Y./~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT . V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN 01sr.:i,cT ARKANSAS Al 1r, 1 3 2003 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: ______. .....,,o\"\"ep\"\"'c\"\"'L.\"E\"'R,,.K..,. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District may have until 12:00 p.m., noon, Friday, August 1S, 2003, to file a reply to the responses to its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief (Doc. No. 3760). The reply should be short (no more than five pages), and citations of authority are more desired than prose. This Order provides an opportunity to reply and is not a mandate. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13 th day of August 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 A~9(a) FRCF , ON ~-t ~-0;\\ B 3:\u0026gt;Q +:: ~ FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAI'fSAS  TO; Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones Richard Roachell John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Alm Marshall Mark Burnette Scott Smith Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson DATE: f. D. O'b Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 682-4249 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 There are )--pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. . Wilson, Jr. U.S. Dis1:rict Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604--5141 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. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, RECEIVED AUG 1 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOIHNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY and SUE ANN WHISKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS PCSSD CONSOLIDATED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS REPLY TO ALL RESPONSES TO ITS FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT I. Ripeness Hardship would be occasioned to the PCSSD because it is required to pay for the detachment election even though most of its patrons are denied the right to vote. The current proceedings do not interfere with an on-going administrative action because the State Board has already ordered the election. Simply stated, the legislature should not have passed a statute which substantially affects the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate and which violates Section II.J of the Settlement Agreement. All matters currently pending \"flow from\" passage of the statute. 440824-v1 II. The Settlement Agreement While it is fundamentally true that the equal protection arguments presented have an independent constitutional footing, at the same time, \"but for\" the State's enactment of an unconstitutional statute and the State Board's activation of that statute, these claims would have no reason to arise. The situation presented is much the same as confronted the Court of Appeals in 1990. After first finding that the District Court should have approved the desegregation plans, it then went on to note that: \"If the plans had been approved, the question of appointment of a metropolitan supervisor would never have arisen, and the tri-district plan would neither had been written nor submitted. The order appointing a metropolitan supervisor and commanding the parties to comply with the tri-district plan therefore necessarily falls along with the order declining to approve the settlement plan submitted by the parties. 921 F.2d 1371 at 1388. Here, had the legislation never been passed, the equal protection claims would have never had occasion to arise. Accordingly, in this literal sense, all of the issues presented now flow from the Settlement Agreement. ,. m. Equal Protection The PCSSD adopts that certain memorandum brief filed by the individual school board directors on August 8, 2003. The Bollen intervenors have simply missed the point with their argument that the board members have \"no constitutional right to vote on detachment.\" Bollen Mem. Brief at 4. The Bollen intervenors have no constitutional right to vote on detachment, either. What both parties have, however, is a constitutional right to vote on equal terms with those living in the 440824-v1 2 relevant political jurisdiction. See Board of County Commissioners of Shelby County v. Burson, 121 F.3d 244, 247 (6th Cir. 1997) When a citizen can show that he lives in the relevant jurisdiction, there is a \"strong presumption\" of entitlement to vote in its elections. Id. Indeed, \"exclusion of such a citizen from the franchise is subject to strict scrutiny, and will be only be upheld upon a showing of a compelling state interest.\" Id. ( citing Kramer v. Union  Free School Dist. No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969)). Thus the question before the Court focuses on what is the \"relevant political jurisdiction,\" and it is both irrational and arbitrary to award that label to any jurisdiction other than the preexisting entity charged with the responsibility in question. For purposes of the local government's role in education, there is currently only one jurisdiction--Pulaski County-and only one set of voters whose desires and interests are \"relevant\" to the education of public school students not enrolled in the Little Rock or North Little Rock districts--voters in areas comprising the PCSSD. The appropriate \"jurisdiction\" is the existing school district, for its citizens have a signal and profound interest in the outcome of any election that could alter its boundaries, tax base, student enrollment, and property.\" Furthermore, the state legislature has embraced a definition of the \"relevant political jurisdiction\" that is based on school districts. Having for generations endowed local school districts with the control, taxing authority, voting mechanisms and other indicia of \"the relevant political jurisdiction\" for public education purposes, the legislature cannot turn on its heels by enacting a law that treats a city, or a neighborhood, or state representative district, or historic zoning district as the \"relevant political jurisdiction\" entitled to make its own public education choices free from the desires of the larger and authentic \"relevant political jurisdiction\" already in place. 440824-v1 3 Compounding the equal protection dilemma is the fact that the State wrote the statute in a way that it currently applies only to the PCSSD and no other school district. While it is true that the Waldron School District meets the \"square mile test\", only the PCSSD meets the enrollment test of a district between 15,000 and 20,000 students. The statute applies neither to the largest school district in the State, the Little Rock School District, nor any of the next 100 1argest districts in terms of enrollment. Thus, those patrons residing in the PCSSD in areas other than those proposed for detachment are the only voters disenfranchised statewide. The detachment effort is the legal equivalent of a divorce. However, the party \"moving out\" does not get to control the process in a divorce. Rather, both parties are accorded due process and equal protection of the law. However, in the case of this attempted divorce, the State has seen fit to allow the party moving out to control the process. This is unfair, denies equal protection and should be declared unconstitutional. 440824-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 '- By __ ~~\"\"t\"------=-------:-::,~~------- pecial s 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 15, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via facsimile and U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 440824-v1 5 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 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 ~end~ Chamberlin t)r, /:, Yd ,n C,,11f'ere,.'-~ (501 l 982-941 _ (j p. 2 / ,P',,1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. 1 . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTR:ICT _NO. 1, et al., Defendants. No. 4:82CV00866WRW Monday, August 18, 2003 Little. Rock, Arkansas 10:06 a.m. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY, and SUE ANN WHISKER, . Movants/1:ntervenors TRANSCRIPT OF MOTIONS HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR . , UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES: On Behalf of Little Rock School District: MR. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, Attorney at Law Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Regioris Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock ; Arkansas 72201-3493 On Behalf of Pulaski County Special School District : MR. M. SAMUEL JONES, II 1, . At t.orney at Law Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Bui1ding -200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 El aine Hinson, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter [Continued] FILED EAsrMR~ g',f~1,g ~~sAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .Allr, l S 200l EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCl( DMSION .::MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK D~PCLERI( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For the reasons stated in the finding facts in conclusion with the law, given earlier today from the bench, aft~r hearing arguments of counsel, the Arkansas Dep:3rtmcnt of Education/State is directed to rescind the vote by which it approved an election in Jacksonville, Arkansas on September 16, 2003-whereby the citizens of that area would vote on the question of whether Jacksonville should be or would be a new district, separate in part fron1 the Pulaski County Special School District (which it is now a part). Additionally, the ADE/State is ordered to notify all affected county clerks and election officials that this rescission has taken place. The findings of fact and conclusions of law stated in court today are adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. Among other things, the facts and conclusions of law announ,~ed from the bench, the \"Bollen Intervenol'l!\"' Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. 3766) and the Motion to Intervene by the PCSSD Board Members in their individual capacities (Doc. No. 3769) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 181h day of August, 2003 THIS 0OCUMENT ENTERED ON_ DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCt: WITH RULi= 513 AND~79(a) FRCP ON 8-l t-o~. BY S+l q d FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EA.STERN DISTRICT ARl(ANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Af Jr, t B EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 2003 LITTLE ROCK DMSION JA:-4ES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By. ______ --=,_- oeP Cl..eRI( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/.TJ'R PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is the Knight Intervenors' Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel (Doc. No. 3783). The Knight Intervenors assert that former counsel, Richard W. Roachell, has retired :\u0026amp;-.osn the practice of law and requests to withdraw as their counsel. The Knight Intervenors have engaged Clayton Blackstock and Mark Burnette as counsel to replace Mr. Roachell. The Knight Intervenors' motion was addressed at a hearing this morning, August 18,  2003, and was not objected to by any parties in this case. Therefore, the Knight Intervenors may substitute counsel. IT IS so ORDERED this u day of August, 2003. ~~ I I ~4 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON lJ~ DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE \\NITH RULE 58 ANOlQ_~9{aj FRCF oN re/ t (J{o 3 av~ ~,.,,;o - - ----- ------ - -- - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Al ltt I 9 2003 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COUR\"T\" EASTE~N OISfRICT ARKA.NSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION ~~;MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK DEP CLiaRK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER CORRECTED ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For the reasons stated in the finding facts and conclusions of the law, given earlier today - from the bench, after hearing arguments of counsel, the Arkansas Department of Education/ State Board of Education is directed to rescind the vote and order by which it approved an election in Jacksonville, Arkansas on September 16, 2003-whereby the citizens ,)fthat area would vote on the question of whether Jacksonville should be or would be a new distzict, separate and apart from the Pulaski County Special School District (of which it is now a part). Additionally, the ADE/State Board of Education is ordered to notify all affected county clerks and election officials that this rescission has taken place. The findings of fact and conclusions of law stated in court today are adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. Among other things, the findings of facts and conclusions of law announced from the bench, the \"Bollen Intervenors\"' Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. 3766) and the Motion to Intervene by the PCSSD Board Members in their individual capacitks (Doc. No. 3769) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this l 9c1, day of August, 2003, nunc pro tune as of August 18'\\ 2003 . THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON OOCKEi SHEET IN COMPLIANCE W!Tli.RULE 58 AND/~ ~p ON ~- l 'i-0~ BY'-2-~=-~- u/WI? UltP ==- UNITED STA TES DISTRICT JUDGE TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 DATE: \u0026lt;i' I~  o:\u0026gt; - There are \"3 pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Offiai'of Judge Wm. R. w U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room Little Roel:, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 --- - - - - - - ---- - -  - - - - BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TulAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 l 982-9414 p.2 WILL BOND NEIL CHAMBERLIN August 19 , 2003 TELEPHONE: (501) 982-9411 FAX: (501) 982-9414 VIA FAX 3~6-9442 Sam Jones Wright, L~ndsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP Suite 2200 200 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 RE: School Di strict Dear Sam: Attached is our Motion for Stay of Judgment. It is our understanding the judge is going to take this up in a 3:00 p.m. telephone conference. Wi th Warmest Regards, Wi ll Bond 'l'WB:tt cc: John Walker Via Fax@ 374-4186 Scott Smith Via Fax@ 682-4249 Christ opher Heller Via Fax@ 376-21 47 Mark Burnette Via Fax@ 375-94 10 St ephen Jones Via Fax@ 375-1027 Ann Marshall Via Fax@ 371-0lOC Ka r la Burnett Vi a Fax@ 340-8282 arpart choo.l\\\"\"\"' jone.aug. 1fl. 03 IN THE UNITED STA'l'ES . OIS'l'RICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARDNSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR J?UI.ASll COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL .DISTRICT NO. 1,  ET AL. MRS . LORENE JOSHUA , E'l' AL .  KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLI,.EN, JAMES BOLDEN, PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY ANO SUE ANN WHISKER INTERVENORS/MOVANTS MOTION FOR .STAY OF JUDGMENT AND ORDER MADE PURSUANT TO RULE 62 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND TO RULE 8 . A : OF THE EIGB'l'B .C:IRCUIT ROLES OF APELLATE PRACTICE 1. The rules of the Eighth Circ~it require that the moving party request a stay of judgment from the District Court prio r to see king such relief from the Eighth Circui t Court. 2. Yesterday, this Court ente~ed an order in effect stopping an ' election that was to occ~r within the Northeast Pulaski County area on September 16, 2003. P~oposed Intervencrs/Mov~nts conterid that the Order was contrary to existing case law. Particularly, the Fifth Circuit has held that a District Court excee6ed its discretion when it enjoined the ability of a separate s~hool district to naintain its corporate existence and to pursue its organizational rights under state law that did not involve the independent operation p.3 of a desegrating school district. See Ross v. United States 583 F , 2 d 712 5th Cir . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . 3. Failure of this Court to stay its order and judgment until proposed Intervenors/Movants can seek relief from the Eighth Circuit would in essence prohibit an election taking place on September 16, 2003. This Court ordered the State Board of Education to rescind its order of election and to ~nform election officials of the fact that the order had been rescinded and that the election coulc ~ot go forward . . 4. There are certain ministerial acts that election officials must take to ensure that an electio~ could take place on September 16, 2003. Those acts include making absentee - ballots available, ensuring that certain publications are made in newspapers concerning the election, ensur~ng that election officials define which voters are allowed to vote in the detachment election and other duties. 5. As menticned, failure to st~y the order and judgment until relief can be sought from tha Eighth Circuit wo~ld in effect stop the September election. 6. Proposed Intervenors/Movants were denied intervention by this Court in the ace of case law which states that the threshold to intervention is minimal; they are being denied their right to vote pursuant to a statute passed by the duly elected representatives of the General Assembly of State of 2 p. .. - - ~-- . .. Arkansas; and they are being denied their right to organize a school district under state law by this Court. Failure to stay the Court's decision would prohibit an election from being held pursuant to what is a validly passed and enacted state statute. WHEREFORE, Intervenors/Movants request that the Court's order be stayed until relief can be sought frcm the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and for all other just and equitable relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully S~bmitted, BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERtIN Trial Lawyers 602 w. Main Jacksonville, AR ~076 Telephone (501) 2 9081 Telefax (501) - 414 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i, Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing pleaoing by United States Mail, addressed to such attorney or party with ,:_~ficier.t prepaid postage to ensure first-class delivery this --f::l..L'-d.ay of August, 2003: Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, . LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste~ 2300 ~ittle Rock, AR 72201-3699 S::::ott Smit:i State Department of Education #4 Capito],. Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Also Via f3x@ 376-9442 Also Via Fax@ 682-4249 3 p.5 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Ro~k , AR 72201 Also Via Fax@ 376-2147 John W. Walker P.A. Also Via Fax @ 37 4-4186 1723 S. Broadway\" Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark 3urnette Also Via Fax@ 3 75-9410 Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. ~hird Street Lit tle Rock, AR Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue ~ittle Rock, AR .72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Littl e Rock, AR 72201 By: 4 Al s o Via Fax@ 375-1027 Also Via Fax@ 371-0100 Also Via Neil Bar 93222 p.6 To: Ann Marshall Fax: 371-0100 Pharla= Ile: School District  Attachments:  Commentss BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN Trial Lawyers 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Telephone (501) 982-9081 Telefa\u0026gt;\u0026lt; (501) 982-9414 Prom: Will Bond Pa ... Including Con,..._.:~ fJ Date: August 19, 2003 The lnfannltlon contained In thl9 fax transmltal ls conlldenttal attorney-client privilaged information and is intended 90ltly for the use of ttle lnclvldual or entity nmnecl H N1Clplent. If this message Is ,-Mid by aomeone other than the Intended niclplant, you .. JIR)hiblled from anv dl.-ninMion, distribution cir copying of tnla ccmmunlcatlon aimept to the addrasH. If thla communication ha bNn received by you in error, or  you ani not aunt of itB intended dlltrl)utlon, plaaN notify the ~ced office at 1.a88-245-1!77. p. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT. ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN. MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WIDSKER ORDER AUG 19 2003 JAMES WM By:_  cCORMACK, CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley, and Sue Ann Whisker, \"intervenors\"/ Movants, filed a Motion for Stay of Judgment and Order Made Pursuallt to Rule 62 of the - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to Rule 8.A of the Eighth Circuit Rules of Appellate Practice (Doc. No. 3791). This motion is in response to :findings of facts, conclusions of law, and an Order of this Court (Doc. No. 3790) entered yesterday. Since the Movants' Request for Intervention was denied in yest,~rday's ruling, I have considerable doubt as to their standing to file the above-referenced motion-particularly since the Arkansas Department of Education/State Board of Education declin.ed to join the motion (although it did not specifically oppose the motion); but, be that~ it m.:iy, the motion is hereby denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this I 9m day of August, 2003. THJS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMF\u0026gt;l.lANCE 0:'~!{~:i,~ A~~=- TO: DATE: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson ----- Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 There are 2 pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: P1-t ,;::i::;-? 16-------- Office of Judge Wm. ~son, Jr. U.S. Distric:t Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 4 ' \\ FlLeo .! c: \"\" .... u.s o,sr  ~ TERN D!slR1c;;_r couRT l~T ARKANSAs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 2 0 2D03 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~AyMEs w. McCORv11cK LITTLE ROCK DIVISION  . . 1,..._ , CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4 :82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRI CT NO . 1 , ET AL . MRS . LORENE JOSHUA , ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT , ET AL . GREG BOLLEN , JAMES BOLDEN, DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHI SKER INTERVENORS/MOVANTS NOTICE OF APPEAL Proposed Intervenors/Movants hereby appeal the decisions made by the District Court in the above-referenced case on August 19 , 2003 with judgment being filed on August 19, 2003. This appeal is hereby taken to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The proposed Intervenors/Movants appeal the denial of their intervention and appeal the District Court ' s ultimate decision granting Pulaski County Special District ' s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement . Proposed Intervenors/Movants will be submitting a motion for expedited review and for emergency relief with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals . Respectful ly Submitted, BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN Trial Lawyers 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Telephone (501)982 - 9081 k. Bar #95245 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I , Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing pleading by United States Mail, addressed to  such attorney or party with/,7':;i;ficient prepaid postage to ensure first-class delivery this -#1-'-day of August , 2003: Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings , LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste. 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday , Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock , AR 72201 Also Via Fax@ 376-9442 Also Via Fax@ 682-4249 Also Via Fax@ 376-2147 John W. Walker P.A . Also Via Fax@ 374-4186 1723 S . Broadway Little Rock , AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Also Via Fax@ 375-1940 Mitchell , Blackstock , Barnes , Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock , AR Mr . Stephen Jones Jack , Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock , AR 72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Also Via Fax@ 375-1027 2 Ann Marshall Also Via Fax@ 371-0100 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 By: @ 340-8282 Wil AR Bar 95145 separate school district .pleadings . federal\\motion for appeal.aug.19.03 3 WILL BOND NEIL CHAMBERLIN PRESS BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL L AWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 August 20 , 2003 Michael~ . Gans , Clerk Eighth ircuit Court of Appeals . 24 . 32 Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 10th Street St Louis , MO 63101 14) 244 - 2400 RECEIVED AUG 2 1 2003 DESEGR OFFICE OF EG4fLQ!MdQN/1'(JMW8-9411  FAX (50\"1j~M\u0026gt;-9414 RE : Motion for Expedited Review and Stay o f Order of District Court Dear Mr . Gans : Enclosed along with this letter are a copy of our file marked Notice of Appeal , a certified copy of docket entries , and a copy of the order of the District Court from which we are appealing . Also enclosed are the original and five COQies of our Motion for Ex edited Review and Stay of: t-he... Di tr ict Gou_rt dB . If you could please file-mark these pleadings and return a file-marked copy to us in the self- addressed , stamped envelope enclosed , your help would be greatly appreciated. One of the exhibits to the motion is a transcript of the proceedings. As I mentioned to you on the telephone , the transcript was not to be completed until August 21 , 2003 . We intend to fax the transcript to you so that you will have it in the record. By copy of involved of our TWB : tt Enclosure ( s ) this letter , I am informing other counsel forwarding these documents to you . I\\ With(; 1 ]mes):_ Regards , ///,_~/ ~i J[d uvc \\ Michael E. Gans August 20 , 2003 Page Two cc: Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher Heller John W. Walker P.A . Mark Burnette Stephen Jones/ Ann Marshall Karla Burnett Tim Gauger f. , ?Jh j ~ ldt f+-~~ P c.J~scv,v,'lf.:. 5 1:il-+- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR RECEIVED AUG 2 1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOAJNG PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS (APPELLEES) . DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER INTERVENORS/MOV ANTS (APPELLANTS) EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW AND SUSPENSION OF THE RULES PURSUANT TO RULE 2 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE AND MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY OF JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT Come the proposed Intervenors/Movants (appellants), and for their request for expedited review of their appeal and for a stay of the District Court's Order state: 1. On August 20, 2003, proposed Intervenors/Movants, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley, and Sue Ann Whisker, filed a Notice of Appeal in the above-referenced case. 2. The proposed Intervenors/Movants represented a group of individuals living and residing in approximately the northeast portion of Pulaski County, - Arkansas who sought to form a new school district by detachment pursuant to Ark. ' J 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 NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT ,. OF TIME TO FILE FEE PETITION The PCSSD for its motion, states: RE/~IYPi AUG 2 5 2003 ) OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORfNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. On August 18, 2003, this Court announced its decision from the Bench granting the PCSSD's motion to enforce Settlement Agreement and for allied relief. A final order was entered on August 19, 2003. 2. Since that time, the putative intervenors have begun the prosecution of a notice of appeal and have requested a stay from the Court of Appeals as well as expedited processing of their appeal. 3. The PCSSD believes that the Court of Appeals will deal with these issues on some kind of expedited basis and that it would promote judicial economy to await the Court of Appeals' ruling on a stay before presenting any motion for attorneys' fees and costs in this Court. 443086-v1  J 4. The PCSSD thus requests an enlargement of time until and including twenty (20) days after the Court of Appeals issues its ruling on the putative appellants' request for a stay before finalizing and filing any motion for attorneys' fees and costs. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court enlarging its time until and including twenty (20) days after The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issues it ruling upon the pending stay request, and for all proper relief. 443086-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 22, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. John W. Walker John.W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Ileller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, ArkanSas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 443086-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITUE ROCK DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:8lCV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHA UEY AND SUE ANN WIIlSKER ORDER FILED U S DISTRICT COURT EASTE;RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 2 5 2003 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLE By: CEP CL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is PCCSb's Motion for Enlargement of Time to File :Fee Petition (Doc. No. 3797). If any party has an objection to this extension, that party, or parties, should file a response within three days of the date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED uN DOCKET SHEET lN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AN~ FRCf- ON R-~~ ...o~ BY Q..) 111 !!Lfl{;J~ ~ATESDISTRICTGE WM. R. WILSON, JR. . TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Nwnber: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591  682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 DATE: __\u0026lt;3 _Z_~_-_17_\"J - There are Z-pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: ~~?\"?-tr~ Office of Judge Wm. R. w n, Jr. U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, R 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5l41 Raymond Simon Director State Board of Education JoNell caldwell, Chair Utt/a Rock Shelby HIiiman, Vice Chair Carlisle Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home calvln King Marianna Randy Lawson IIJJJJ.fonvllle W.,Jane Rebick little Rock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, LiJtle Rock, AR 72201-1071 August 28, 2003 501-682-4475 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 htlp:/ larkedu.staJe.ar.us RECEIVED AUG 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOmN  RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 August 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. ld:~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier ,, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 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 August 2003. Rg::z~ Scott Smith, #92251 Attorney, 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 Augu~ 2003, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~od~ ottSmith RECEIVED AUG 2c1 2003 OFFICE OF OESEGREGATIOH MONITORING Fl I s:: D --- ~-'= U.S. 01s\"rl:t1t'f COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUti 2 8 2003 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By_ --------,o=e=p-=c.,..,Le=R\"\"\"K IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT :tvIB.S. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KN1GHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion - for Extension of Time to submit a fee petition regarding PCSSD's Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement, state: 1. The Joshua Intervenors believe their counsel is entitled to a fee award. 2. Counsel, therefore, requests that the court allow undersigned counsel the same time it allows counsel for PCS SD to file such motion and supporting documentation and brief 3. Counsel incorporates by reference the motion and supporting documentation of the PCSSD in this matter. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an order granting Joshua's counsel such time that His Honor allows the PCSSD file its petition for fees, costs and other appropriate relief Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker Rickey Hicks John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) I do hereby state that a copy of the forego 0 motion has been served all counsel of record on this 28th day of August, 2003. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL . GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER INTERVENORS/MOVANTS ORDER OF TRANSCRIPTS PURSUANT TO RULE 10 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE Appellants , Greg Bollen , James Bolden , Martha Whatley and - Sue Ann Whisker , have ordered from the court reporter a transcript of the entire proceeding which consists of one hearing and a telephone conference . Appellants have already made payment for the transcript . The entire transcript has been ordered . Respectfully Submitted , Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin Trial Lawyers 602 West Main Street Jacksonville , AR 72076 Telephone (501) - 9081 Telefax (501) 8 - 414 By : W.1.l Bar 95145 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I , Will Bond , do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing pleading by United States Mail , addressed to such attorney or party wit~~ujfj'ficient prepaid postage to ensure first-class delivery this ~ay of August , 2003: v  Mr . Sam Jones Wright , Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings , LLP 200 W. Capitol , Ste . 2300 \"Little Rock , AR 72201 - 3699 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock , AR 72201 Mr . Christopher Heller Friday , Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark , LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock , AR 72201 John W. Walker P .A. 1723 S . Broadway Little Rock , AR 72206 Mr . Mark Burnette Mitchell , Blackstock , Barnes , Wagoner , Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock , AR Mr . Stephen Jones Jack , Lyon \u0026amp; Jones , P .A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock , AR 72201 Telephone (501) 375 - 1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol , Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 2 - Ms . Karla Burnett Suite 400 , 201 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim Gauger Senior Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock , AR 72201 - 2610 By: 3 AR Bar 95145 WILL BOND BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 _.,A,- ugust 28 , 2003 TELEPHONE: (501) 982-9411 FAX: (501) 982-9414 NEIL CHAMBERLIN / Mr. James W. Mc mack 402 ffice \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 Ca  ol Avenue Little R\u0026amp;ck , AR 72201 - 3325 RE : In the United States District Court , Eastern District of Arkansas , Little Rock Division , Little Rock School District v . Pulaski County Special School District no. 1 , et al. , Katherine Knight , et al ., Greg Bollen , et al ., Case No . 4 : 82CV00866 WRW/JTR Dear/~ . McCormack : Enclosed are an original and .two copies of an Order of Transcripts Pursuant to Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure in the above- referenced case. Please fil e this pleading and return file-marked copies to me in the encl osed self- addressed , stamped envelope . Thank you for your attention to this TWB : ab Enclosure(s) cc: Elaine Hinson Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Chris Heller John Walker Mark Burnette Stephen Jones / Ann Marshall Karla Burnett Tim Gauger ( Regards , RECEIVED r::P 2  2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 03-3088 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS (APPELLEES) DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER INTERVENORS/MOV ANTS (APPELLANTS) CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Appellants, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker, are not a - corporate entity and do not have any parent corporation. Appellants file this statement to comply with Rule 26. l of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 26. l A of the Eighth Circuit Rules. Respectfully Submitted, Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin Attorneys for Plaintiff 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Telephone (501) 982-9 1 Telefax (501) 982-941 By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing pleading by United States Mail, addr;;\u0026gt;s;:911~uch attorney or party with sufficient prepaid postage to ensure first-class delivery this p..t aay of August, 2003: Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste. 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR.72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 - Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim Gauger Senior Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 By: 3 WI LL BOND NEIL CHAMBERLIN Michael E. Gans~ Clerk BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 August 28 , 2003 Eighth Circui Court of Appeals 24 . 329 s F. Eagleton U.S . Courthouse 111 S . Street St. Lo s , MO 63101 (314) 244 - 2400 TELEPHONE: (501) 982-9411 FAX: (501) 982-9414 RECEIVED SEP 2 - 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE : United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit , Case No . 03 - 3088 Dear Mr . Gans : Enclosed are an original and five copies of a Corporate Disclosure Statement in the above- referenced case . Please file and return file - marked copies to me in the enclosed self-addressed , stamped envelope . Thank you for your attention to this matter . Regards , TWB : ab Enclosure(s) Michael E. Gans August 20 , 2003 Page Two cc: Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher Heller John W. Walker P .A. Mark Burnette Stephen Jones Ann Marshall  Karla Burnett FILED US DISTRICT COURT EAST!:~,;. DISTRICT AF!KA~JSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 2 9 2003\" EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DMSION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER By: DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 3799) to submit a fee petition regarding PCSSD's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agree:ment. Joshua Intervenors' motion is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of August, 2003. UN!WuS~WJIJ!lti Wm. R. WILSON, JR. TO: DATE: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COlURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones Jolm Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson e-z..y.o-, Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Nwnber: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 There are Z. pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: ?\"\"'t:~~9~-- Office of Judge Wm. R. W~ U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141    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_1750","title":"Includes memorandum of allowance for extension of time, responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement, PCSSD's response to Bollen intervenors, and notice of rejoinder.","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":["2003-08-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. State Board of Education","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Includes memorandum of allowance for extension of time, responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement, PCSSD's response to Bollen intervenors, and notice of rejoinder."],"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/1750"],"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":["45 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, memorandum of allowance for extension of time; District Court, Knight intervenors' response to Pulaski County Special School Districts (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to dismiss Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, order; District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel and for substitution of counsel; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Bollen intervenors' motion to intervene; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) memorandum in support of its response to the Bollen intervenors; motion to intervene; District Court, motion to dismiss the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion to dismiss the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, the Bollen intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) statement of material facts related to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, memorandum brief in support of the Bollen intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, the Bollen intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, notice of rejoinder    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    - ILL WILSON - JUDGe: To: All Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF AAKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (S01) 804-5140 Facslrnlle (501) 804-5149 August 11, 2003 BYFAX RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING . RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR Mr. Steve Jones, counsel for the North Little Rock School District, called Matt Morgan, my new LRSD law clerk, regarding the deadline I imposed in the August 6, 2003 Order. _The Order required that responses to the Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief (Doc. No. 3760) and the Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. :,766) be filed no iater than 12:00 p.m., noon, today. Mr. Jones advises that be had been out of town since August 1, had just received notice of the order, and requested a one day extension to reply. Due to his circumstances, I have allowed Mr. Jones until 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 12, 2003 , to reply to. either of the pending motions. Cordially, c El~ Original to Clerk TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones Richard Roachell John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall :Mark Burnette Scott Smith Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fa.x Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 682-4249 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 DATE: 8  II -o ':;\u0026gt; There are ;2 pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this faGsirnile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. R. Wi1501 U.S. Distri,;t Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morg1m, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 --- --- ------------ ~- - - ~ l , r;:.' .: ... ) _ _ w ~, l ~ ::. \"\\-:n t'.  .1 '- .  U.S. DI STRICT CCURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cou:~r EASTERN DiSTisiCT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS t( - /.:..-..:G i 1  \"L.\"~ ~J WESTERN DIVISION -: JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLEF-K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By_ ---~'T\"TT..,._.....,._.,,..... PLAIN I lllf CL~R--.- V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS AUG 1 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, ET AL. MOVANT/INTERVENORS KNIGHT INTERVENOR'S RESPONSE TO PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S \u0026lt;PCSSD'S) FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S (LRSD'S) MOTION TO DISMISS PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Knight Intervenors support PCSSD's motion in full, but put forward a different rationale I for why this Court must act to enjoin the State Board of Education now, rather than await the outcome of the election the State Board has ordered. A. The State Board Has Unilaterally Initiated an Alteration of the Settlement Agreement, and PCSSD's Desegregation Plan, Over Which It No Longer Has Discretionary Authority to Stop; It has Taken This Action In Clear Contravention of This Court's Authority and Obligation to Make Prior Approval of Any Such Proposed Alterations If the voters approve the plan to create a new district on September 16, 2003, the State Board \"shall order the creation of the new school district.\" A.C.A. 6-13-1505(a). To that extertt, the State defendant has taken its final discretionary administrative action on the issue of creation of a new school district, notwithstanding the outcome of the vote. The State Board's \"vote\" has been cast in favor of the creation of a new district whether that negatively impacts the ---- - ------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I desegregation of the Pulaski County districts or not. At this point, the question is not \"what - happens if the voters approve the plan,\" - the State Board will be bound to the creation of the new district automatically - but, \"whether the State Board has made an \"end run\" around the Court's authority to approve proposed alterations of the desegregation plans before the alteration is made.\" As discussed below, the State Board has adopted the detachment proponents position that this Court will make the necessary future adjustments to the settlement agreement and desegregation plans to accommodate the creation of a new district, despite its own statutory obligation, A. CA. 6-13-1504(b )(2)(A), to investigate the question of whether there will be any negative impact on the Pulaski County school districts' desegregation efforts and reject the proposal for an election if any negative impact exists. Unfortunately, if PCS SD awaits the statutorily required invocation of this Court's after-the-fact approval, see A.CA. 6-13- - 1505(b)(2), the analysis of those issues will c9me too late. The new district will be afait accompli: by statue, the State Board must create a new district if the voters approve. By statute, it is then the new district which petitions the Court for what will amount to absolution for its own creation. See A. CA. 6-13-1 SOS(b )(2). It is a fundamental tenet of this Court's jurisdiction over the settlement of this case that a party seeking an alteration ofthe settlement agreement must obtain the Court's prior approval. The State Board has not done so prior to passing on its discretionary authority to stop the creation of a new district. It has approved the proposed new district and forwarded it to the public for a vote. The very act of doing so denigrates the very existence of one of the parties to this litigation, accedes to the creation of a new entity over which the court must then assume jurisdiction, and thus, fundamentally, seeks to change the desegregation efforts of all three Pulaski County school districts. This Court should therefore stay the order of an election unless the Court concludes - that the State Board is entitled to approval of an alteration of the settlement agreement through creation of a new entity. 1 Toe Court should not await the dismemberment of one of the parties to the Settlement Agreement to consider whether unilateral acts initiated by one party to dismember another party violate the settlement agreement. B. The State Board Has Proceeded in Contravention of State Law By Abdicating its Role to Approve an Election Only If the Creation of the New District Does Not \"Hamper, Delay or in any Manner Negatively Affect Desegregation Efforts\" of PCSSD. The State Board's own inquiry into the critical questions of whether the creation of the proposed new district would negatively effect the settlement agreement, or desegregation generally, was limited to its statutorily required request for an attorney general opinion. The Attorney General's first opinion clearly only raised more questions which, it said, the Board must answer before it could make a legitimate factual determination of the desegregation questions / can me made. For the reasons set forth below, we cannot definitively opine as to whether the detachment would in fact negatively affect desegregation in any school district or negatively impact the effort of the State to assist any '.'affected\" school district in the desegregation of public schools in the State. Nonetheless, the proposed detachment raises serious questions with regard to potential negative impact on the ability of one or more of the schools districts in Pulaski County to comply with their court imposed obligations in the Pulaski County school desegregation litigation. For this reason, before it authorizes an election on the proposed detachment, the State Board of Education should carefully scrutinize the proposal, gathering whatever information, 1So far, the State Bord has not even filed such a Motion. Further, based upon the PCSSD's pending motion and the discussion below, Knight argues that the Movant's and the State Board will not be able to meet the standard of proof necessary to approve such a fundamental alteration of the Settlement Agreement and the other outstanding Orders of the Court which establish the contours of PCSSD's present desegregation plan. commentary or testimony it deems necessary (including input from the three school districts in Pulaski County), to ensure that it has properly exercised its responsibility to determine whether the creation of the new district would hamper . . . . Attorney General Opinion of June 4, 2003, (italics in original). After a review of some of the questions which would have to be answered to make these determinations, it repeatedly concluded that there was insufficient information before the Board to make the determination required by the statute. With this clearly equivocal opiPJon in hand, the State Board was not to be dissuaded. It insisted on clarification of the opinion from the Attorney General2 and responses from the detachment petitioners and others. The proponents offered a legal opinion by attorney Clay Fendley to compete with the Attorney General's opinion. But that opinion, again, invokes this Court's authority to cure all the harms that will be visited on the desegregation efforts in Pulaski County and violations of the Orders of this Court that will result from secession and appears to I concede that detriment to the desegregation plans are inevitable.3 Mr. Fendley's opinion is also defective as a basis for meeting the State Board's statutorily required review of the negative impact of the proposal because, as Mr. Fendley states, \"my analysis will be limited to two 2The Attorney General's second response still gave the State Board no basis for its approval. The Attorney General opined that before granting its approval, the State Board must be assured that \"the detached district and its students will be permitted to participate in all existing transfer programs under the various orders and agreements in the Pulaski County desegregation case.\" To do that, the Board would have had to seek this Court's prior approval for the participation of the newly created detached district in these programs. It has not pursued that assurance from this Court. 3 Among the plans Mr. Fendley has for this Court to solve all these new problems that are likely to occur are, \"ordering the new district to retain the PCSSD teachers currently employed at the detached schools,\" p. 8, and \"address [the anticipated] overcrowding at Sylvan Hills\" p. 7, by \"revis[ing] the attendance zones for all of PCSSD's high schools,\" p. 6, \"discontinue [Sylvan Hills] specialty programs,\" or even \"build add,itional classrooms at Sylvan Hills High School.\" - See PCSSD's Exhibit 17, Fendley Opinion Letter, at the indicated pages. areas,\" \"student assignment and faculty.\" Clearly, other considerations must be made. The detachment will necessarily result in the loss of teacher and support service personnel. Contractually, those losses to PCSSD will be in reverse order of seniority in each certification area, not by a teacher's current association with one school in the PCSSD or another. The teachers currently assigned to schools in the detachment area are still PCSSD employees; they may thus choose to exercise their right to remain in PCSSD where they have a negotiated contract and job security rather than resign for the unknown contract. Thus, the Court must consider \"what affect will the extensive redistribution of teachers within and without PCS SD do to the success of the desegregation efforts in place?\" \"What will that redistribution look like in terms of the experience of the teachers and racial makeup once the break-up occurs? Moreover, \"Does the Court have the authority to alter the plans in such a radical manner as will be required by the detachment being - forwarded?\" \"Can the Court even order the detachment area teachers to remain in their current school, even if it requires them to resign from the PCS SD and be re-employed by the new district?\" The answer to the last question appears to be a resounding \"No\" and therefore dispositive of the detachment question. \"A federal district court does have remedial authority in necessary cases, to modify or even abrogate [employment] agreements that perpetuate segregation or impede a desegregation plan. Such action however can be taken only 'after an evidentiary hearing and upon a finding that the change is essential to the desegregation remedy.'\" Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 1997)(quoting LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296, 1315 cert denied 488 U.S. 869 (1988). No one is even arguing that the proposed detachment is \"essential to the desegregation remedy,\" (clearly it is not), and therefore, the numerous other adjustments to the existing agreement and plans which this Court would be asked to take cannot be made by order of this Court. The Board agreed to assign these tasks to this Court rather than make an adequate inquiry into the issues itself. For these reasons, the time for this Court to act is now. The appropriate Order is to stay the election and put the burden of proof on the State to meet the requirements for altering the Settlement Agreement and PCSSD's desegregation plans, as the Board itself anticipates these must be altered. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors join PCSSD in respectfully requesting that the Court enjoin the election approved by the State Department of Education or enjoin the State Board from performing its ministerial duties under A. C.A. 6-13-1505( a) relative to the creation of a new district out of the PCSSD. Respectfully submitted, Clayton Blackstock Mark Burnette MITCHELL,BLACKSTOCK,BARNES WAGONER \u0026amp; IVERS 1010 West Third P. 0. Box 1510 Little kock, AR 72203-1510 (501) 378-7870 By:2?7~~ Mark Burnette ABN # 88078 Certificate of Service A true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the following by U.S. Mail, postage paid, on this jJ_.,IJ.,jay of~ ,.z4: , 2003: Mr. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 20 Nottingham, #3 Little Rock, AR 72205 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn 412 South Eighteenth Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 Sharon Carden Streett Streett Law Offices P. 0. Box 250418 Little Rock, AR 72225-0418 I Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol , Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Mark Arnold Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General 's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educ. Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 By: 72ld, ~ Mark Burnette BAR NO. 88078 RECEIVED AUG 1 2 2003 - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FIL.ED U.S. DISTR1'.::T COURT EASTEP.N 01sr:::1CT ARKANSAS AUG 1 l 2003 JAME~LERK By:7 ~~ PLAINTIFF  DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Pending is Senior Assistant Attorney General Timothy G. Gauger's Request for Entry of Appearance (Doc. No. 3772) as additional counsel of record for the Arkansas Department of Education for the limited purpose of addressing the PCSSD's \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief.\" The Request for Entry of Appearance by Mr. Gauger for the above mentioned limited purpose is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of August, 2003 . UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED GN DOCKET SHE:ET IN COM.PLIANCE WIT~1RULffe 58 AND/OR79-) FRCP ON it II {_p3 BY ~ -7-r-'\"'-.::_.:..... _ WILL BOND NEIL CHAMBERLIN VIA AND BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 August 11 , 2003 The onorable William R. Wilson , Jr. 60 W. Capitol , Room 423 ittle Rock , AR 72201 TELEPHONE: (501) 982-9411 FAX: (501 ) 982-9414 RECEIVED AUG 12 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE : Little Rock School District v . Pulaski County School District , et al ., United States District Court , Eastern District of Arkansas , Western Division , Case No . 4 : 82CV00866WRW - August 18th Hearing Dear Judge Wilson : One of the Intervenors ' counsel , Clay Fendley , has had a vacation scheduled for quite some time . He cannot move his vacation . The vacation conflicts with the August 18 th hearing date . Can Mr . Fendley be a part of the hearing via telephone or video conference? Any help with accommodating the Intervenors would be greatly appreciated . est Regards , TWB :tt Enclosure(s) cc : All Counsel school district detachment\\judge wilson.aug.11 .03 RECENEO r~ \"J - ~; -~ ) It\" :J !. !.':'\"\"' !  ~.:... . EA u.s. DISTR1cr CcuRT - . - STERN OISTR1CT AR MN SAS 2, 1uu1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~\\.\\G l EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK Off\\Ct Of Ql\\\\ll\\i WESTERN DIVISION By: , , n~itGRtG~1\\0\" ~Qll\\1 c..EP CLER. rnTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, ET AL. DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOVANT/INTERVENORS MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL Come the Knight Intervenors, by and through their undersigned counsel, and for their Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, state: 1. The Knight Intervenor's former counsel, Richard W. Roachell, has retired from the practice of law, and therefore requests to withdraw as counsel for the Knight Intervenors. 2. Intervenors have engaged Clayton Blackstock and Mark Burnette, MITCHELL, BLACKSTOCK, BARNES, WAGONER, IVERS, \u0026amp; SNEDDON, PLLC, 1010 West Third Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, (501) 378-7870, as counsel to replace Mr. Roachell in this matter. 3. Intervenors request that the Court and parties direct all future services and correspondence to Mark Burnette. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors respectfully request that the Court grant the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel and that Clayton Blackstock and Mark Burnette be substituted as their counsel of record. Respectfully submitted, Clayton Blackstock Mark Burnette MITCHELL, BLACKSTOCK, BARNES WAGONER \u0026amp; IVERS 1010 West Third P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 (501) 378-7870 By: Z?lrklhta~K Mark Burnette ABN # 88078 Certificate of Service A true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the following by U.S. Mail, postage paid, on this -/ /--11ciay of ~'!,Av ,'.\u0026gt;-: , 2003: Mr. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 20 Nottingham, #3 Little Rock, AR 72205 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn 412 South Eighteenth Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 Sharon Carden Streett Streett Law Offices P. 0. Box 250418 Little Rock, AR 72225-0418 I Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol , Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Mark Arnold Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Norman J. Chachkin NAAC.? Legai Defense \u0026amp; Educ. Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 By: 2nw.JP~ Mark Burnette BAR NO. 88078 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW GORDON S. RATHER, JR . ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLEST . COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JOHN D. DAVIS I.UDY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 360 Little Rock; Arkansas 72201 200 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 - 3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376- 9442 www . wlj.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R . LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER Writer 's Direct Dial No . 501 -2 12 - 1273 mjoncs@wlj .com August 11, 2003 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX . JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C . TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D . WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING  Lict:OSt:dtopn,cdcebefrx'elbt:Ulill:ltlSate:1 h1t:at aod Tn::tDUt Ol6ce RECEIVED AUG 1 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOffiNG Enclosed are courtesy copies of PCSSD's response to the \"Bollen lntervenors\" Motion to Intervene, and memorandum in support. The original have been filed and the parties served. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: 440028-vl Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ~ Honorable J. Thomas Ray (via hand delivery) All Counsel of Record (via U.S. Mail) Mr. Ray Simon (via U.S. Mail) Mr. Scott Smith (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Will Bond (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Mike Wilson (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Timothy Gauger (via hand delivery) Mr. Mark Burnett (via U.S. Mail) 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. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, RECEIVED AUG 1 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY and SUE ANN WHISKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS PCSSD RESPONSE TO THE \"BOLLEN INTERVENORS\" MOTION TO INTERVENE PCSSD for its response, states: 1. Admit that the movants seek to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). 2. Generally admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 but deny that the movants' \"interest\" is sufficiently unique to warrant intervention and states that the interest set forth parallel those of the Arkansas Board of Education which is already a party to this matter. 3. Admits that a new district cannot be created without an election but reiterates its position that the constitutional scheme pursued by the movants is both unconstitutional and violative of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 4. Denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4. S. Admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 5. 6. Admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 6. 439522-v1 WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the motion be denied and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 Jones III (7 or Pulaski oun Special trict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August)!_, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via hand delivery on Mr. Timothy Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. via facsimile and U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 and via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 439522-v1 2 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895  Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 439522-v1 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 3 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. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, RECEIVED AUG 1 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY and SUE ANN WHISKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS PCSSD MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS RESPONSE TO THE \"BOLLEN INTERVENORS\" MOTION TO INTERVENE The State has now filed its response to the PCSSD Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief. The PCSSD movants, which include certain Board members in both their official and individual capacities, believe that the response of the State demonstrates that the State will adequately and properly represent the interests of the \"Bollen Intervenors\" on all issues presented in this action. Interestingly, however, the upshot of the Bollen Intervenors claims to intervene demonstrate that this matter must be ripe for adjudication; otherwise, they could not currently assert, with any logical force, a compelling need to intervene now. Accordingly, the PCSSD movants submit that the force and vigor of the Bollen Intervenors' position re-enforces the notion that the issues presented by the PCSSD movants 440038-v1 - are ripe for consideration and for the best interest of all of the parties to this case, and those interested in the outcome of these issues, these matters should be adjudicated now rather than at some distant point in the future. Stated another way, if the \"disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicants' ability to protect [its] interest\", then there must be legitimate and cogent reasons why the intervention is being sought now rather than after the election. The intervenors cannot have it both ways. Accordingly, their motion to intervene is a legal statement that the Court should adjudicate the issues now rather than later. 440038-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 nty Special 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August LL, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via hand delivery on Mr. Timothy Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. via facsimile and U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 and via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 440038-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 M. ~ es III : 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. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHf, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER MOTION TO DISMISS RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker (hereinafter the \"Bollen Intervenors\") for their Motion to Dismiss the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement state: 1. The Bollen Intervenors seek to create a new school district in northeast Pulaski County by detaching territory from the PCSSD through the process set forth in Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501 through 1505 (Michie Supp. 2002). In accord with that process,1 the State Board 1The election will be the fourth step in the process established by Ark. Code Ann.  6- 13-1501 through 1505. The Bollen Intervenors initiated the process by commissioning an independent feasibility study. Next, they gathered petition signatures and submitted them to the State Board of Education, along with additional information required by statute. Third, on July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education held a hearing on the petition, found it complied with the detachment statute and voted to order an election. Page 1 of 4 of Education on July 16, 20032 ordered an election to be held September 16, 2003 so that voters residing in the proposed new school district may vote on whether to detach from the PCSSD. If a majority of voters favor detachment, the State Board of Education will order the creation of the new district. See Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1505(a). 2. In its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, the PCSSD argues that detachment will violate the Court's Consent Decree arising out of the parties' 1989 Settlement Agreement and asks this Court to order the State Board of Education to rescind its July 16, 2003 order and to stop the September 16, 2003 election on detachment. 3. Also in the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, individual PCSSD board members claim that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because only those residing in the territory to be detached will be permitted to vote in the September 16, 2003 election. See PCSSD's Motion, ,r 9. 4. This Court lacks jurisdiction over both the PCSSD's claims based on the Consent Decree and the individual board members' claims based on the U.S. Constitution. The Court has no jurisdiction over the PCSSD's claims because the PCSSD's alleged harm (detachment) is contingent upon a majority of voters approving detachment, and therefore, the PCSSD's claims are not ripe for adjudication. The Court has no jurisdiction over the individual board members' claims because their claims do not implicate the Consent Decree and because the board members, in their individual capacities, are not parties to this case. For these reasons, the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement should be dismissed. 2Although the hearing was July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education did not actually issue its order until July 16, 2003. Page2 of 4 WHEREFORE, the Bollen Intervenors pray that the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement be dismissed; that they be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that they be awarded all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982'.'9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for the Bollen Intervenors BY: t!: c. 9-w1ll V[\u0026lt; ~ ~ C. Fendley.Jr. Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 11, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-34 72 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaz.a 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 4 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - I. Ripeness. This Court must presume that it lacks jurisdiction \"unless 'the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.\"' Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534,546 (1986) (quoting King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U.S. 225,226 (1887)). \"It is the responsibility of the complainant clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court's remedial powers.\" Bender, supra, at 546, n. 8 (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 517-518 (1975)). The PCSSD fails to allege facts demonstrating that its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is ripe for adjudication. \"The basic rationale of the ripeness doctrine is 'to prevent the courts, through avoidance Page I of 6 of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effect felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.\"' National Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Conner, 323 F.3d 684,692 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Califano y. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977)). Consistent with this rationale, \"courts deciding whether a dispute is ripe should consider (1) the hardship to the plaintiff caused by delayed review; (2) the extent to which judicial intervention would interfere with administrative action; and (3) whether the court would benefit from further factual development.\" Id. Each of the three factors weighs in favor of a finding that the PCSSD's motion is not ripe. First, the PCSSD will suffer no hardship by delaying review until after the September 16, 2003 election. The detachment statute requires this Court's approval before detachment may actually take place. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(b)(2). Consequently, the PCSSD will not suffer any harm before this Court has an opportunity to resolve the issues raised in its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Next, this Court granting the relief sought by the PCSSD would substantially interfere with administrative action taken by the State Board of Education. The State Board of Education ordered an election based on its finding that the Bollen Intervenors satisfied the requirements of the detachment statute. The PCSSD's request that the State Board of Education be directed to rescind its order would, if granted, directly interfere with the State Board of Education's action taken pursuant to state law. Page 2 of 6 Finally, this Court could benefit from further factual development, in that the Court needs to wait and see whether the voters approve detachment. If they do not, the PCSSD's motion will be rendered moot. It is well-settled that \"[a] claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon 'contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.\"' Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998)(quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-81 (1985)). The PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is not ripe for adjudication because the alleged harm is contingent upon voter approval of detachment in the September 16, 2003 election ordered by the State Board of Education. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the motion, and it should be dismissed. n. Individual Board Member Claims. The PCSSD may argue that a live controversy exists based on the constitutional claims made by individual PCSSD board members. In their individual capacities, they claim that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because only those residing in the territory to be detached will be permitted to vote in the September 16, 2003 election. See PCSSD's Motion, ,i 9. However, this Court does not have jurisdiction to decide these claims as a part of the present case for two reasons. First, this Court's remedial authority is limited to interpretation and enforcement1 of its Consent Decree. Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). In that case, this Court (the Honorable Susan Webber Wright) enjoined a strike by the PCSSD's teachers. The teachers 1Enforcement includes modification of the Consent Decree based on changed factual circumstances. See Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 367,388 (1992). Page 3 of 6 appealed, and the Eighth Circuit noted that the Consent Decree does not address the teachers' right to strike and reversed holding, \"The jurisdiction of the District Court to enforce [the Consent Decree] does not include the authority to resolve other disputes among the parties or to adjust their legal rights and responsibilities arising from other sources.\" Id. Similarly, the individual board members' constitutional claims have nothing to do with the Consent Decree. They allege that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because they cannot vote in the detachment election. The Consent Decree simply does not address who should be permitted to vote in a detachment election. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to address the constitutional claims being asserted by the individual board members. Second, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the constitutional claims of the board members because they are not parties to this case in their individual capacities. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 543-44 (1986)(individual school board member sued in his official capacity lacks standing to appeal grant of declaratory judgment against school district); Doe v. Claiborne County, Tenn., 103 F.3d 495, 511 (6th Cir. 1996) (individual school board members cannot act under of color of state law as required for liability under  1983 ); Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-620 (establishing the power and duties of school boards). To pursue their individual claims, the board members must file a separate case. m. Conclusion .. In sum, this Court lacks jurisdiction over both the PCSSD's claims based on the Consent Decree and the individual board members' claims based on the U.S. Constitution. The Court has no jurisdiction over the PCSSD's claims because the PCSSD's alleged harm (detachment) is Page4 of 6 contingent upon a majority of voters approving detachment, and therefore, the PCSSD's claims are not ripe for adjudication. The Court has no jurisdiction over the individual board members' claims because the claims do not implicate the Consent Decree and because the board members, in their individual capacities, are not parties to this case. For these reasons, the PCSSD's Motion to Fourth Enforce Settlement Agreement should be dismissed. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for the Bollen Intervenors Page 5 of 6 ------ - - -- - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 11, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-34 72 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 ~hnC.. F en~dley,J~r. ,~ Page 6 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION L!TI1..,E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER THE BOLLEN INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO RECE\\\\JED AUG 11 1003 Off\\CE Of OESEGREG~i\\ON MONliORlltG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS RELATED TO THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The Bollen Intervenors hereby respond in turn to each numbered paragraph of the PCSSD's Statement of Material Facts related to the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. The Bollen Intervenors believe that the boundary adjustment occurred June 19, 1986 and that it involved 14 schools, but are without sufficient information to admit or deny whether it caused the PCS SD to lost one-third of its tax base. 4. Admitted. Page 1 of 6 - - 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. 12. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the State's attorney and Senator Howell were reported by the Arkansas Gazette to have made the alleged statements. 13. Admitted. 14. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the Arkansas Democrat reported as alleged. 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted. 17. Admitted. 18. Admitted. 19. Admitted. 20. Admitted. 21. Admitted. 22. Admitted. 23. Admitted. 24. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the General Assembly enacted Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501, et~- They deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 24. Page 2 of 6 25. The Bollen Intervenors admit that an initial feasibility study was completed on or about November 21, 2002. They deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 25. 26. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the initial feasibility study examined three alternatives for detachment and recommended alternative one be selected. They deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 26. 27. The Bollen Intervenors admit that an addendum dated February 25, 2003 completed and added to the November 21, 2002 feasibility study. They deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 27. 28. The Bollen Intervenors admit that a petition drive was commenced after the completion of the February 25, 2003 addendum and admit that subsequently the petition drive was concluded and petitions were delivered to the Arkansas Department of Education on May 19, 2003. 29. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the legislature approved an amendment to Ark. Code Ann. 6-13- 1501, et seq. adding a criterium allowing detachment from school districts which encompass a total area of seven hundred square miles or more. They deny all remaining allegations in 29 and affirmatively assert that there is at least one other school district in excess of seven hundred square miles. 30. Admitted. 31. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the Attorney General's office rendered its first opinion letter on June 4, 2003. The letter speaks for itself, and they deny the allegations contained in this paragraph to the extent inconsistent therewith. 32. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the State Board of Education conducted a Page 3 of 6 hearing on or about June 9, 2003. That hearing was recorded and is being transcribed, and the transcript will speak for itself. They deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 32. 33. The Bollen Intervenors admit that supplemental materials were provided to the State Board of Education and to the Attorney General's office on or about June 27, 2003. They deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 33. 34. The Bollen Intervenors admit that on or about July 11, 2003 the Attorney General issued an opinion concerning the issue of detachment and the effect of detachment on desegregation. They state that the Attorney General's opinion speaks for itself. They deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 34. 35. Admitted. 36. Admitted. 37. Admitted. 38. Admitted. 39. Admitted. Page 4 of 6 Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for Movants BY 7Jb. {!__ '}f2J_pA{, ~. ;c. Fendley, Jr. Page 5 of 6 ., 4 ' .... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 11, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 3 23 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 IN THE UNIIBD STAIBS DISTRICT COURT EASIBRN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESIBRN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE BOLLEN INIBRVENORS RESPONSE TO RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INIBRVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT I. The Consent Decree. A. Interpretation of Consent Decrees. \"[C]onsent decrees bear some of the earmarks of judgments entered after litigation. At the same time, because their terms are arrived at through mutual agreement of the parties, consent decrees also closely resemble contracts.\" Int'! Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 4 78 U.S. 501, 519 (1986). For purposes of interpretation and enforcement, judicially approved consent decrees are generally treated like contracts, United States v. City of Fort Smith, 760 F.2d 231, 233-34 (8th Cir. 1985), and fundamental principles of contract interpretation under state law govern their interpretation. United States v. City of Northlake, 942 F.2d 1164, 1167 (7th Cir. 1991 ). Even so, \"[t]he interpretation of a consent decree should be a practical enterprise, Page 1 of 14 influenced, perhaps, by technical rules of construction, but not controlled by them.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 60 F.3d 435, 436 (8th Cir. 1995). B. Section II. J. The PCS SD argues that Section II. J. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement prohibits detachment of territory from the PCSSD to create a new school district. Section II. J. provides: The State, Joshua and the LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and that this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation activities with the LRSD and others. 1989 Settlement Agreement, p. 9. The PCSSD contends that, by recognizing the PCSSD as an \"independent, sovereign desegregating school district[],\" the parties intended to prohibit \"any new usurpation of [the PCSSD' s] territory, facilities and assets . ... \" PCSSD Brief, p. 2. Apparently believing that Section II. J. is ambiguous, the PCSSD purports to provide the Court with extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent. See City ofNorthlake, 942 F.2d atl 167. In fact, the PCS SD provides the Court a series of newspaper articles and letters, none of which directly address the parties' intent. Rather, they show that various persons in the media and Legislature speculated that Section II. J. could preclude future consolidation of the three Pulaski County school districts, and if so, thought that was a bad idea. See, ~. PCSSD Exhibit 6 (indicating that Section II. J. \"could become an impediment to a countywide consolidation in the future, and if so it is an unfortunate provision.\"). This speculation is inadmissible hearsay and should not be considered by the Court. See Fed. R. Evid. 801 and 802. Moreover, even assuming the speculation was correct, it would only prove that Section II. J. was intended to prevent consolidation of the three Pulaski County school districts. It does not establish that Page 2 of 14 Section Il. J. was intended to prohibit \"any new usurpation of [the PCSSD' s) territory, facilities and assets ... ,\" as alleged by the PCSSD. The only evidence of intent the Bollen Intervenors have been able to locate to date1 comes from hearings before the Court's Special Master, Aubrey McCutcheon, during which the parties explained to Special Master McCutcheon the provisions of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In an April 19, 1989 hearing, McCutcheon described his understanding of Section Il. J. as follows: I am also recommending to the court with respect to the settlement that the language in the settlement not be treated as imposing an absolute restriction on the consideration of any particular type of school, whether it be magnet, interdistrict school, consolidation, anything else. That the language in the settlement agreement that refers to the sovereignty and independence of the districts be considered just that, language which acknowledges the current status, but does not in any way infringe on the court's jurisdiction to determine whether or not there ought to be a merger of certain Junctions for the purpose of being more cost effective and more desegregative and a wiser use of the spending of the money. $120 million is a lot of money, and we ought to see to it that it is spent wisely and carefully, along with any other monies that are spent by the school districts as a part of their implementation of the desegregation responsibilities. See Exhibit 1 attached hereto, p. 22-23 (emphasis supplied). Special Master McCutcheon's interpretation is consistent with the plain language of Section II. J. Section II. J. was written in the present tense. It would have been easy to include language specifically prohibiting future consolidation or any other usurpation of the PCSSD's power, territory or assets, but no such language was included. Regardless of what was meant by \"sovereign, independent school district[),\" Section II. J. was unambiguously limited to the present and did not address future usurpations of the power, territory or assets of the PCSSD. Therefore, Section II. J. does not prohibit, 14 years later, the detachment of territory from the 1If the Court agrees with PCSSD that Section II. J. is ambiguous, the Bollen Intervenors respectfully request a reasonable amount of time to conduct discovery on this issue. Page 3 of 14 PCSSD to create a new school district. C. Section II. L. The PCSSD' s argument that detachment violates Section II. L. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement is answered in the discussion of the alleged negative impact on desegregation in Section III of this brief. II. Egual Protection. A. Introduction. Tue individual PCSSD board members argue that the detachment statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because it provides that only those \"residing in the territory to be detached shall be entitled to vote in the election\" on detachment. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1504(3). Their argument fails because they have no constitutional right to vote on detachment. See Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 201 U.S. 161, 178 (1907). Since no constitutional right is at stake, the question before this Court is whether the detachment statute is rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 70 (1978)(applying rational basis review to a State statute granting authority to a cities over nonresidents who were unable to vote in city elections); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428,433 (1992)(setting forth the standard for challenges to election laws generally). The detachment statute should be upheld because it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective -- encouraging community support for education. Tue detachment statute encourages community support for education by providing small communities in large school districts a mechanism for assuming control of their schools. See Ark. Code Ann. 6-13- 1501 (a)(l ). Tue election required by the detachment statute serves this objective by testing the Page 4 of 14 community's support for detachment. B. No Substantive Constitutional Right at Stake. The individual PCS SD board members have no constitutional right to vote on detachment. School districts are political subdivisions of the State of Arkansas, and the State of Arkansas has discretion to decide the \"nwnber, nature and duration of powers\" conferred upon school districts and ''the territory over which they shall be exercised.\" Id. at 178. See Sailors v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Kent, 387 U.S. 105 (1967) (applying Hunter to school districts). In exercising this discretion, the State of Arkansas \"at its pleasure may modify or withdraw all such powers, may take without compensation such property, hold it itself, or vest it in other agencies, expand or contract the territorial area, unite the whole or a part of it . .. \" Hunter, 201 U. S. at 178 ( emphasis supplied). Moreover, \"all this may be done, conditionally or unconditionally, with or without the consent of the citizens, or even against their protest.\" Id. (emphasis supplied). In this case, the State of Arkansas conditioned detachment on an election in which a majority of voters favor detachment. See Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1504(3). It imposed a residence requirement consistent with the purpose of the election -- to confirm support for detachment in the territory to be detached. Given the purpose of the election, it would not make sense to allow persons to vote who reside outside the territory to be detached. It is beyond dispute ''that the States have the power to require that voters be bona fide residents of the relevant political subdivision.\" Dunn v. Blwnstein, 405 U.S. 330, 343-44 (1972). See Holt, 439 U.S. at 68-69 (\"[O]ur cases have uniformly recognized that a government unit may legitimately restrict the right to participate in its political processes to those who reside within its borders.\"); Page 5 of 14 Carrington v. Rash. 380 U.S. 89, 91 (1965)(\"Texas has unquestioned power to impose reasonable residence restrictions on the availability of the ballot.\"). C. Rational Basis Review. Since the individual PCSSD board member have no constitutional right to vote on detachment, the question before this Court is whether the detachment statute is rationally related to .a legitimate governmental objective. Holt, 439 U.S. at 70; Burdick, 504 U.S. at 433. In Hol!, persons residing in Holt. an unincorporated area adjoining Tuscaloosa, Alabama, sought a declaration that a state statute was unconstitutional because it allowed Tuscaloosa to exercise police powers in Holt. They argued that the extraterritorial exercise of police powers violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses because Holt residents were denied the right to vote in Tuscaloosa elections. Holt, 439 U.S. at 62-63. In determining the appropriate standard of review, the Supreme Court first distinguished cases such as Kramer v. Union Free School Dist. No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969). where the challenged statute \"denied the franchise to individuals who were physically resident within the boundaries of the govern.mental entity concerned.\" Id. at 68. It then recognized a State's power to impose reasonable residence requirements. Id. at 68- 69. Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that the State's power to impose reasonable residence requirements meant that the residents of Holt had no right to vote in Tuscaloosa elections. Id. at 70. Since there was no fundamental right at stake. it held that the statute in question was subject to rational basis review. Id. The Supreme Court went on to uphold the statute under that standard. Id. at 75. In Burdick, supra. the Supreme Court clarified the standard to be applied in a challenge to a state election law. That case involved a challenge to Hawaii's prohibition on write-in voting Page 6 of 14 based on the First and Fourteenth Amendment. Id. 504 U.S. at 430. The court first noted that not every burden on the right to vote must be subject to strict scrutiny. Id. at 432. It explained: Election laws will invariably impose some burden upon individual voters. Each provision of a code, \"whether it governs the registration and qualifications of voters, the selection and eligibility of candidates, or the voting process itself, inevitably affects -- at least to some degree -- the individual's right to vote and his right to associate with others for political ends.\" Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983). Consequently, to subject every voting regulation to strict scrutiny and to require that the regulation be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest, as petitioner suggests, would tie the hands of States seeking to assure that elections are operated equitably and efficiently. See Brief for Petitioner 32-37. Accordingly, the mere fact that a State's system \"creates barriers .. . tending to limit the field of candidates from which voters might choose ... does not of itself compel close scrutiny.\" Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 143 (1972); Anderson, supra, at 788; McDonald v. Board of Election Cornm'nrs of Chicago, 394 U.S. 802 (1969). Id. at 433-34. The court then addressed the question of when strict scrutiny would apply. It stated: A court considering a challenge to a state election law must weigh \"the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate\" against \"the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule,\" taking into consideration \"the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiffs rights.\" Id., at 789; Tashjian, supra, at 213-214. Under this standard, the rigorousness of our inquiry into the propriety of a state election law depends upon the extent to which a challenged regulation burdens First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Thus, as we have recognized when those rights are subjected to \"severe\" restrictions, the regulation must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.\" Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. , (1992). But when a state election law provision imposes only \"reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions\" upon the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of voters, \"the State's important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify\" the restrictions. Anderson, supra, at 788; see also id., at 788-789, n. 9. Id. at 434. The Court went on to uphold Hawaii's prohibition on write-in voting applying Page 7 of 14 rational basis review. Id. at 441. The detachment statute should likewise be upheld based on rational basis review. For example, the California Supreme Court addressed this identical situation in the context of county government in Bd. of Supervisors v. Local Agency Formation Comm'n, Bd. of Supervisors v. Local Agency Formation Comm'n, 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 245, 838 P.2d 1198, 3 Cal. 4th 903 (1992). In that case, the California Supreme Court rejected an equal protection challenge to California Government Code 57103. That code provision allowed unincorporated areas of a county to incorporate into a city ( detach from the county) following an election among only residents of the proposed city (the territory to be detached). Id., 3 Cal 4th at 908. County residents residing outside the territory to be detached alleged that 57103 violated the Equal Protection Clause because, although they would be impacted by detachment, it denied them the right to vote on detachment. In determining the standard ofreview, the California Supreme Court applied the flexible test described in Burdick. Id. 3 Cal 4th at 914. It noted that county residents had no right to vote on detachment because counties \"are mere creatures of the state and exist only at the state's sufferance.\" Id. As a result, the court found that \"individual interests in voting are much attenuated by the state's plenary power to oversee and regulate the formation of its political subdivisions, and the same power entitles the state to identify as differing in degrees the interests of those who may vote under 57103 and those who may not.\" Id. The court concluded that \"the essence of this case is not the fundamental right to vote, but the state's plenary power to set the conditions under which its political subdivisions are created. For that reason, the impairment of the right to vote is insufficiently implicated to demand the application of strict scrutiny.\" Id. at Page 8 of 14 3 Cal. 4th at 918 (emphasis supplied). See Wit v. Berman, 306 F.3d 1256, 1259 (2nd Cir. 2002)(following Burdick and applying rational basis standard to a residence requirement). The court then looked to whether  57103 was rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. It concluded that 57103 was rationally related to its stated objective of encouraging orderly growth and development stating: The act accommodates competing local governmental and private interests ... The election merely asks the affected residents to confirm that they desire selfgovernment To deny the Legislature the authority to let the potentially incorporating territory's voters have the final say in the matter would be to lessen political participation, not increase it. We do not believe that result is required by our federal or state Constitutions. Id. 3 Cal. 4th at 923. Accordingly, the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of 57103. The detachment statute should likewise be upheld.2 The key case relied upon by the individual PCSSD Board members is Kramer v. Union - Free School Dist. No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969). They argue the strict scrutiny applies simply because the state decided to hold an election, and indeed, taken out of context, some language from Kramer appears to support their argument. See Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 , 704 (citing Kramer, 395 U.S. at 629 n.11).3 However, the Supreme Court in Kramer explained 2The Florida Supreme Court reached the same result in a factually similar case. In City of Long Beach Resort v. Collins, 261 So.2d 498 (Fla. 1972), it rejected an equal protection challenge to Florida House Bill No. 5288 which permitted the consolidation of several municipalities and unincorporated areas upon a favorable vote in only the unincorporated areas. 261 So. 2d at 499. The Florida Supreme Court summarily rejected an equal protection challenge by noting that the municipalities were all created by acts of the Legislature and concluding, \"This was the prerogative of the Legislature which has life and death powers over municipalities which are created, modified and can be abolished by the Legislature.\" Id. 261 So. 2d at 500. 3Cipriano may be distinguished on the same grounds as Kramer. It also involved a statute that \"grant[ ed] the right to vote in a limited purpose election to some otherwise qualified voters and denie[d] it to others . . . \" 395 U.S. at 704. Decided the same day as Kramer, the court in Page 9 of 14 that strict scrutiny \"is not necessitated by the subject of the election; rather, it is required because some resident citizens are permitted to participate and some are not.\" 395 U.S. at 629 (emphasis supplied). Thus, while Kramer involved a state's discrimination against some bona fide residents of the relevant political subdivision, the present case involves the state's identification of the relevant political subdivision. See Dunn, 405 U.S. at 343-44. The Supreme Court in Kramer noted the difference stating: Appellant agrees that the State may impose reasonable citizenship, age, and residency requirements on the availability of the ballot. [citations omitted]. The sole issue in this case is whether the additional requirements of  2012 -requirements which prohibit some district residents who are otherwise qualified by age and citizenship from participating in district meetings and school board elections -- violate the Fourteenth Amendment's command that no State shall deny persons equal protection of the laws. Id. at 625-26 (emphasis by court). Therefore, Kramer involved a discriminatory residence requirement, whereas the detachment statute does not discriminate among residents. Kramer holds that discriminatory residence requirements are subject to strict scrutiny, and this is consistent with Burdick and Holt. The Supreme Court in Burdick stated that rational basis review only applied to \"reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions.\" 504 U.S. at 434. The Supreme Court in Holt distinguished Kramer because it involved a discriminatory residence requirement. It stated, \"The challenged statute in [Kramer] denied the franchise to individuals who were physically resident within the geographic boundaries of the governmental entity concerned.\" Holt, 439 U.S. at 68. In this case, no residents of the territory to be detached are denied the right to vote -- nonresidents are denied Cipriano stated that strict scrutiny applied \"if a challenged statute grants the right to vote in a limited purpose election so some otherwise qualified voters and denies it to others.\" 395 U.S. at 704. Page 10 of 14 the right to vote. Accordingly, Kramer does not require strict scrutiny of the detachment statute. See Columbia River Gorge United v. Yeutter, 960 F.2d 110, 115 (9th Cir. 1992) (\"The equal protection clause, however, is not violated when a geographic area is singled out for different treatment. The Supreme Court has held that 'there is no rule that counties, as counties, must be treated alike; the Equal Protection Clause relates to equal protection of the laws between individuals rather than between areas.\"' ( quoting Griffm v. County School Bd. of Prince Edward County. 377 U.S. 218, 230 (1964)(intemal quotation omitted))). D. Conclusion. The individual PCSSD board members have no constitutional right to vote on detachment. Hunter, 201 U.S. at 178. As a result, the detachment statute must be upheld if its is rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. See Holt, 439 U.S. at 68-69; Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434. In this case, the State of Arkansas decided to conduct an election to test a community's support for detachment, and it logically limited the vote to those residing in the territory to be detached. This was a legitimate exercise of the State's power and should be upheld. Accordingly, the individual board members' equal protection claims should be dismissed. III. Impact on Desegregation. If the voters confirm their support for detachment in the September 16, 2003 election, the State Board of Education will order the creation of a new school district in Northeast Pulaski County and appoint a Board of Education for the district. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-l 3- 1505(b )(1 ). Before any transfer of power, property or territory to the new district, the newly appointed board must intervene in this case and agree to such orders as necessary to ensure no Page 11 of 14 negative impact on desegregation. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(b)(l). Thus, the detachment statute has a built in mechanism to ensure no negative impact on desegregation and does not violate Section IL L. of the Settlement Agreement. Once appointed by the State Board of Education, the Board of Directors of the new district cannot exercise any power over their schools unless and until authorized by this Court. See Wright v. Council of the City ofEmpori~ 407 U.S. 451 (1972). Even so, this Court does not have authority to grant the PCSSD the relief sought -- enjoining the September 16, 2003 election -- or to otherwise prevent the State Board of Education from creating the new district. See Ross v. Houston Ind. School Dist., 583 F.2d 712, 716 (5th Cir. 1978)(\"The district court exceeded the ambit of its discretion when it enjoined WISD's ability to maintain its corporate existence or to pursue those of its organizational rights under state law that do not involve the independent operation of a portion ofHISD as WISD.\"). Rather, when and if the time comes, the issue before this Court will be the \"proper role [of the new district] in the desegregation of the county system.\" Stout v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 466 F.2d 1213, 1214 (5th Cir. 1972). The proper role of the new district will be \"essentially a factual determination in any particular case.\" Wright, 407 U.S. at 470. The precise role that may be requested by the board of the new district cannot be determined at this time, since the board has yet to be appointed. As a result, it would be inappropriate at this time to propose solutions to the concerns raised by the PCSSD. At a minimum, however, the PCS SD and new district should be prepared for an orderly transfer of control upon the PCSSD being declared unitary. This means that the new district will need funding and personnel. It also means that the new district should assume control to the extent Page 12 of 14  practicable before the PCSSD becomes unitary. To the extent the Bollen Intervenors can speak for the future board of the new district, they want to express their sincere desire to work in good faith with the PCSSD and the other parties to reach an agreement in the best interest of all children in Pulaski County. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for the Bollen Intervenors BY:~ f_. 9--~, ~ oiu:c. Fendley, Jr . Page 13 of 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 11, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 7220 l Page 14 of 14 EXCERPT FROM TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC STATUS CONFERENCE April 19, 1989 (Docket No. 1179A) Special Master Aubrey Mccutcheon Speaking Pages 21-231 1These page numbers may not correlate with the actual transcript. They are based on a copy of the transcript that had been scanned and converted to a WordPerfect document. Bollen Intervenors Exhibit 1 to Response Brief is not the limit of their responsibility to implement a constitutional desegregation plan. So, there is no reason for me to recommend disapproval of the settlement, I am recommending its approval. I am recommending, however, that the state not be dismissed from the case until they have fulfilled all of their responsibilities under the settlement. I am further recommending to the U.S. District Court that even though the court re-dedicates the millage as requested by the parties in the settlement, that those re-dedications be conditional upon the parties fulfilling their obligations under the settlement and under any court orders that arc issued to alleviate the conditions of segregation that still exist. And the obvious reason for that is that we do not want to have the court re-dedicate the millage and have the general public have to pay more money to the schools, only to find out that the schools are not fulfilling their obligations under the desegregation orders of the court, and then the school districts go back to the public and have to ask for additional monies. So, we are recommending that the court 21 make the re-dedication of millages conditional upon the satisfaction by the districts of their obligations under the agreement, the settlement agreement, as well as the other court orders. I am also recommending to the court with respect to the settlement that the language in the settlement not be treated as imposing an absolute restriction on the consideration of any particular type of school, whether it be magnet, interdistrict school, consolidation, anything else. That the language in the settlement agreement that refers to the sovereignty and independence of the districts be considered just that, language which acknowledges the current status, but does not in any way infringe on the court's jurisdiction to determine whether or not there ought to be a merger of certain functions for the purpose of being more cost effective and more desegregative and a wiser use of the spending of the money. $120 million is a lot of money, and we ought to see to it that it is spent wisely and carefully, along with any other monies that are spent by the school districts as a part of their implementation of the desegregation 22 responsibilities. There has been a lot of talk about grandfathering. There has been a lot of talk about neighborhood schools. I don't know of any definition in a school desegregation case of neighborhood schools, and I don't find one in the plans that have been submitted. I do find much language, some of which I have referred to previously, indicating that we ought to seek stability, we ought to seek predictability and continuity of assignments, which means we ought to have feeder patterns, we ought to have attendance zones, we ought to make it possible for pupils to go to school together if they live on the same street, that ought to be possible. And one way it is possible is through a concept which I will be recommending regarding the pairing of certain schools and certain grade levels. But with respect to the grandfathering and the attendance zones and the neighborhood schools, I can tell you that the plans submitted by the Little Rock School District are in some portions incomprehensible on those three topics. In other sections, they are so inconsistent that 23 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. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER THE BOLLEN INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The Bollen Intervenors for their Response to the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement state: 1. As to paragraph 1, the Bollen Intervenors admit that the PCSSD's Board of Directors, in their official capacities, are parties to this action. The Bollen Intervenors deny that the PCS SD Board of Directors are parties to this case in their individual capacities, and their claims should be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the Bollen Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss and the accompanying brief which are hereby incorporated by reference. The Bollen Intervenors affirmatively assert that the PCSSD lacks standing to assert the constitutional claims advanced by the individual PCSSD board members. 2. As to paragraph 2, the Bollen Intervenors' Response to the PCSSD's Statement of Page 1 of 6 Material Facts is hereby incorporated by reference. 3. The Bollen Intervenors admit the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the PCSSD's motion. 4. The Bollen Intervenors admit that this Court has continuing jurisdiction over the State of Arkansas to enforce compliance with the 1989 Settlement Agreement. They deny that the July 14, 2003 action of the State Board of Education violates any provision of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 5. The Bollen Intervenors deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the PCSSD's motion. The Bollen Intervenors affirmatively assert that the Consent Decree should be modified, if necessary, to allow creation of a new school district in Northeast Pulaski County. 6. The Bollen Intervenors admit that, if voters approve detachment in the September 16, 2003 election, the Board of Directors for the new district must intervene in this case and \"obtain any and all court orders or other relief necessary to ensure that the detachment will not cause the state or any affected school district to be in violation of any orders of the court or consent orders or decrees entered into by the parties with regard to the desegregation plan.\" Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1505(b)(2). The Bollen Intervenors deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the PCSSD's motion. 7. Th.e Bollen Intervenors deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the PCSSD's motion. 8. As to paragraph 13, the Bollen Intervenors admit that detachment will marginally increase the percentage of African-American students in the remaining PCSSD. They deny that Page 2 of 6 detachment will \"artificially accelerate the evolution of the PCSSD to a majority black school district.\" 9. The Bollen Jntervenors admit that Newsweek recently recognized Mills University Studies High School as the twentieth \"best\" in the country. They deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the PCSSD's motion. 10. The Bollen Jntervenors deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the PCSSD's motion. They affirmatively assert that the new district will seek to retain teachers currently employed in schools slated for detachment and believe it is highly unlikely that all of the approximately 475 teachers will seek new positions in the remaining PCSSD. 11. The Bollen Intervenors deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the PCSSD's motion. 12. The Bollen Jntervenors admit that detachment will result in the PCSSD losing approximately 6500 students. They deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the PCSSD's motion. 13. The Bollen Jntervenors admit that the PCSSD's current population density per square mile is approximately 25 students per square mile. They admit that the feasibility study indicated that the population density of the new district would be 53 students per square mile. The Bollen Intervenors deny the remaining allegations containing in paragraph 21 of the PCSSD's motion. 14. The Bollen Intervenors state that the State Board of Education's July 16, 2003 order speaks for itself, and deny the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the PCSSD's motion to the extent inconsistent therewith. They deny the remaining allegations contained in Page 3 of 6 paragraph 22 of the PCSSD's motion. The Bollen Intervenors affirmatively assert that the parties' 1989 Settlement Agreement is the Consent Decree. This Court may modify the Consent Decree without the agreement of the parties under the circumstances described in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992). If approved by a majority of voters in the September 16, 2003 election, the creation of the new district will constitute changed factual circumstances justifying modification of the Consent Decree. 15. The Bollen Intervenors admit that this Court's jurisdiction is limited to monitoring and enforcing (including modifying as necessary) its Consent Decree. They deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the PCSSD's motion. 16. The Bollen Intervenors deny that a \"case or controversy'' exists at this time. They affirmatively assert that this case is not ripe for adjudication for the reasons set forth in their Motion to Dismiss and the accompanying brief, which are hereby incorporated by reference. 17. The Bollen lntervenors' memorandum brief accompanying this Response is hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, the Bollen Intervenors pray that the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement be denied; that, if necessary, the Consent Decree be modified to accommodate the creation of the proposed new district by detachment from the PCS SD; that they be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that they be awarded all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Page 4 of 6 Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for the Bollen Intervenors BYJhnC:. ~~-~fr Fendley, Jr. Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 11, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-34 72 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 3 23 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 e !. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 ., EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS t  WESTERN DIVISION :1l.:.::=: .  ------- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG 1 3 2003 DESEGREaiWCE OF ON MONITOR/NQ NOTICE OF JOINDER The Joshua Intervenors for their notice of joinder, state: -- ----- PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The Joshua Intervenors have reviewed the forth motion of the PCSSD to enforce settlement agreement, the statement of material facts and memorandum in support of motion. Premises considered, the Joshua Intervenors hereby give notice of their joinder within and adoption of these pleadings of the PCSSD dated July 24, 2003 . 439291 -v1 Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 374-3758 FAX: (501) 374-4187 / ,,,,,.---. , /7:h_ ( I ,;,(;, : / / _? By ~ I/ - ' ~ W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 Attorney Joshua Intervenors d CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August /..L~o03, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following : Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 439291-v1 2 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 hn C Fendley, Jr. M~J~. Fe~dley, Jr. P.A. Jo Drive 51 Wingatke AR 72205 Little Roe , 439291-v1 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\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1751","title":"Includes responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enforce settlement agreement, PCSSD board members' motion to intervene in their individual capacities, and request for entry of appearance.","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":["2003-08-05/2003-08-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Arkansas. State Board of Education","School board members"],"dcterms_title":["Includes responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enforce settlement agreement, PCSSD board members' motion to intervene in their individual capacities, and request for entry of appearance."],"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/1751"],"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":["34 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, motion to intervene; District Court, motion to dismiss the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion to dismiss the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion to intervene; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) board members motion to intervene in their individual capacities; District Court, memorandum in support of motion to intervene; District Court, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief; District Court, request for entry of appearance    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.     MOBILE: 501-350-2573 OFFICE: 501-907-9797 CLAY FENDLEY ATTORNEY AT LAW JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. P.A. 51 WINGATE DRIVE LITTLE ROCK., AR 72205 August 5, 2003 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 HAND-DELIVERED RE: LRSD v. PCSSD NO. 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: 0 : ~ E-MAIL: fendley l@alltel.net FAX: 501-907-9798 RECEIVED AUG 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed please find a Motion to Intervene and accompanying brief which I, along with Mike Wilson and Will Bond, have filed today on behalf of Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker. The motion arises out of the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. It is our understanding that a hearing on the PCSSD's motion has been scheduled for August 18, 2003. We respectfully request that our intervention motion be considered at that hearing as well. 1bank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, cc: All counsel The Honorable J. Thomas Ray 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. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, RECEIVED AUG 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUEANN WHISKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS MOTION TO INTERVENE Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker for their Motion to Intervene state: 1. The Movants move to intervene in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). 2. The Movants have an interest in this Court's resolution of the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. The Movants seek to create a new school district in northeast Pulaski County by detaching territory from the PCSSD through the process set forth in Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1501 through 1505 (Michie Supp. 2002). In accord with that process,' 1The election will be the fourth step in the process established by Ark. Code Ann.  6- 13-1501 through 1505. The Movants initiated the process by commissioning an independent feasibility study. Next, they gathered petition signatures and submitted them to the State Board of Education, along with additional information required by statute. Third, on July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education held a hearing on the petition, found it complied with the detachment statute and voted to order an election. Page 1 of 4 the State Board of Education on July 16, 20032 ordered an election to be held September 16, 2003 so that voters residing in the proposed new school district may vote on whether to detach from the PCSSD. If a majority of voters favor detachment, the State Board of Education will order the creation of the new district. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(a). In its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, the PCSSD argues that detachment will violate the Court's Consent Decree arising out of the parties' 1989 Settlement Agreement and asks the Court to order the State Board ofEducation to rescind its July 16, 2003 order and to stop the September 16, 2003 election on detachment. The Movants have an interest in seeing that the election go forward as a necessary part of the detachment process established by Ark. Code Ann.  6-13- 1501 through 1505. 3. If this Court grants the PCS SD the relief it seeks, it will as a practical matter - impair or impede the Movants' ability to establish an independent school district in northeast Pulaski County by the process established by Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501 through 1505. The new district cannot be created without the election that the PCSSD seeks to stop. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(a). 4. The Movants' interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties to this case. 5. The Movants' memorandum brief submitted in support of this motion is hereby incorporated by reference. 6. The Movants' proposed Motion to Dismiss the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to 2Although the hearing was July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education did not actually issue its order until July 16, 2003. Page 2 of 4 Enforce Settlement Agreement and the accompanying brief are attached hereto as Exhibit A and B, respectively. WHEREFORE, the Movants pray that they be granted leave to intervene and all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for Movants B:Yiimc. ~t-~,~ Fendley, Jr. Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 5, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 4 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker (hereinafter the \"Bollen Intervenors\") for their Motion to Dismiss the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement state: 1. The Bollen Intervenors seek to create a new school district in northeast Pulaski County by detaching territory from the PCSSD through the process set forth in Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501 through 1505 (Michie Supp. 2002). In accord with that process, 1 the State Board 1The election will be the fourth step in the process established by Ark. Code Ann. 6- 13-1501 through 1505. The Bollen Intervenors initiated the process by commissioning an independent feasibility study. Next, they gathered petition signatures and submitted them to the State Board of Education, along with additional information required by statute. 'Third, on July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education held a hearing on the petition, found it complied with the detachment statute and voted to order an election. Page 1 of 4 Exhibit A of Education on July 16, 20032 ordered an election to be held September 16, 2003 so that voters residing in the proposed new school district may vote on whether to detach from the PCS SD. If a majority of voters favor detachment, the State Board of Education will order the creation of the new district. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(a). 2. In its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, the PCS SD argues that detachment will violate the Court's Consent Decree arising out of the parties' 1989 Settlement Agreement and asks this Court to order the State Board of Education to rescind its July 16, 2003 order and to stop the September 16, 2003 election on detachment. 3. Also in the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, individual PCSSD board members claim that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because only those residing in the territory to be detached will be permitted to vote in - the September 16, 2003 election. See PCSSD's Motion, ,r 9. 4. This Court lacks jurisdiction over both the PCSSD's claims based on the Consent Decree and the individual board members' claims based on the U.S. Constitution. The Court has no jurisdiction over the PCSSD's claims because the PCSSD's alleged harm (detachment) is contingent upon a majority of voters approving detachment, and therefore, the PCSSD's claims are not ripe for adjudication. The Court has no jurisdiction over the individual board members' claims because their claims do not implicate the Consent Decree and because the board members, in their individual capacities, are not parties to this case. For these reasons, the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement should be dismissed. 2 Although the hearing was July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education did not actually issue its order until July 16, 2003. Page 2 of 4 WHEREFORE, the Bollen Intervenors pray that the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement be dismissed; that they be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that they be awarded all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for Movants Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 5, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon IO 10 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 4 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 PISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUEANN WHISKER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT I. Ripeness. This Court must presume that it lacks jurisdiction \"unless 'the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.\"' Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 (1986) (quoting King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U.S. 225,226 (1887)). \"It is the responsibility of the complainant clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court's remedial powers.\" Bender, supra, at 546, n. 8 (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 517-518 (1975)). The PCSSD fails to allege facts demonstrating that its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is ripe for adjudication. \"The basic rationale of the ripeness doctrine is 'to prevent the courts, through avoidance Page I of 6 Exhibit B of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effect felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.'\" National Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Conner, 323 F.3d 684, 692 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977)). Consistent with this rationale, \"courts deciding whether a dispute is ripe should consider (1) the hardship to the plaintiff caused by delayed review; (2) the extent to which judicial intervention would interfere with administrative action; and (3) whether the court would benefit from further factual development.\" Id. Each of the three factors weighs in favor of a finding that the PCSSD's motion is not ripe. First. the PCSSD will suffer no hardship by delaying review until after the September 16. 2003 election. The detachment statute requires this Court's approval before detachment may actually take place. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(b)(2). Consequently. the PCSSD will not suffer any harm before this Court has an opportunity to resolve the issues raised in its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Next, this Court granting the relief sought by the PCSSD would substantially interfere with administrative action taken by the State Board of Education. The State Board of Education ordered an electio.n based on its finding that the Bollen Intervenors satisfied the requirements of the detachment statute. The PCSSD's request that the State Board of Education be directed to rescind its order would, if granted, directly interfere with the State Board of Education's action taken pursuant to state law. Page 2 of 6 Finally, this Court could benefit from further factual development, in that the Court needs to wait and see whether the voters approve detachment. If they do not, the PCSSD's motion will be rendered moot. It is well-settled that \"[a] claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon 'contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.\"' Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998)(quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-81 (1985)). The PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is not ripe for adjudication because the alleged harm is contingent upon voter approval of detachment in the September 16, 2003 election ordered by the State Board of Education. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the motion, and it should be dismissed. II. Individual Board Member Claims. The PCSSD may argue that a live controversy exists based on the constitutional claims made by individual PCSSD board members. In their individual capacities, they claim that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because only those residing in the territory to be detached will be permitted to vote in the September 16, 2003 election. See PCSSD's Motion, ,r 9. However, this Court does not have jurisdiction to decide these claims as a part of the present case for two reasons. First, this Court's remedial authority is limited to interpretation and enforcement1 of its Consent Decree. Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). In that case, this Court (the Honorable Susan Webber Wright) enjoined a strike by the PCSSD's teachers. The teachers 1Enforcement includes modification of the Consent Decree based on changed factual circumstances. See Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367,388 (1992). Page 3 of 6 appealed, and the Eighth Circuit noted that the Consent Decree does not address the teachers' right to strike and reversed holding, \"The jurisdiction of the District Court to enforce [the Consent Decree] does not include the authority to resolve other disputes among the parties or to adjust their legal rights and responsibilities arising from other sources.\" Id. Similarly, the individual board members' constitutional claims have nothing to do with the Consent Decree. They allege that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because they cannot vote in the detachment election. The Consent Decree simply does not address who should be permitted to vote in a detachment election. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to address the constitutional claims being asserted by the individual board members. Second, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the constitutional claims of the board members because they are not parties to this case in their individual capacities. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 543-44 (1986)(individual school board member sued in his official capacity lacks standing to appeal grant of declaratory judgment against school district); Doe v. Claiborne County, Tenn., 103 F.3d 495, 511 ((5111 Cir. 1996) (individual school board members cannot act under of color of state law as required for liability under  1983 ); Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-620 (establishing the power and duties of school boards). To pursue their individual claims, the board members must file a separate case. ill. Conclusion. In sum, this Court lacks jurisdiction over both the PCSSD's claims based on the Consent Decree and the individual board members' claims based on the U.S. Constitution. The Court has no jurisdiction over the PCSSD's claims because the PCSSD's alleged harm (detachment) is Page 4 of 6 contingent upon a majority of voters approving detachment, and therefore, the PCSSD's claims are not ripe for adjudication. The Court has no jurisdiction over the individual board members' claims because the claims do not implicate the Consent Decree and because the board members, in their individual capacities, are not parties to this case. For these reasons, the PCSSD's Motion to Fourth Enforce Settlement Agreement should be dismissed. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for Movants Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 5, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 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. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, RECEIVED AUG 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUEANN WHISKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker (hereinafter collective referred to as the \"Bollen Intervenors\") move to intervene in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) requires the Court to permit intervention where (1) the party seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action, (2) the party seeking intervention is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, and (3) the interest of the party seeking intervention is not adequately represented by existing parties. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Motion, the Bollen Intervenors satisfy each of these requirements and should be granted leave to intervene. It may be argued that the State of Arkansas adequately represents the interest of the Page 1 of 3 Bollen Intervenors in this case. However, the State cannot be expected to litigate this case with the same commitment to detachment as the Bollen Intervenors. Toe State's commitment will be tempered by other considerations, such as the financial impact on the State. The Bollen Intervenors, on the other hand, have expended an incredible amount of time and money to create the new district, and they want detachment as soon as possible so that they may take control of their childrens' educational future. \"The burden resting on intervenors to show that their interests are not adequately represented by existing parties is a 'minimal' one.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 738 F.2d 82, 84 (8th Cir. 1984). This burden is more than met in the present case. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Page 2 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 5, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 3 of 3 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS A 11r,  6 2003 IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLER!\u0026lt; By:. _______ -===:-:::-= DEP CLER~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On July 25, 2003, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) filed a Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief (Doc. No. 3760). If any party wishes to file a response to this motion, it should do so by 12:00 p.m., noon, Monday, August 11 , 2003 . On August 5, 2003, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley, and Sue Ann Whisker filed a Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. 3766). If any party wishes to respond to the \"Bollen Intervenors\"' (as they styled it) motion, this response should also be filed by 12:00 p.m., noon, Monday, August 11 , 2003. A hearing to address PCCSD's Motion to Enforce is schedule for 10:00 a.m., Monday, August 18, 2003. The Motion to Intervene by the \"Bollen Intervenors\" will also be addressed at this hearing. Lawyers for each party, including the Arkansas Department of Education, 1 are 1In an Order entered January 18, 1991 (Doc. No. 1418), Judge Wright dismissed the State/ADE as a party to this action \"pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.\" However, the Settlement Agreement expressly provides \"that the Court may retain jurisdiction to 7 6 8 directed to be present at the hearing no later than 9:30 a.m .. Each party must have at least one representative, other than its lawyers, present at the hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of August, 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wifil:ULE58AN~~C~ ON ~3 BY ... ~ address issues regarding implementation of the Plans.\" Attachments A, B, C, and D to the Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 1174). Solidifying this position, in an Order entered August 18, 1993 (Doc. No. 1947), Judge Wright emphasized that, while the State/ADE was no longer a formal party in this action, \"it is the law of the case that the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure that the parties, including the State, comply with the terms of the settlement agreement as well as the settlement plans.\" EDWARD L. WRIGHT ( 1903 -1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT . JR. JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW GORDON S. RATHER. JR . ROGER A. GLASGOW C . DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L . LOWTHER, JR. WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JOHN D. DAVIS JUD'Y SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3699 (501) 371 - 0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER Writer 's Direct Dial No. 501 -212-1273 mjoDes@wlj .com August 8, 2003 KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKBR RAY F. COX , JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D. WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING  UaasodMJJ11(11CdcebebrelbeUl1icdSIMO hfl:li ud Tndt!mvt O~ RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MOKITORIMG Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed is a courtesy copy of PCSSD' s Board Members Motion to Intervene In Their Individual Capacities, together with supporting memorandum brief. The originals have been filed and the parties served. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: 439660-vl Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP Honorable J. Thomas Ray (via hand delivery) All Counsel of Record (via U.S. Mail) Mr. Ray Simon (via U.S. Mail) Mr. Scott Smith (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Will Bond (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Mike Wilson (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Timothy Gauger (via hand delivery) Mr. Mark Burnett (via U.S. Mail) 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. RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MILDRED TATUM, GWEN WILLIAMS, PAM ROBERTS, JEFF SHANEYFELT and DON BAKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS PCSSD BOARD MEMBERS MOTION TO INTERVENE IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES The following PCSSD Board Members, for their Motion to Intervene state: 1. Mildred Tatum, Gwen Williams, Pam Roberts, Jeff Shaneyfelt, and Don Baker, are duly elected members of the Board of Directors of the Pulaski County Special School District. They are also residents in different areas of the PCSSD and taxpayers contributing to the funding of the PCSSD. 2. In such capacity, these board members are defendants in this action in their official capacities. 3. In their proposed Motion to Intervene, certain individuals (the Bollen Intervenors) residing in the Jacksonville area assert that the claims of the foregoing board members relating to equal protection of the law must be brought in a separate action. 438898-v1 4. To cure any such technicality, these board members, who are already defendants in this action, seek to intervene for the limited but substantial purpose of enforcing their individual rights to equal protection guaranteed by the United States and Arkansas Constitutions. Specifically, these intervenors contend that they will be denied equal protection of the law as they are precluded by state law from voting in the \"detachment election\" scheduled for September 16, 2003, even though they are all registered voters in the PCSSD, taxpayers in the PCSSD, have or have had children or grandchildren in the PCSSD schools, and otherwise have a vested interest in the operation, governance and vitality of the PCSSD as a whole. 5. Such an intervention will foster principles of judicial economy since these board members are already parties to this action in their official capacities and allowing their limited - intervention to assert their individual rights will neither prolong this action nor contribute to any judicial inefficiencies. 6. Your individual directors therefore request permission to intervene in their individual capacities for the limited but substantial purpose of protecting their rights to equal protection as guaranteed by the United States and Arkansas Constitutions. 7. As part of their request for intervention, these individual school board members request permission to adopt that certain motion, statement of material facts and brief in support of motion all filed by the PCSSD on July 25, 2003 . 8. Further, these intervenors observe that they and those situated similarly to them are further being denied equal protection of the law since they are required to pay the expenses of the special election for detachment pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-118. Thus, both as 438898-v1 2 individual taxpayers and in their capacity as directors, your intervenors are required to pay for the expenses of an election in which they are denied the right to vote. WHEREFORE, Mildred Tatum, Gwen Williams, Pam Roberts, Jeff Shaneyfelt and Don Baker pray for an order of this Court allowing their limited intervention as described above and authorizing their adoption of the previous motion, statement of material facts and  brief all as filed by the PCSSD on July 25, 2003. 438898-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 1. 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via hand delivery on Mr. Timothy Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. via facsimile and U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 and via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 438898-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 4 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 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 NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MILDRED TATUM, GWEN WILLIAMS, PAM ROBERTS, JEFF SHANEYFELT and DON BAKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE Mildred Tatum, Gwen Williams, Pam Roberts, Jeff Shaneyfelt and Don Baker adopt in their individual capacities the motion, statement of material facts and brief filed by the PCSSD on July 25, 2003. Equal Protection Considerations As the Supreme Court of the United States recently observed, federal courts presented with an appropriate controversy bear a duty to ensure that voting procedures adopted by a state \"are consistent with its obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of its electorate.\" Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S. Ct. 525, 530 (2000). Furthermore, \"[b]ecause our democracy was founded on the principle that 'the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights,' our courts vehemently protect every citizen's right to vote, carefully and 439246-v1 meticulously scrutinizing any alleged infringement.\" Charfauros v. Board of Elections, 249 F.3d 941, 951 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562 (1964)). The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment guarantees fundamental rights to every person, including the right to vote, and these rights may not be impaired for reasons that are arbitrary or discriminatory. Id. This freedom has been rooted in our justice system for at least . a century, for the Supreme Court long ago recognized that the right to vote was a \"fundamental political right.\" Wick Yo v. Hop.kins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886). Nor does the right to the franchise end with the mere right to cast a ballot; there is in addition a \"constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction.\" Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336 (1972). It is true that some restrictions on these rights have been permitted, but only when \"no discrimination is made between individuals\" in ways that violate the constitution. Carrington v. Rush, 380 U.S. 89, 91 (1965); when the state acts to disenfranchise, the limitations must be \"appropriately defined and uniformly applied.\" Dunn, 405 U.S. at 343. Imposition of Election Costs The rights of the intervenors to equal protection of the law are further compromised and vitiated by the operation of Ark. Code Ann.  6-14-118, which requires the school district to reimburse the County Board of Election Commissioners for the entire cost of any school election. Section (b) further states: At all annual or special elections, the board of directors of each district shall pay the expenses of the election out of the school fund. 439246-v1 2 Your intervenors submit that both in their role as individual taxpayers and patrons and in their official capacity as directors, they are denied the equal protection of the laws when they are denied the right to vote in an election the cost of which they must pay. Violation of Substantive Due Process Rights The immeasurable impact of the planned election on the individual Board members' . rights as voters also constitutes a violation of their right to substantive due process in matters that impinge on important rights. \"[A]n election is a denial of substantive due process if it is conducted in a manner that is fundamentally unfair.\" Bennett v. Yoshina, 140 F.3d 1218, 1226 (1998). Of course, there is a distinction between \"garden variety\" election irregularities and error that \"undermines the integrity of the vote.\" Id. The ultimate question is whether the election is fundamentally unfair . Id. and n.3 (citing as one example voter reliance on established procedures followed by a change in procedures that results in significant disenfranchisement). There is no precise definition of \"fundamentally unfair,\" but the Court is free to draw on precedent and the particular facts of the case to determine whether voters have been disenfranchised in a way that is arbitrary or capricious, and yet substantial. The Inconsistent Statutory Scheme Your intervenors further note that the companion statutory scheme to the detachment statutes does not deny equal protection of the laws. For instance, if consolidation of districts is proposed via an election, Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1404(a)(2) requires that: A majority of the qualified electors in the affected districts votes to approve consolidation of the affected districts into a resulting district or districts pursuant to a valid election.. . . Likewise, if a proposal to annex school districts via an election is presented, then Ark. - Code Ann.  6-13-1403(a)(2)(A) requires that: 439246-v1 3 A majority of the qualified electors in the affected district or districts vote to approve the annexation of an affected school district or districts to a receiving district or districts .... Thus, it is only under the circumstances of a \"detachment\" that the State has sought fit to restrict the grant of the franchise, a matter which your intervenors submit the State cannot properly do and comply with the equal protection clauses of the Arkansas and United States .Constitutions. Conclusion lntervenors pray that their motion to intervene be granted and for all proper relief. 439246-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 ..... ) Special 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August .e., 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via hand delivery on Mr. Timothy Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. via facsimile and U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 and via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon  Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 439246-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 5 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark_A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us August 8, 2003 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the State's Request for Entry of Appearance and its Response to PCSSD'S \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement\" and for \"Allied Relief' which we filed today. MAH Enclosures cc: Mr. Scott Smith Very truly yours, ~.~. MARK A. HAGEM~ Assistant Attorney General IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOMITORlNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S \"FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT\" AND FOR \"ALLIED RELIEF\" The Arkansas Department of Education submits this response to the PCSSD's1 \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief.\" For the reasons discussed below, PCSSD's motion should be dismissed. The PCSSD seeks an order that would squelch an election in which voters residing in the Jacksonville area will have the opportunity to vote on whether a proposal to create a new school district in the area should proceed. The election in question was approved by the State Board of Education pursuant to state statutes that govern the creation of new school districts by \"detachment\" of territory from existing districts.2 Those statutes require an election as a step in the process by which such a school district might be created. Furthermore, those statutes contain provisions that guarantee that the creation of such a district will not come to final fruition if 1 The opening paragraph of the motion states that the motion is brought by the PCSSD, its Board, and certain members of its Board \"in both their official and individual capacities.\" In this response the ADE will refer to all of the purported movants collectively as the \"PCSSD\" unless the context requires otherwise. 2 PCSSD asserts -- erroneously -- in Footnote 2 of its Brief that the statutes governing the creation of school districts by detachment \"appl[y] by definition only to the PCSSD and to no other school district.\" Arkansas Act 1397 of 2003 (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A) amended Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1502(d) so that, in addition to school districts that now or in the future serve 15,000 to 20,000 students, the detachment process might also be invoked in school districts that now or in the future encompass an area of 700 square miles or more. Presently, in addition to the PCSSD, the Waldron School District in Scott County encompasses an area in excess of750 square miles. doing so will hamper or impede desegregation efforts of school districts (such as the PCSSD) that operate under court-ordered or court-approved desegregation plans. The PCSSD ignores the possibility that the voters of the Jacksonville area might reject the proposed detachment, an occurrence that would put an end to the detachment process. 3 Instead, the PCSSD filed the instant motion in this Court seeking an order \"directing the State Board of Education to rescind its order of July 16, 2003, and cancel its authorization for an election.\" Additionally, the PCSSD filed an action in state court, which is still pending, that seeks essentially the same relief. See Exhibit 21 to PCSSD's Motion. As is discussed below, the PCSSD's motion is premature at best and should be dismissed on ripeness grounds. Under the applicable state statutes, no district can be created by detachment unless and until electors residing in the territory of the proposed new district vote in favor of the proposed detachment. If the voters reject the proposed detachment on September 16, that will be the end of the matter -- the PCSSD's motion will become moot and this Court will not have to consider the various factual and legal matters presented in the PCSSD's motion. Alternatively, a vote for the proposed detachment by electors on September 16 will not end the matter either. Under this circumstance, an appointed board of the proposed new district would be required by state law to come to this Court and secure any and all orders necessary to ensure that the creation of the new district will not undermine the districts' desegregation efforts. If this new Board ultimately does not seek and successfully obtain all such orders, for whatever reason, the new district will also not come into being. While the day may come when this Court is squarely and concretely presented with a proposed \"detachment\" district to consider, that day has not yet arrived, and indeed, it may never arrive. Furthermore, if PCSSD prevails in its pending 3 The State, unlike the PCSSD, does not presuppose or assume how the matter will fare at the election. 2 state court action on the state-law grounds it has asserted there, the motion filed in this Court will become moot. As regards the PCSSD's request for \"allied relief' -- a claim that the detachment statutes violate due process and equal protection because certain electors who reside in the PCSSD are not, under the statutes, eligible to vote on the proposed detachment -- this Court lacks _jurisdiction to grant such relief as well. The claim for \"allied relief' does not involve an allegation of an alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement, and in any event none of the purported movants has standing to assert the \"allied relief' claim in the context of this case. A. The PCSSD's Motion is Not Ripe for Review and Should Be Dismissed As noted, the relief sought is an order directing the State Board to \"rescind\" its order authorizing an election on the question of detachment, which would have the effect of canceling the upcoming election. The basis for this requested relief is the PCSSD's claim that the ultimate creation of the school district cannot happen in such a manner as will not violate some provision of the Settlement Agreement and/or impede their desegregation efforts. The PCSSD's motion should be dismissed because it is not ripe. The detachment process is governed by state law, specifically Ark. Code Ann.  6-13- 1501 et seq. The statutory scheme sets up a multi-step process, and the election is but one necessary step. Section 6-13-1503(2) provides that the detachment process can be initiated, as it was here, by a petition presented to the State Board of Education. If the State Board believes that the petition meets the statutory requirements, the State Board may, as it did here, \"order an election on the proposition of detachment to be held at the next annual school election or general election.\" Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1504(b)(l). Such an election, however, does not end the process. Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505 further provides as follows: 3 6-13-1505. Creation of district. (a) If all the requirements of this subchapter are met and a majority of the votes are cast for the proposition, the State Board of Education shall order the creation of the new school district. (b)(l) At the time the order creating the district is made, the state board shall appoint a board of seven (7) members for the new district to serve until the next regular election of members, when a board of directors shall be elected in compliance with Arkansas law. (2) Following the entry of the order creating the new district and the appointment of a board of directors for the new district but prior to the transfer of any assets, territory, property, liabilities, duties, or responsibilities, any new district created by detachment from an existing district that is a party to any court-ordered desegregation plan shall petition the court having jurisdiction in the desegregation matter and obtain any and all court orders or other relief necessary to ensure that the detachment will not cause the state or any affected school district to be in violation of any orders of the court or any consent orders or decrees entered into by the parties with regard to the desegregation plan. - (Emphasis added). The statutory scheme therefore makes it clear that (a) if the voters reject the proposed detachment, the process comes to an end; and (b ), if the voters approve the proposed detachment, a district with an appointed Board will be created but that \"district\" will have no assets, territory, property liabilities, duties or responsibilities unless and until that Board successfully secures from this Court all orders necessary to ensure that the creation of the district will not cause the State or any other school district to be in violation of any orders, consent orders or decrees entered in this case. If the Board of the proposed detached district is not successful in that regard, the process ends as well. By seeking to quash the election before it occurs, the PCSSD has \"jumped the gun\" because before any new district can be created, and before the statutory process can go forward, the voters must approve the proposed detachment at an election. 4 \"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.\" Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375,377 (1994) (internal citations omitted). The \"ripeness\" doctrine, which flows both from the Article III \"case or controversy\" jurisdictional requirement and from prudential considerations, requires federal courts to determine whether a particular dispute is \"fit for judicial resolution\" and whether the parties would \"experience hardship if the court withheld consideration of the case's merits.\" American Canoe Assoc. v. E.P.A., 289 F.3d 509, 512 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Ohio Forestry Ass'n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 733 (1998)). Though it has been said that the ripeness doctrine is something of a \"cantaloupe,\" see Nebraska Public Power v. MidAmerican Energy, 234 F.3d 1032, 1038 (8th Cir. 2000), the Eighth Circuit has noted that the \"touchstone\" of a ripeness inquiry is \"whether the harm asserted has 'matured enough to warrant judicial intervention.\"' Vogel v. Foth and Van Dyke Associates, Inc., 266 F.3d 838, 840 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting Paraquad, Inc. v. St. Louis Housing Authority, 259 F.3d 956, 958 (8th Cir. 2001)). The Eighth Circuit has also made it clear that \"a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.\" National Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Connor, 323 F.3d 684, 693 (8 th Cir. 2003). (quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-81 (1985)). Here, the PCSSD seeks to derail the process under which a new school district might be created out of its existing territory. It is clear that such an \"injury,\" if any, to the PCSSD \"rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all,\" 5 namely, an election outcome favorable to detachment. While the PCSSD claims that the new district, if created, would harm its ability to comply with its desegregation obligations, it has not articulated any concrete harm that the election, by itself, will cause it to suffer. Unless and until at least the election is held and an outcome favorable to detachment occurs, PCSSD's claims are plainly not ripe for review, and they should be dismissed. B. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Request For \"Allied Relier' As regards the PCSSD' s request for \"allied relief,\" this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant such relief and that part of the PCSSD's motion should be dismissed as well. The \"allied relief' claim does not purport to be brought to address any alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement, and as PCSSD candidly concedes in the brief in support of its motion, \"the current jurisdiction of the District Court is 'only' to enforce the Settlement Agreement.\" (See PCSSD Brief at p. 23).4 If the claims for \"allied relief' are to be brought at all, such claims would have to be presented in a new, separate lawsuit, not as a \"motion\" filed in this case. Indeed, tacitly conceding this point, the PCSSD has already purported to bring this same claim in the separate action it has initiated in state court. See Exhibit 21 to PCSSD's motion. Further, the PCSSD, its Board, and its Board members in their \"official\" capacities lack standing to assert the rights of electors residing within the district. The PCSSD and its Board are not \"voters\" (see Conway School District v. Wilhoit, 854 F.Supp. 1430 (E.D. Ark. 1994)) and, in their \"official capacities,\" the Board members' claims must be treated as if they are brought by the PCSSD Board and the District itself, if at all. The PCSSD's effort to sidestep this issue by purporting to bring the motion on behalf of certain board members in their \"individual\" 4See Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). Ironically, the Knight case involved an effort by the PCSSD to stretch the District Court's jurisdiction beyond its proper bounds after efforts in other forums to spare the PCSSD from dealing with a teachers' strike failed. 6 capacities is equally unavailing. Even if in some long-buried pleading in this case there is some reference to some particular member of the PCS SD Board as a party in an \"individual\" capacity, the course of proceedings in this case plainly demonstrates that the members of the PCSSD Board were parties in their \"official\" capacities only. No relief of any kind was ever awarded as against any Board member in his or her \"individual\" capacity. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534 543 (1986).5 The Board members have not moved to intervene in this action in their \"individual\" capacities so as to present their claim for \"allied relief,\" and there is no authority for such intervention in any event. For the foregoing reasons, the PCSSD's \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief' should be dismissed. 5 Indeed, if public school funds are being used by the PCSSD to, in part, pay for legal representation for board members for legal work that benefits the Board members personally, i.e., to pursue claims brought by Board members in their \"individual\" capacities to vindicate their personal rights under the due process or equal protection clauses, a serious question arises as to whether the PCSSD is improperly expending public school funds. See Ark. Constitution, Art. 14,  2 and 3. Ark. Code Ann. 6-13 -623 authorizes governing authorities of school districts to spend public school funds to employ legal counsel, but only to \"defend\" claims asserted against the governing authority \"or against any member thereof, by virtue of his actions in connection with his duties as such member.\" This statue would not appear to authorize the PCSSD board to employ legal counsel and use public school funds to initiate legal proceedings that purport to vindicate board members' personal rights in those members ' \"individual\" capacity. 7 Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General #95019 Senior Assistant Attome General MARK A. HAGEMEIER #94127 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on August _8_, 2003, a copy of the foregoing document was be served by first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 8 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 . Mark A. Hagemeier 9 ...., 1 2 3 4 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. State of Arkansas 84th General Assembly Regular Session, 2003 Act 1397 of 2003 HOUSE BILL 2608 5 By: Representative Bond 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 For An Act To Be Entitled AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAWS PERTAINING TO CREATION OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT BY DETACHMENT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Subtitle AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAWS PERTAINING TO CREATION OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT BY DETACHMENT. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. Arkansas Code 6-13-1502(d), concerning minimum area and 22 attendance requirements for creation of a school district by detachment, is 23 amended to read as follows: 24 (d) This subchapter shall apply only to school districts that in the 25 school year immediately preceding the detachment had an average daily 26 membership of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) students but not more than 27 twenty thousand (20,000) students, or the school district encompasses a total 28 area of seven hundred (700) square miles or more, now or in the future. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 SECTION 2. EMERGENCY CLAUSE. It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that the Arkansas Constitution requires the State of Arkansas to provide a general, suitable, and efficient system of public education; that procedures to ensure a general, suitable, and efficient system of public education need to be in place prior to the beginning the 2003-2004 school year; and that this act is immediately necessary to allow school districts and the electors of those districts ... llllillllllllllllllllllllll~IIIIIII :\"! 'EXHIBIT 03081003KAS f.,. ,,, ~, l 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 As Engrossed: H4/2/03 HB2608 sufficient time to organize and plan to for a general, suitable, and efficient system of education in the district prior to the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist and this act being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall become effective on: (1) The date of its approval by the Governor; (2) If the bill is neither approved nor vetoed by the Governor, the expiration of the period of time during which the Governor may veto the bill; or (3) If the bill is vetoed by the Governor and the veto is overridden, the date the last house overrides the veto. Isl Bond APPROVED: 4/15/2003 2 03082003KAS1250.TW0018 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Senior Assistant Attorney General Timothy G. Gauger hereby requests that the Court enter his appearance as additional counsel of record for the Arkansas Department of Education for the limited purpose of this Court's consideration and disposition of the PCSSD's \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief.\" Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Senior Assistant orney General MARK A. HAGEMEIER #94127 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on August .8.__, 2003, a copy of the foregoing document was be served by first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 7207 6 2    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_1758","title":"Brief regarding Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), response to petition to de-annex territory from PCSSD, motion to enforce settlement agreement, motion and support for allied relief, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Office of Desegregation Management report.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Elementary schools","Harris Elementary School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Finance","School integration","School enrollment","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","Magnet schools","Teachers"],"dcterms_title":["Brief regarding Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), response to petition to de-annex territory from PCSSD, motion to enforce settlement agreement, motion and support for allied relief, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Office of Desegregation Management report."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1758"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["57 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\u003eBefore the Arkansas State Board of Education, brief of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) in re: petition to de-annex territory from the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief; District Court, memorandum brief in support of fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief; District Court, statement of material facts; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of hearing; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Update on the Redesign of Harris Elementary School and the Rezoning of Schools in the Sherwood Area of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.     I P. 03 RECEIVED BEFORE THE ARKANSAS STATE :SOARD OF EDUCATION JUL 1 O 2003 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN RE: PETITION TO DE-ANNEX TERRITORY FROM THE PCSSD BRIBf OF TiiE PCSSD Introduction Prior to tl1e hearing held on June 9, 2003, the PCSSD submjtted its \"Analysis\" of how the detachment, if approved, would negatively impact desegregation not only in the PCSSD but in tllc LRSD and the NLRSD as well. For -lbe _convenience of the Board another ~PY is included as Exhibit 1. The PCSSD asked ti1at 1hat document be made-part of the record and its cssenLial conclusions will only be briefly reiterated here . Although the PCS SD believes that its previously submitted Analysis is more than ample reason to deny Lhe petition for detachment, there is an even more fundamental reason why it should be turned down. SifI!Ply stated, the 1989 Settlement Agreement with the State, to which this -Board is a signatory i precJudes such a usurpation of the District's sovereignty and independence. 428241-vl The Settlement Agreement Provision Section II J of_the 1989 comprehensive Settlement Agreement states in its entirety: The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts -operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and chat this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation .activities with the LRSD and others. [emphasis added] ----- - -- -- -- ~ Thi, language, whiCh remain, operative, was notsome idle boileiplaie.or filler. Indeed, as we will explain .further, it was not part of the original agreement between the State, LRSD and Joshua but was only negotiated after.the State had first reached .agreement with the LRSD and then turned its attention toward securing agreement from the PCSSD and the NLRSD. Further, thcr.e was a real and immediate specter of consolidation which prompted this _] negotiated language which, whHe it survived the legislative and judicial approval process, came I under attack from many legislators, commentators and in editorials. Indeed, for those who did not personally participate in or who do not clearly recall this historic process, a brief chronology might be useful. 1982 1985 1985 Late 1988 January 12, 1989 January 31, 1989 4?.8244-vl Not So Ancient History The LRSD sues the State, the PCSSD and the NLRSD successfully seeking consolidation of the three districts in Pulaski County. 9Zl F.2d 1371@ 1376. The Court of Appeals rejects consolidation but orders that the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD be adjusted. 921 F .2d 1371 @ 1377. This boundary adjusLinent caused PCSSD to lose sixteen schools and over one-third of its tax base_ Initial setLlerncntdiscussions are commenced among the State, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. 921 F.2d 1371 @ 1376 . . Senator Jerry Jewell introduces Senate Bill 39 to consolidate the Little Rock, North Little Rock.and _P.ulaski County Special School District schools. Exhibit 2. The State Board, LRSD and Joshua Intervenors reach a proposed seulcment. The State's attorney reports that \"meetings to obtain-t11e agreement of the otl1er _parties are underway today between attorneys and representatives of the State Boar\u0026lt;l, PCSSD aml NLRSD.\" Exhibit 3. 2 i -I vUI.. I February 14, 1989 March 1989 March 3, 1989 March 7, 1989 March 11, 1989 March U, 1989 March 16, 1989 428244-vl The State hires t.lie national law furn of Hogan \u0026amp; Hartson which specialized in school desegregation to advise it concerning desegregation. Exhibit 4. Counsel .for the LRSD delivers a draft of Proposed Settlement Agreement to the State's attorney. This draft does not contain a Section II J. Exhibit 5. The settlement is agreed to by all of the parties. The final version contains Section 11 J. Exhibit 6. It is submined to the legislature for funding. In an editorial discussing the settlement, the. Arkansas Gazette note~: that: \"A key-provision is that the Little Rock, North Little Rock- and Pulaski County School Districts recognize that they remain  independent, sovereign desegregating' districts. This could -becon,e an impediment to a countywide consolidation in the future, and if so it is an unfortunate pr.ovision.\" Exhibit 7. The Atkansas Gazette reports that the county district's attorney told the county board that the settlement went through 27 revisions before being made publi~ because of the complexity of the issues. Exhibit 8. .In .explaining .the settlement to the Joint Budget Committee, the State's attorney noted that: \"This agreement. is so fragile that if it starts to unravel in any way, if there's any kind of modification to it, it'.s .going co fall apart and unravel in 100 djffcreht ways.\" In the same articfo, Senator Max Howell noted he djd not wanno vote Jor1he settlement if it meant forever prohibiting consolidation of the three county districts. \"I'm not antagonistic toward the dollars, but I am concerned that I .under.stand the small print.\" Exhibit 9. One starewide commentator, in characterizing Section II J, o.pined that: \"A brazen provision slipped into this settlement at the last minute guarantees there will be no consolidation of the school districts. Surprise!\" Exhibit 10. The Arkansas Senate approves the bill funding the settlement but .idds an amendmenr asking tbe Federal Courts to consider four changes in the seLtlcment including: \"Disapproval of language that would rctiin the autonomy of the three Pulaski County districts-.\" As Senator Max Howell stated: \"I would hope tbt: Court woulil be aware that we hl the Legislature feel the folks who caused this should not continue to be in control of the situation.\" Exhibit 11. 3  I l '  II March 18, 1989 March 24, 1989 March 31, 1989 December 11, 1989 December 12, 1990. The press reported that: \"Legislators have expressed concern that the provision would forever bar the State from merging the three districts, ancl the State Education Department's attorney told them Monday that McCutcheon (the _special Master) apparently shared that concern. n Exhibit 11. Press reports described II J as one of.the \"key\" provisions of the settlement. Exhibit 12. Mr. Herschel Friday writes the attorneys for the parties noting that: \"During the debate which preceded the v.ote to fund the settlement in this case, l was repeatedly questioned on whether changes requested by the legislature could be made in the settlement. A copy of the requested changes is enclosed for your ready reference. I agreed to follow through to see that the legislative requests were auly considered by .the .parties and to use my best efforts in this regard. . .. Will you please discuss these requests with your clients so that we can meet in the near future and address these matters .\" Exhibit 13. A copy of the requested changes, which included Section II J, is attached~ Exhibit 14 . Counsel for the AEA informs.Mr. Friday that they object to removing a.ny of the items from the settlement agreement. Exhibit 15. The District Court purports to approve the settlement agreement but only after imposing certain modifications. 726 F.Supp. 1544, 1549. The Court of Appeals reverses the District Court, ruling that the Settlement Agreement should hav.e been .approved as written by the parties. 971 F.2d 160 @ 164, 165. It should thus be clear that Section n J. was a key component of the settlement for which the PCSSD (as well as the NLRSO) separately negotiated. The reasons are clear, Not only was the PCSSD guarding against consolidation, but also any new usurpation of its territory. facilities and assets similar to the appropriation (albeit by judicial order) that occurred in the .early phases of the school case. While it is clear that many in the legislature 42$M4-vl 4  and those \"commentin_g on tbe scene\" opposed Section II J., the fact remains that it is an l integral part of the Settlement Agreement and retains full force and vitality today. In his June 4, 2003 letter, the Attorney General appropriately discussed the fact that while \"successor district\" language was included in the settlement agreement as respects the LRSD, it noted thar no such language is presented as regards the PCSSD or the NLRSD. As lhe Attorney General explained: All of this suggests that either (a) the parties simply did not anticipate that a \"successor\" district might be created from territory that was formerly within1he PCSSD, or (b) the parties specificaHy intended that there would not be any such \"successor\" district created under any circumstances, or that any successor district would not be a parcy to the Settlement Agreement. Subparagraph (b) of course is the correct outcome because of the presence of Section II J. On the san1e page and same footnote the Attorney General further noted that: Logic suggests, however, that a group of individual schools could not so easily extricate themselves from federal court supervision (and court-imposed obligations) in a desegregation case by merely \"detaching\" themselves from a schooJ district under supervision, at least not without the consem of all parties to the case and the Court overseeing the litigation. (Emphasis supplied). The Attorney General notes in his last footnote that: In this parcicular case, the parties with standing to object would be the Sr.ate it.o;clf, the three Pulaski County districts, and the 1osbua and Knight intervenors. The Potential For New Claims The principal motivation for the State to enter into and subsequently fund the Settlement Agreement was co minimize the dollar cost for its past constitutional violations and to obtain a release -of all claims for .all v.iolations which had occurred prior to execution of the Settlem~nt Agreement. While the State has been subjected to successful .claims by the school districts for 4282411-vl 5 ~ I I departures from the Settlement Agreement, it has, thus far, for over fourteen years, avoided a cbim or contention that .it has violated the constitution or enacted statutes which either prom~\u0026gt;tc segregation or hamper desegregation. 1 However, the statute at issue, by its own legislative language, sets up an interesting dynamic not otherwise present in ATkansas law. As counsel for the Pcpanment of Education and the Attorney General's office have repeatedly pointed out: \"the state board is proh~itcd by law from approving any petition fo1 detachment which hampers, delays or in any manner negative~y affects desegregation efforts of a school district or districts .in this state.\" Even if the Board makes a negative determination on this issue, it is virtually a foregone conclusion that one or another or more of the parties in the school case would contend in Federal Court that the detachment does \"hamper, delay or ... negatively affects  desegregation efforts ... \", would seek to hoist the State upon the petard of its own legislation, and, if successful, expose the State to new claims for millions of dollars, an exposure the S1ate avoic.Js if it .properly denies the petition. Indeed, it would appear that the legjsJature had the proscriptions of the Settlement Agreement in mind when it crafted this very narr.ow and rigorous test for detachment. The Settlement Agreement at page 10 states: \"The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the [Pulaski] I  Districts to desegregate.\" 1 After each legisl:llive session, die ADE invites the PCSSD, as well as the olher Pulaski disu-icrs, to identify aew lc!gislation which the district believes will hamper or negatively affecc its desegregation efforts. The PCSSD duly noted by }ell.er dated April 26, 2002, thaUt believed tile detachment scaruce at issue would negatively -:tffoct it; desegregation efforts. 4282'14-vl 6 Thus, those who might pursue a new claim, where none currently exists, would likely si.multancously argue that the Settlement Agreement itself has been breached, a claim that carries with it not only the potential for new money damages .but substantial legal fees as well. The petitioners are correct that the racial balance tests for the -PCS SD accommodate a growing. black enrollment. However, the racial balance test is only a fraction of the issue involved. By ultimately approving a new school district, the State- will have participated in a process that artificially accelerates the evolution of the PCCSD to a majority black school district. When all three districts become majority black, then the State will argue that its oblig~tion to fund M-to.:M payments will suddenly and abruptly end. (Indeed, a cynic.might wonder if there are those in authority who may have already figured this out.) lf and when this day comes, the financial consequenct;S to the three current districts in this county would be crippling. Thus, to lhc extent that the State endorses steps to hasten and accelerate this day, then perhaps a new round of claims against the Slate would logically follow. The black student population of the PCSSD has grown on average between one-half percent and one percent per year. By accelerating tlle process by 6.5 -percentage points (sec further analysis) in 1hc year of detachment, the State will have \"gained\" approximately 7 .5 years toward the day when M-to-M funding might end. (See 15 years enrollment trend.) The Detachment Statute Constitutes Impermissible Special Local Legislation The Arkansas Constimtion succinctly provides that: \"The legislature shall not pass any local or-special Act\". (Arkansas Constitution Amendment 14). 428244vl 7 I'   l As the staff of -the ADE can verify, this statute, by its tcnns, can_only apply to the _PCSSD. No ot:h,er school district in the State meets the quaJifying characteristics of the legislation. Further, there is no plausible .argument that the statute could ever apply to any other school district in Arkansas -in the future. -Bottom line: It was carefully crafted to apply only to the Jacksonville area, cannot apply elsewhere, and as such is impermissible special, local legislation which should not be enforced. Not-All Of The Pai1ies Have Been Consulted_ The Attorney General's letter ofJime 4, 2003 (hereafter-the June 4 letter), strongly urges the Board to seek input from the three school districts in Pulaski as well as Joshua and the Knight Intervenors before determining whether or not .creation of the new district would \"hamper, delay, or in any manner affect 'desegregation efforts of a school district or distrkts in the State.\" While tht'. PCSSD has supplied information to the Board, the -PCSSD is unaware that the Knight Intcrvenors have been solicited for their input. The Focus Of The Petitioner's New Submissions Is Much Too Nan-ow As .the June 4 lctter explains (and even Mr. Fendley's letter quotes the same language), dest:grcgation includes much more than racial balance from school to school. Accordingly, the Board should look nor only at student assignments, but to every facet of school operations including faculty, staff, transportation, extl'acurricular activities and facilities. (June 4 letter at page 2). While the submissions of the petitioners do touch upon student assignment, faculty and somewhat upon transportation, there is no mention of staff (which is also unionized in the PCSSD) or extracurricular activities. This omission alone is sufficient for this Board to 428244-vl 8 I   1 conclude that insufficient information concerning desegregation in the area of staff and extracurricular activities has been presented. While .the supplemental submissions address current enrollments by school, enrolhnents before and after M-to-M and magnet transfers and deployment .of staff at schools, (all under cenain assumptions about which we will write later), the submission is otherwise largely devoid of analysis and specificity, particularly as it relates to specific matters set forth in the PCSSD's \"Analysis\" previously submitted to this Board. '\\, for instance, there is scant mention of the three specialty schools. in th~ southeast portion of Pulaski County, all of which contain programs which were specifically designed for aml gained Court approval for .desegregation. The supplemental filings simply do not contest the PCSSD calculation that approximately 200 students from the area proposed for detachment  attended those schools last year. These students are necessary for the continued vitality of these programs, all of which feed to Mills Uniyersity Studies High School, recently recognized as the 201 !, \"best\" high school in the country. }lewsweek, May 2003. (Exhibit 16). Does this Board really want to play a role in undermining one of the most shining success stories in Arkansas .education? el 1 Included as Exhibit 17 is a memor11ndum from Davis Hendricks, the.District Director of Talented and Gifted Programs, prepared the day after the Board's June 9 hearing. The memorandum explains at least two things. First, it shows the extensive array of AP courses currently available at both JacksonviJle High School and North Pulaski High School. It also explains in some detail how the detachment would negatively impact the College Station, .Fuller and Mills progl'ams. 428244-vJ 9 - I  While the supplemental submissions do purport to Cl!lculate enrollment in the / \u0026lt;letachment.schools if M-to-M and magnet transfers ended, Lhey singularly do not provide any analysis as to what affect the lack of such transfers would have not only upon the finances of the PCSSD but upon the schools and finances affected in the NLRSD.and .theLRSD. Although the June 4 letter was necessarily fairly general in most respects, it was quite ~pecific as regards certain areas. As the Allorney General opined: (a]ny detachment of a significant amount of territory from the PCSSD could almost certainly be expected to have an \"impact\" on the -PCSSD's ability to comply with its desegregation plan and have an impact on the operation of the Settlement Agreement, including the Agreement's provisjons concerning M.:M students and the Magnet schoolsjh the LRSD. Teacher Deployment As to teacher deployment, the petitioners stake out thena1ve position that the Federal  District Court could simply order all the teachers to stay where they are. This assumption ignores the realities of teacher unions, teacher contracts and previous admonitions from the United States Court of Appeals. For instance, the PCSSD successfully enjoined an on-goinJ teacher strike fo .1996. The union appealed to the Federal Court of A.ppeals arguing that the union negotiated contract beLwccn lhc PCSSD and .the Teachers' Union was none of the District Court's business. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversed the District Court ~d explained to the parties that the role of the District Court is to enforce the Settlement Agreement (which is silent as to the master contracts), but not to otherwise interfere with the rights of employees and organizations of employers. 112 F.3d 953 @ 955 . . Petitioners' position is completely silent regarding recognition of a new teacher organization for a new district . .Is this or js this not pan of their proposed calculus? As the.! 428244-vl 10 - - - - - --- -  PCSSD knows from prior difficult and n-ying circrunst\u0026gt;nccs, many teacliers prefer working in / a district which reco_gnizes a union. I I  e l J The PCSSD \"Analysis\" Revisited Petitioners claim u1at Exhibit 5 in their supplemental submission demonstrates that detachment will not have a negative impact upon the PCSSD. However, even though petitioners purport to have used data obtained from the PCSSD, the PCSSD cannot reconcik its data with chat presented by tne petitioncr.2 For instance, petitioners' Exhibit 5 predicts that the detached school district would have 3,345 elementary students of whom 34.1 % would bt! black. However, the PCSSD .calculates lhat the detached district would have 3,700 elementrtry srudents of wlmm only 32. 7% would be black. (Exhibit 18).. At the secondary level, the petitiom;:rs project 3,750 students of whom 36.6% would be black. While the total number calculated by the PCSSD is similar a.t 3,757, it calculates that ollly 32.4 % of those students would be black. (Exhibit 18). Since the petitioners calculate that the residual PCSSD would be 39 % black, there is a difference of six and one-half percentaie points. Also, while the petitioners project a .total .enrollment of 7,095 students, the PCSSD calculates that the new district would enrolt 7,457 srudents. (Exhibit 18), As for individual schools, the impact upon Clinton Elementary is profound. Detachmem would cause the loss of 124 sLudents and would push Clinton from 55 % black to 60% black. (Exhibit 18). It is required to be no more than 50% black. : The PCSSD once a.ga.iu 1ecommends that these discrepancies be .evaluated by the staff of the ADE. 4282M-vl 11 )  l' -! l e l I As we previously projected, 61 students would leave College-Station reducing its enrollment from 215 .to 159. (Exhibit 18) . This would artificially increase the black population at College Station from the current 55 % to 59 % black. The enrollment at Sylvan Hills Middle School would increase from 878 to 972, the African-American percentage would increase from 39 % to 45 % and the building capacity of 925 would be grossly exceed~d- (Exhibit 18). Court Orders While the petitioners seek to cast doubt upon the over capacity reported for the Sylvan Hills schools, they are either unaware of the fact or.have neglected to inform the Board that as recently as March 25, 2003, the District CoUit noted that: Fur.ther, the Court is jnformed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no Ionger has tho capacity .to .accommodate all 6111 _grade M-to-M students who attended Clintou Interdistrict School through the 5111 grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Mawnelle. (Order, Exhibit 19, at page 2.) Accordingly, the PCSSD supplements its previous Analysis and reiterates its point that the displaced students, many of whom are black, who the petitioners submit can \"easily be accommodated at Sylvan Hills\" simply cannot be. Part of the detachment proposal flies in the face of another order entered by the District Court on January 28, 2003. In evaluating and approving the PCSSD plans for the redesign of Harris Elementary School, the Federal Court ruled that: 428244-vl African American students from Brushy Island will not be reassigned to Harris but will continue to attend Cato El~mentary. Cato Elementary student enrollment will.remain 75% Caucasian (white) and 25% African American (black). (Order, Exhibit 20 at page 2.) 12 \\ I  l Of course, the petitioners arc excluding the Brushy lsland students from Cato and are leaving them .to he assigned somewhere in the PCSSD. The petitioners say send them to Sylvan Hills but there is no room. The Court has .said they will not be reassigned to Harris. Where can they go? Another aspect of the Court's January order as respects Harris requires the PCSSD to vigorously recruit minority snidents (white) from north of the river for placement at Harris. The Director of Equity and Multicultural Education was ordered to direct this \"intensification\" of.eff 01t. Of course, if most of the PCSSD nonh of the river is allowed to detach, it will render the PCSSD substantially unable to comply with this order. Sylvan Hills Petitioners make some rather astonishing suggestions regarding Sylvan Hills High School. At page 6 of counsel's letter, the following statements are made: Moreover, even assuming a real capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School, the District Court coo.ld address the problem in a number.of ways to avoid any negative affect on desegregation. One option may be to revise the attendance zones for all of PCSSD's high schools. The ODM reported that the PCSSD has .nor revised its attendance zones in \"many years\" and recommended that it do so. See ODM March 26, 2003, pp. 19 and 21. Another option may be to discontinue the school's specialty program that allows smdents residing outside the attendance zone to attend the school. This program was implemented to increase the African-American enrollment at the school at a tirnc when it was below the minimum of 20 percent. The African-American enrollment at the school in 2002-03 was 35 percent. This calls into question the continuing need for the program to increase African-American enrollment. A rhir4 option may be to build additional classrooms at Sylvan Hills High School. The PCSSD recently addcdnew classrooms at Robinson High.Sc;:hool to address overcrowding at that school. In short, a capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School can easily be addressed without negatively affecting desegregation. 428244-vl 13 i  l I I J, e l As to revisingattendancezones or disestablishing a specialty program, a cardinal rule in desegre_gation is \"if it ain't broke, don't fix ic\". Any effort to disestablish a successful program would .immediately be attacked by Joshua. Moreover, ifthe PCSSD is compelled Lo build .additional classrooms because of the efforts of the pelitioners and the actions of the State, who is going to pay for this construction? The petitioners? The State'? The upshot of petitioners' suggestions is that the \"suggestions\" prove that the detachment would have a negative impact on desegregation in the PCSSD. Further, they ignore the fact lhat .much of the increase in black enroilment at Sylvan Hills is M-to-M students from- the LRSD. To discontinue or ecn diminish the specialty program, affects not only the; PCSSD but the LRSD as well. F..nrollmcnt The foasibility study at page 1 predicts the new district would contain 5,700 students. Alternative IV predicts 6,578. The supplemental submissions (Exhibit 5) predicts the new district will contain approx.imately 7,500 students if transfers cease. The numbers keep growing and growing. While the feasibility study forecasts that the PCSSD would remain .the .second largest district in the State, it is clear that a comparison of petitioners' Exhibit5 to its \"district size\" exhibit would relegate the PCSSD to only the sixth largest district in the State with fewer tban 10,500 students. (Before the Pulaski County school desegregation case was filed, the PCSSD boasted an enrollment of almost 33;000 students and was by far the largest school district h1 the State.) 42.SZ44-vl 14  I e l l ! Such a dramatic reduction in enrollment will undoubtedly require a reduction in force not only among teachers and staff but within the Central Office as well. Such dislocations, heartache and ,car.eer affecting decisions will be unnecessary if this Board finds the petition to be invalid. Further, lhe feasibility study points outthatdensity ofstudents per square mile would improve from 25 in. the current PCSSD to approximately 53 students per square mile- in 'the new dislrict. While the feasibility study boasts that this will irnprnve transportation in the new district, it singularly fails to point out that the current density of 25 students per square mile logically and .necessarily becomes far less in the residual PCSSD. This sets up the real potential for more and longer bus rides, less efficiency and an undoubted ne_gative impact upon desegregation and the district's ability to stem enrollment declines and to attract more students . The Stipulations The M~to-M stipulation and the magnet schools stipulation are just that: Stipulated agreements among all of the parties. Therefore, as a threshold matter, it would seem that the specific written consent of Joshua, the Knight Intervenors, the Norl.h Little Rock School District, the J,irtle Rock School District, the State and the PCSSD would be required before tllese \"agreements\" cm1ld be made operative as to a detaching district. Indeed, as w~ know from the Eig_hth Circuit, a District Coun cannot impose agreements but can only -accept or reject them. 921 .F.2d 1371@ 1388. Further. both stipulations are part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. It seems log.ical that the Agreement would have to be renegotiated and rc--cxecuted by all of the parties to the case to include the new district. Query, would the re, negotiated agreement then have to be submitted to the next session of the legislature to 428244-vJ 15 . I  dctcnnine if !he legislature was Willing l-0 fund tl1i modified agreement? Again, as the Eighth Circuit has taught us, the District Court cannot impose an agreement upon the parties to this case unless they all consent. I  Federal-Court An emerging strategy of the petitioners seems to be to shift as muc~ of the process ar,d decision making as possible to the. Federal District Court often re-assuring this 'Board that the Federal Court can do whatever is necessary to 1mpose obligations, agreements and the like. We have previously explained that the District Court is not all powerful. It cannot, for instance, as we have explained, tell teachers where they are going to teach. It cannot create capacity in sehoolswhere11one exist. Indeed, the current jurisdiction of the District Court 'is \"only\" to enforce the -SettlemGnt Agreement (which it has done) and to monitor and enforce the desegregation plans (which it. continues to do). The detachment statute is, in effect, an effort by a State to confer jurisdiction upon a Federal Court. So far as the PCSSD knows, this effort is unprecedented. It is also highly suspect. However, to the extent that the petitioners ,can convince lhis Board that \"the Federal Court will fix it\", it can perhaps win the authorization for an election, presumably hay..c ,a successful election followed by a large street party and then show up onthe District Court's doorstep with a ten page laundry list of issue!i to be decided. This scenario is not likely to result in a very happy District Court judge. 428244-vl 16  I  I The PCSSD Would Have To Rezone In no shape, .form or fashion does the proposed detachment auempt to follow current Board member 'zoneboundarics. For instance, Zone 5,. from which Board Member Carol Burgett was elected last year, is largely eviscerated. The detachment would require the residual PCSSD. to constitute new zones some seven years in advance of the next census. Tliis would constitute an unnecessary and unwarranted ~xpense and disruption to the governance of the residual PCSSD. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, this Board should determine that the petition is invalid and decline to aulhorize an e1ection. 428244-vl Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, .Suite 2.300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376:..9442 -- By ----'-=;,.,,\u0026lt;e---.----:...=-r--f=--- cy Special School 17 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER , JR . ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLEST. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADOEN JOHN 0 . DAVIS JJJOY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj. com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A . MAY BRUCE R . LINDSEY JAMES R . VAN DOVER Writer's Direct Dial No . 501-212-1273 mjoncs@wlj .com July 25, 2003 R5ElYED JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX . JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A . PRYOR J. MARX DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R . LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLER . WILSON C . TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK 0 . WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING Lia::Dsi=d IO pn,cti be\u0026amp;-e tbe UDilt/ Suta hlt:DI ud Tndt:mvt Olfice Enclosed is a courtesy copy of PCSSD's fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief, together with supporting memorandum brief and statement of material facts . The originals have been filed and the parties served. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: d,(__ \\ Honorable J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record Mr. Ray Simon Mr. Scott Smith Mr. Will Bond Mr. Timothy Gauger Mr. Mark Burnett 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. RECEIVED )-c1.,f \\\u0026lt;J JY7uv{_ JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR ALLIED RELIEF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD for its fourth motion to enforce Settlement Agreement, states: 1. This motion is brought both by the PCSSD and its Board of Directors. The individual directors are named defendants in this action. For purposes of this motion, Directors, Mildred Tatum, Pam Roberts, Don Baker, Jeff Shaneyfeld and Gwen Williams, are moving in both their official and individual capacities because of the equal rights issues asserted herein. 2. This motion is accompanied by a lengthy Statement of Material Facts. The movant respectfully suggests that the reader first examine this Statement for a full and complete context for this motion. 3. On July 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education purportedly acting - pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501 , et seq., voted to order an election on September 434830-v1 - 16, 2003, for the purpose of allowing voters in the greater Jacksonville area to consider approval of a ballot measure to detach certain territory from the PCSSD and form a new school district. The statute does not provide for a vote by those residing in other areas of the PCS SD. 4. The statutory scheme, as well as the election which the State has authorized, violates the 1989 Settlement Agreement in this case. This Court has continuing jurisdiction over the State via the Arkansas Department of Education to enforce compliance with the Settlement Agreement. 5. The actions described above violate Section II.J of the Settlement Agreement which states in its entirety: 6. The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and that this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation activities with the LRSD and others. [emphasis added] The above-described actions also violate Section ILL of the Settlement Agreement which states in pertinent part that: The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. 7. As the PCSSD will demonstrate, the creation of a \"new\" district as agreed to by the State Board of Education will both \"substantially affect the ability of the district to desegregate\" and will violate Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1504(b)(2)(b) since the detachment would \"hamper, delay or in any manner negatively affect desegregation efforts\" of the PCSSD. 434830-v1 2 8. The detachment, if successful in the State-authorized scheme, would call upon this Court to recognize a \"new defendant\" in this 20 year old case while the case is in its remedial phase, liability having been long ago established and subsequently settled in the 1989 Settlement Agreement. This Court should not and cannot embark upon such a slippery slope. Unless or until this case ends, the parties have been established, their liability adjudicated, their differences compromised and settled and a new and different entity should not be introduced to this litigation in the remedial phase. 9. The statute is also unconstitutional because it denies due process and equal protection to those patrons in the PCSSD who do not reside in the area proposed in the petition for detachment and therefore are not allowed to exercise their constitutional right to vote upon the issue. Specifically, Directors Tatum, Williams, Roberts, Shaneyfeld and Baker and all others similarly situated are being denied the opportunity to vote upon the detachment question even though each represents a zone of patrons and voters who will be directly and negatively affected if the detachment is successful. Further, each of them will be negatively affected individually if the detachment proves successful. 10. Discreet provisions of orders of this Court would be violated if the detachment proved successful. For instance, this Court noted on March 25, 2003, that: 434830-v1 Further, the Court is informed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton Interdistrict School through the 5th grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Maumelle. (Order, Exhibit 22 to Statement of Material Facts, at page 2.) 3 However, if the detachment proved successful, several hundred students who currently attend Cato and other schools in the area proposed for detachment would, in the eyes of the petitioners, be reassigned to the several Sylvan Hills schools. Simply stated, there is no room for these students, many of whom are black and no feasible alternative exists for reassignment that does not involve a significant bus ride. 11. The detachment, if successful, would also negatively impact this Court's order of January 28, 2003, which stated in pertinent part that: African American students from Brushy Island will not be reassigned to Harris but will continue to attend Cato Elementary. Cato Elementary student enrollment will remain 75 % Caucasian (white) and 25% African American (black). (Order, Exhibit 23 to Statement of Material Facts, at page 2.) The detachment would leave the Brushy Island students in the residual PCSSD but would take Cato from the PCSSD. The petitioners propose that these students be reassigned to Sylvan Hills as well. However, there is simply no room for these mainly black students and they would face a long bus ride somewhere. 12. Sylvan Hills has proven to be a popular destination for M-to-M students from Little Rock. Obviously, the detachment would place all of the Sylvan Hills schools well over capacity. Since the M-to-M stipulation specifies that M-to-M students can only be accepted on a space available basis, it is likely that all current M-to-M students would have to be evicted from Sylvan Hills if the detachment proved successful. 13. The detachment would artificially accelerate the evolution of the PCS SD to a majority black school district, facilitating the State's inevitable argument that, at such a point, 434830-v1 4 - M-to-M funding should end. The State should not be permitted to effect such an artificial change in enrollment percentages. 14. Mills University Studies High School was recently recognized by Newsweekas the twentieth \"best\" high school in the country. This is a remarkable achievement for any Arkansas school. However, if the detachment proves successful, approximately 200 students from the area proposed for detachment would no longer qualify for transfer to College Station, Fuller Middle and Mills. These three schools are among the centerpieces of Plan 2000 and previous desegregation plans and this Court should not tolerate an action that would likely wreck these successful desegregation programs. 15. If successful, the detachment would work a substantial negative impact upon the current employee force in the PCS SD. The PCS SD calculates it would have to undergo a reduction in force of approximately 475 employees. Since seniority controls such a reduction, the PCSSD would be left with an artificially senior teacher corps and with an artificially imposed salary schedule that would be top heavy in the highest paid teachers. Such an outcome would work a substantial financial hardship upon the PCSSD and interfere with its ability to desegregate. 16. Such a reduction in force would also artificially make the residual PCSSD teacher force whiter than it currently is since the PCSSD has been aggressive the past several years in hiring young minority teachers. These would be the first to be laid off in a reduction in force. 17. If the detachment were successful, Clinton Elementary would lose 124 students and would move from being 55 % black to 60 % black. 434830-v1 5 18. College Station would lose 61 students reducing its enrollment from 215 students to 159. This would also artificially increase the black population at College Station from the current 55 % to 59 % black. 19. The enrollment at Sylvan Hills Middle School would increase from 878 to 972. The building capacity is only 925. Even if they could be accommodated, this infusion of students would increase the enrollment from 39 % black to 45 % black. 20. The detachment, if successful, would reduce the student population in the PCSSD to only approximately 10,500 students. It would change it from the second largest district in the State to only the sixth largest district. With a reduction in enrollment of approximately 7,500 students, the PCSSD would be substantially reduced in its capability to send and receive M-to-M students and to send magnet students to the stipulation magnets. 21. The current student density per square mile in the PCSSD is 25 students per square mile. The detachers calculate that the new district would improve this density to 53 students per square mile in the new district. Logically, however, the current density of 25 students per square mile in the current PCSSD would be significantly reduced leading to longer and less efficient transportation of students in the residual PCSSD and likely imposing an artificial and unwarranted busing burden upon black students. 22. The State Board granted the petition and in its subsequent order for elections based its decision largely upon \"the petitioners' willingness to seek, accept, and comply fully with any and all additional orders and requirements that might be imposed by the Federal Court ... \". The PCSSD submits that that which petitioners seek is legally impossible, particularly as respects the agreements entered into in this case. For instance, the M-to-M 434830-v1 6 - stipulation, the magnet stipulation and the 1989 Settlement Agreement are just that. They are agreements entered among the current parties and this Court cannot \"impose\" those agreements upon a new entity. Rather, all of the parties would have to consent and presumably the legislature would have to concur. 23. As the Court of Appeals has explained, the current jurisdiction of this Court is to enforce the Settlement Agreement and to monitor and enforce the desegregation plans. The detachment statute is an effort by a State to confer jurisdiction upon a Federal Court. The PCSSD knows of no precedent for this effort. 24. This motion is brought now because the action of the State Board in authorizing the election has created a clear and current case or controversy. Since the effects of a detachment are palpable and provable, it is respectfully submitted that this Court should exercise its jurisdiction now to end an effort which violates the Settlement Agreement and would work a manifest injury upon the ability of the PCSSD to carry out its Court approved plans and obligations and would have significant adverse outcomes financially and enrollment wise upon the other parties to this case. WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should enter its order finding that the Settlement Agreement has been violated or that the detachment would work an impermissible negative affect upon the PCSSD's efforts to desegregate and comply with Court orders and agreements entered into with the other parties. For all of these reasons, this Court should enter its order directing the State Board of Education to rescind its order of July 16, 2003, and cancel its authorization for an election. 434830-v1 7 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 Att Sc CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 25, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 434830-v1 8 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roach ell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main . Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 434830-v1 9 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 J 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 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF FOURTII MOTION TO ENFORCE SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR ALLIED RELIEF REf,1~0 JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Simply stated, the 1989 Settlement Agreement with the State, to which the State Board of Education is a signatory, precludes any such usurpation of the District's sovereignty and independence, as would result from the detachment the State recently authorized. It is the law of the case that the Court retains jurisdiction to insure that the parties, including the State, comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement as well as the settlement plans. (Order dated January 13, 1995, at page 2, Docket No. 2337). The Settlement Agreement Provision Section II J of the 1989 comprehensive Settlement Agreement states in its entirety: 435830-v1 The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and that this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation activities with the LRSD and others. [emphasis added] This language, which remains operative, was not some idle boilerplate or filler. Indeed, as we will explain further, it was not part of the original agreement between the State, LRSD and Joshua but was only negotiated after the State bad first reached agreement with the LRSD and  then turned its attention toward securing agreement from the PCSSD and the NLRSD. (Exhibit 2). Further, there was then a real and immediate specter of consolidation which prompted this negotiated language which, while it survived the legislative and judicial approval process, came under attack from many legislators, commentators and in editorials. (Exhibits 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14). It should thus be clear that Section II J. was a key component of the settlement for which the PCSSD (as well as the NLRSD) separately negotiated. The reasons are clear. Not only was the PCSSD guarding against consolidation, but also against any new usurpation of its territory, facilities and assets similar to the appropriation (albeit by judicial order) that occurred in the early phases of this case. Absent this promise by the State, it had no logical reason to join the settlement. Were it to be either consolidated or carved up into pieces, it would have no reason to settle. While it is clear that many in the legislature and those \"commenting on the scene\" opposed Section II J., the fact remains that it is an integral part of the Settlement Agreement and retains full force and vitality today. In his June 4, 2003 letter (Exhibit 16), generated as part of the proceedings before the State Board, the Attorney General appropriately discussed the fact that while \"successor district\" language was included in the settlement agreement as respects the LRSD, he noted 435830-v1 2 that no such language was presented as regards the PCS SD or the NLRSD. As the Attorney General explained: All of this suggests that either (a) the parties simply did not anticipate that a \"successor\" district might be created from territory that was formerly within the PCSSD, or (b) the parties specifically intended that there would not be any such \"successor\" district created under any circumstances, or that any successor district would not be a party to the Settlement Agreement. Subparagraph (b) of course is the correct analysis because of the presence of Section II J. On the same page and same footnote the Attorney General further noted that: Logic suggests, however, that a group of individual schools could not so easily extricate themselves from federal court supervision (and court-imposed obligations) in a desegregation case by merely \"detaching\" themselves from a school district under supervision, at least not without the consent of all parties to the case and the Court overseeing the litigation. (Emphasis supplied). The Attorney General notes in his last footnote that: In this particular case, the parties with standing to object would be the State itself, the three Pulaski County districts, and the Joshua and Knight intervenors. Section II L. The principal motivation for the State to enter into and subsequently fund the Settlement Agreement was to minimize the dollar cost for its past constitutional violations and to obtain a release of all claims for all violations which had occurred prior to execution of the Settlement Agreement. While the State has been subjected to successful claims by the school districts for departures from the Settlement Agreement, (Statement 1s 20, 21, 22 and 23) it has, thus far, for over fourteen years, avoided a claim or contention that it has violated the constitution or 435830-v1 3 enacted statutes which either promote segregation or hamper desegregation. 1 However, the statute at issue, by its own legislative language, sets up an interesting dynamic not otherwise present in Arkansas law. As counsel for the Department of Education and the Attorney General's office have repeatedly pointed out: \"the state board is prohibited by law from approving any petition for detachment which hampers, delays or in any manner negatively affects desegregation efforts of a school district or districts in this state.\" (Exhibit 16) Indeed, it would appear that the legislature had the proscriptions of the Settlement Agreement in mind when it crafted this very rigorous test for detachment. The Settlement Agreement at page 10 states: \"The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the [Pulaski] Districts to desegregate.\" By ultimately approving a new school district, the State will have participated in a process that artificially accelerates the evolution of the PCCSD to a majority black school district. When all three districts become majority black, then the State will argue that its obligation to fund M-to-M payments will suddenly and abruptly end. (Indeed, a cynic might wonder if there are those in authority who may have already figured this out.) If and when this day comes, the financial consequences to the three current districts in this county would be crippling. 1 After each legislative session, the ADE invites the PCSSD, as well as the other Pulaski districts, to identify new legislation which the district believes will hamper or negatively affect its desegregation efforts. The PCSSD duly noted by letter dated April 26, 2002, that it believed the detachment statute at issue would negatively affect its desegregation efforts. 435830-v1 4 This Court has consistently reiterated the proposition that: \"A party may not unilaterally change the implementation or language of an agreement or order without the prior approval of the Court and/or the consent of the parties.\" (Order dated January 13, 1995, at page 10, Docket No. 2337). The State of Arkansas needs to focus on its obligation in the settlement to give the Pulaski County school districts special consideration to enable these districts to meet their numerous and burdensome obligations under the settlement. The Court reminds the State of the Eighth Circuit's specific findings about the State's complicated and lengthy history of promotion of unconstitutional racial segregation which has led to this interminable litigation. The swiftest and surest way out of the federal court is to abide by the terms and spirit of this Settlement Agreement, and this includes following proper procedures for modification of the settlement. (Emphasis in the original) (Order dated January 13, 1995, at pages 16, 17, Docket No. 2337). The Equal Protection Claim Under the new detachment statute, when part of a school district attempts to detach itself from the school district, and become its own entity, a majority vote of only the voters in the area to be detached is permitted. Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1504(3)(C). This provision is clearly unconstitutional and denies equal protection of the laws to those voters remaining in the original school district who are not allowed to vote even though they will be materially affected by detachment. The United States Supreme Court has stated that if a state statute is challenged on the grounds that it grants the right to vote in a limited purpose election to some otherwise qualified voters, but denies it to others, then the court must be called upon to determine whether the exclusion from the election is necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Kramer v. 435830-v1 5 Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 633 (1969); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, 704 (1969). The Kramer court went further to point out, that when the State's sole justification for the statute is that the classification provides merely a reasonable basis upon which to determine which voters have a special interest in the outcome of the election, then the statute fails to meet the \"exacting standard of precision we require of statutes which selectively distribute the franchise .\" Kramer, 395 U.S. at 632. In determining whether there has been a violation of the equal protection clause, the court's attention should be focused on two inquiries: (1) whether there is a genuine difference in interests among the two groups that the State has created, and (2) if so, whether any resulting increase . in voting strength of one group over the other amounts to discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. Town of Lockport, N. Y. v. Citizens for Cmty. Action At - the Local Level, Inc., 430 U.S. 259, 268 (1976). In several cases the Supreme Court has allowed the electorate of a special-purpose unit of government to be apportioned to give more weight to a certain sector which is found to be most affected by the government unit's functions. Id. at 266. But, as Kramer points out, the classification of voters into \"interested\" and \"non-interested\" groups must be reasonably precise, and the State must have a compelling state interest that the statute, and its classification of voters, furthers. Kramer, 395 U.S. at 633. Several United State Supreme Court cases demonstrate these principles. For example, in Kramer the court found it was unconstitutional and a violation of equal protection to restrict the voting in a school board election to either those people who paid property taxes or rented homes, or to those people who had children enrolled in the schools. Id. The court applied 435830-v1 6 - heightened scrutiny, and reasoned that this distinction among voters was not necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Id. The court did not afford the usual presumption of constitutionality to this election statute. Presumptions of constitutionality for statutes are based on the premise that the state governments are structured to fairly represent people. Id. at 628. But, when the challenge to the statute is basically a challenge of the basic premise, the premise can no longer serve as the basis for presuming constitutionality. Id. Additionally, the court in Kramer pointed out that the statute defining who could vote in school board elections was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, because it was simultaneously too over inclusive both as well as too under inclusive. Id. at 632. The court stated that these election criteria excluded \"senior citizens and others living with children or relatives; military personnel, and others who live on tax exempt property; boarders and lodgers; parents who neither lease nor own qualifying property and whose children are too young to attend school; and parents who neither own nor lease property and whose children attend private school.\" Id. at 630. Further, the Supreme Court in Cipriano, decided that a Louisiana statute conferring the right to vote in bond issuance elections only to those people who paid property taxes was unconstitutional as denying equal protection. Cipriano, 395 U.S. at 704. Just as in Kramer, the Cipriano court pointed out that when the vote, in a special purpose election, is given to some people, but denied to others then the court must determine whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Id. The Cipriano court also noted that it is unconstitutional to deny the vote to some people because of the way the members of that group might vote. Id. at 705. 435830-v1 7 Similar to the voting classifications drawn in Kramer and Cipriano, the Arkansas statute which only allows voters in the area to be detached to vote in the detachment proceedings, and denies the vote to those in the remaining area is unconstitutional, because the statute offends the notion of \"one person, one vote.\" By denying interested and affected voters the right to vote, the state is ultimately denying equal protection of the laws to those who are not allowed to vote in this school district election. This distinction of the voters does not further a compelling state interest, and is therefore unconstitutional.2 First, as indicated by the Kramer court, this statute should not be given a presumption of constitutionality because the challenge to the statute is to the basic premise that the laws are created by a fair process. Because the process is being challenged in this case, the usual presumption of constitutionality cannot be afforded. Therefore, in analyzing whether there has been an equal protection violation the court must focus on whether there is a genuine difference of interests among the two groups the state has created, and if so whether the resulting increase in voter strength in one of the groups amounts to discrimination under the Equal Protection clause. Since the Arkansas statute allows only those people residing in the area to be detached the vote, one gets no further than the first step under this analysis. There 2 Indeed, the principal interest being endorsed by the State in this instance is to apply detachment only to the PCSSD. As we noted in our State Court complaint (Exhibit 20), the detachment provision applies by definition only to the PCSSD and to no other school district. Thus, is not even dealing with \"special purpose elections\" Statewide but only to one that is limited to the PCSSD. Stated another way, to the extent that others in other school districts might wish detachment, there is no statutory provision available to them to seek it. The detachment statutes apply neither to the largest district in the State, middle sized districts or the smallest. It applies only to the PCSSD. 435830-v1 8 is no real and distinct difference, and certainly not a compelling difference, in the interests between those in the Jacksonville area and those remaining in the Pulaski County Special School District. The state must have a compelling reason or justification for distinguishing between those wanting to be detached and those who would remain from the original school district. It is not enough to say that distinguishing them in this manner is for purposes of determining who is interested or affected by the election and who is not. The residents of the PCSSD who do not seek to be detached have a real and palpable interest in the matter of the detachment, yet they are being denied the right to vote in the election. If Jacksonville were to detach, this would have a definite and immediate impact on the processes and operations of the other schools that would remain in the PCSSD. School funding, transportation and busing, teacher school assignments, and student assignments would most certainly be affected. The school district would have to immediately reconfigure its processes, resources and operations. Therefore, as a result of the sudden impact the detachment would have on the entire PCS SD, it is disingenuous to claim that those residing in the area that would remain the PCSSD are not interested or affected by this vote. Further, this distinction the State has made is not so precise as to satisfy the exacting standard set forth in Kramer. Just as in Kramer, this election statute is not narrowly tailored to achieving the goal of franchising those people interested or affected by the vote. The statute is over inclusive in the sense that it allows people in Jacksonville to vote that have, at best, a remote or indirect interest and are not affected by the school detachment election whatsoever. For example, a senior citizen residing in Jacksonville with no children, and no more children 435830-v1 9 expected in their lifetime are allowed to vote in this school detachment election. A single airman with no children living in base housing during a two year assignment may vote. On the other hand the statute is under inclusive because it denies the right to vote to those people in the PCSSD who do not live in the Jacksonville area and who would be severely affected by the outcome of the election, such as those people with children currently attending a school in the PCSSD particularly schools such as College Station, Fuller and Mills whose very programs are threatened by the detachment. This distinction is not made with the precision necessary to safeguard equal protection of the law. Negative Impact Upon Desegregation Although the June 4 letter of the Attorney General was necessarily fairly general in most respects, it was quite specific as regards certain areas. As the Attorney General opined: [a]ny detachment of a significant amount of territory from the 435830-v1 PCSSD could almost certainly be expected to have an \"impact\" on the PCSSD's ability to comply with its desegregation plan and have an impact on the operation of the Settlement Agreement, including the Agreement's provisions concerning M-M students and the Magnet schools in the LRSD. The Court of Appeals has previously succinctly explained the M-to-M arrangement: M-to-M students are peculiar to the districts that are parties to the Settlement Agreement. They are students who are of the majority race in their home districts, and who voluntarily transfer to .another Pulaski County district where they are of the minority race. The State, by way of a funding formula contained in the Settlement Agreement, compensates both the home district and the receiving district for each M-to-M student. The home, or sending, district receives one-half of the state aid that it would have received if the student had remained in the district, while the receiving, or host, district receives the full cots of educating the student. (United States Court of Appeals, No. 95-1481EA, Docket No. 2718, Opinion filed May 15, 1996). 10 The three specialty schools in the southeast portion of Pulaski County all contain programs which were specifically designed for and gained Court approval for desegregation. The PCSSD calculates that approximately 200 students from the area proposed for detachment attended those schools last year. These students are necessary for the continued vitality of these programs, all of which feed to Mills University Studies High School, recently recognized as the 20th \"best\" high school in the country. Newsweek, May 2003. Included as Exhibit 17 is a memorandum from Davis Hendricks, the District Director of Talented and Gifted Programs, prepared the day after the Board's June 9 hearing. The memorandum explains at least two things. First, it shows the extensive array of AP courses currently available at both Jacksonville High School and North Pulaski High School. It also explains in some detail how the detachment would negatively impact the College Station, Fuller and Mills programs. The PCS SD calculates that the detached district would have 3, 700 elementary students of whom only 32.7% would be black. At the secondary level, the PCSSD calculates an enrollment of 3,757 and that only 32.4% of those students would be black. Since the petitioners calculated that the residual PCSSD would be 39 % black, there is a difference of six and one-half percentage points. The PCSSD calculates that the new district would enroll 7,457 students. Individual Schools As for individual schools, the impact upon Clinton Elementary is profound. Detachment would cause the loss of 124 students and would push Clinton from 55 % black to 60 % black. It is required to be no more than 50 % black. 435830-v1 11 Clinton is an inter-district school. The Court of Appeals has specifically stated that one of the elements of the Settlement Agreement it considers to be crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved, is the operation of the agreed number of inter-district schools according to the agreed timetable. (Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F .2d 253,256 (8th Cir. 1991)). The PCSSD projects that 61 students would leave College Station reducing its enrollment from 215 to 159. This would artificially increase the black population at College Station from the current 55 % to 59 % black. The enrollment at Sylvan Hills Middle School would increase from 878 to 972, the African-American percentage would increase from 39% to 45 % and the building capacity of 925 would be grossly exceeded. Court Orders As recently as March 25, 2003, this Court noted that: Further, the Court is informed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton Interdistrict School through the 5th grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Maumelle. (Order, March 25, 2003) Accordingly, the PCSSD reiterates its point that the displaced students, many of whom are black, who the petitioners submit can \"easily be accommodated at Sylvan Hills\" simply cannot be. 435830-v1 12 Part of the detachment proposal flies in the face of another order entered by the District Court on January 28, 2003. In evaluating and approving the PCSSD plans for the redesign of Harris Elementary School, this Court ruled that: African American students from Brushy Island will not be reassigned to Harris but will continue to attend Cato Elementary. Cato Elementary student enrollment will remain 75 % Caucasian (white) and 25% African American (black). (Order, January 28, 2003). However, the petitioners are excluding the Brushy Island students from Cato and are leaving them to be assigned somewhere in the PCS SD. The petitioners say send them to Sylvan Hills but there is no room. The Court has said they will not be reassigned to Harris. Where can they go? Another aspect of the Court's January order as respects Harris requires the PCSSD to vigorously recruit minority students (white) from north of the river for placement at Harris. The Director of Equity and Multicultural Education was ordered to direct this \"intensification\" of effort. Of course, if most of the PCSSD north of the river is allowed to detach, it will render the PCSSD substantially unable to comply with this order. Sylvan Hills Petitioners make some rather astonishing suggestions regarding Sylvan Hills High School. At page 6 of counsel's letter (Exhibit 17), the following statements are made: 435830-v1 Moreover, even assuming a real capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School, the District Court could address the problem in a number of ways to avoid any negative affect on desegregation. One option may be to revise the attendance zones for all of PCSSD's high schools. The ODM reported that the PCSSD has not revised its attendance zones in \"many years\" and recommended that it do so. See ODM March 26, 2003, pp. 19 13 and 21. Another option may be to discontinue the school's specialty program that allows students residing outside the attendance zone to attend the school. This program was implemented to increase the African-American enrollment at the school at a time when it was below the minimum of 20 percent. The African-American enrollment at the school in 2002-03 was 35 percent. This calls into question the continuing need for the program to increase African-American enrollment. A third option may be to build additional classrooms at Sylvan Hills High School. The PCSSD recently added new classrooms at Robinson High School to address overcrowding at that school. In short, a capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School can easily be addressed without negatively affecting desegregation. As to revising attendance zones or disestablishing a specialty program, a cardinal rule in desegregation is \"if it ain't broke, don't fix it\". Any effort to disestablish a successful program would immediately be attacked by Joshua. Moreover, if the PCS SD is compelled to build additional classrooms because of the - efforts of the petitioners and the actions of the State, who is going to pay for this construction? The petitioners? The State? The upshot of petitioners' suggestions is that the \"suggestions\" prove that the detachment would have a negative impact on desegregation in the PCSSD. Further, they ignore the fact that much of the increase in black enrollment at Sylvan Hills is M-to-M students from the LRSD. To discontinue or even diminish the specialty program, affects not only the PCSSD but the LRSD as well. Enrollment While the feasibility study forecasts that the PCSSD would remain the second largest district in the State, the PCSSD calculates it would be relegated to only the sixth largest district in the State with fewer than 10,500 students. (Before the Pulaski County school desegregation 435830-v1 14 case was filed, the PCSSD boasted an enrollment of almost 33,000 students and was by far the largest school district in the State.) Such a dramatic reduction in enrollment will undoubtedly require a reduction in force not only among teachers and staff but within the Central Office as well. Such dislocations, heartache and career affecting decisions are simply unnecessary. Further, the feasibility study (Exhibit 15 at page 39) points out that density of students per square mile would improve from 25 in the current PCSSD to approximately 53 students per square mile in the new district. While the feasibility study boasts that this will improve transportation in the new district, it singularly fails to point out that the current density of 25 students per square mile logically and necessarily becomes far less in the residual PCSSD. This sets up the real potential for more and longer bus rides, less efficiency and an undoubted negative impact upon desegregation and the district's ability to stem enrollment declines and to attract more students. Strong Precedent Supports The PCSSD Position Many unsuccessful efforts to detach from districts operating pursuant to desegregation orders litter the legal landscape in this jurisprudence. The latest appears to be Lee vs. Chambers County Board of Education, 849 F.Supp. 1474, (M.D.Ala. 1994). The case is an outgrowth of Lee vs. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F.Supp. 458 (M.D.Ala.) (threejudge court), aff'd sub nom. Wallace v. United States, 389 U.S. 215, 88 S.Ct. 415, 19 L.Ed.2d 422 (1967). In that case, a three-judge district court ordered Alabama's local school districts, including Chambers County and Lanett City, to disestablish their racially segregated - and discriminatory systems. 435830-v1 15 While the Lee case is procedurally and statutorily complicated, it does bear remarkable similarities to the case at bar. By 1990, the City of Valley, located within Chambers County, had become frustrated with the Chambers County Board of Education believing it had ignored requests to improve the schools in the City of Valley. Id. at 1478. The City of Valley attempted to form its own separate school district which was opposed by the county. Among the complaints of the City of Valley was that the county enrollment had been declining, that historically there had been a tension between the Valley area and the rest of the county, and that no new facilities had been built in the Valley area since the early 1980s. As part of its proposal to create its separate school system, Valley agreed to abide by any orders of the Court which orders are designed to assure that such a system will not impede the desegregation process in Chambers County. It also committed itself to operate a totally integrated system including utilizing existing attendance zones. Id. Valley considered at least three options for configuring the district but chose Option 1 because it would leave existing attendance zones intact, cause the least student disruption, allow children to attend schools they or their parents had historically attended and effect no changes in the remaining schools. Id. at 1485. Among the factors that were not considered by Valley was the affect upon children having special educational needs, the Court pointing out that these costs are not fully funded from State or Federal sources and that the local cost for these programs can be a substantial burden. 435830-v1 16 We note that Jacksonville has performed no such analysis in this case either, even though the PCSSD facilities for children with multi handicapping conditions are all located in schools proposed for detachment. As the Court noted in Lee. (Id. at 1490) If the court permits the Valley district to operate, the Chambers County district would have to equip and operate special education programs now offered only at schools in the Valley area, such as the pre-school handicapped student program at Fairfax Elementary School and the gifted student program at Fairfax Elementary School. After a long discussion of the facts and the law, the Court finally came down to the issue of \"Practicability\". Beginning at page 1498, the Court explained that: (Id. at 1498) (Id. at 1498) 435830-v1 The court must also consider whether Valley's proposal introduces a level of complexity to the desegregation process in Chambers County that is so great that it will itself be an impediment to the speedy and effective elimination of the remaining vestiges of the dual school system. Valley takes the position that the ongoing desegregation process in the Chambers County school district will not be affected adversely by its establishment and independent operation as a separate system because any issues that may arise can be negotiated between the school systems, resolved by the State Superintendent of Education, or be determined by this court. Thus, at a time when Chambers County school authorities should be devoting their energies and attention to implementing the recent Orders of this court and to devising and implementing the comprehensive blueprint for final constitutional compliance as agreed by the parties and that is required by the 1993 Agreed Order, if operation of a Valley district were permitted, they would instead be enmeshed in negotiations, state administrative 17 (Id. at 1499) - (Id. at 1499) (Id. at 1500) proceedings, and possible further appearances before this court to resolve disputed matters. If the City of Valley is permitted to operate a separate and independent system, these efforts-and the progress of the Chambers County public schools toward unitary status-will become far more complex. For example, each teacher assignment decision presently is affected by current assignments throughout the existing Chambers County school district. To the extent that full constitutional compliance has not been attained-and it currently has not been attained at the time a separate Valley district begins operations, both school systems will share in the responsibility for achieving the original goal of having racially non-identifiable faculties among all of other schools that either operates. If the districts operate independently, however, ensuring the realization of this goal will inevitably cause friction and ultimately involve this court in a level of detailed supervision and administration of local schools that would be unwieldy and unwise. The court finds that the introduction of an independent decisionmaking body (a new school district) in the midst of the desegregation process in Chambers County will greatly complicate planning and implementation of measures necessary for constitutional compliance, will increase the potential for conflict, will be likely to involve this court in an unnecessarily detailed level of supervision and administration (thus displacing local control), and ultimately will impede the County's progress toward a unitary system from which all vestiges of past discrimination have been eliminated. In its conclusions of law, the Court appropriately traced the cases from the United States Supreme Court which culminate in the lead decision: 435830-v1 Over 20 years ago, the Supreme Court firmly established the test which must be applied in situations such as this: 18 435830-v1 We have today held that any attempt by state of local officials to carve out a new school district from an existing district that is in the process of dismantling a dual school system \"must be judged according to whether it hinders or furthers the process of school desegregation. If the proposal would impede the dismantling of a dual system, then a district court, in the exercise of its remedial discretion, may enjoin it from being carried out.\" United States v. Scottland Neck Bd. of Educ., 401 U.S. 484, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2214, 2217, 33 L.Ed.2d 75 (1972) (citing Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, 401 U.S. 451 , 460, 92 S. Ct. 2196, 2202, 33 L.Ed.2d 51 (1972)). In Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, the city which wished to form and operate a splinter school district made much the same argument as that of Valley here: ... Emporia advances arguments that a separate system is necessary to achieve quality education for city residents, and that it is unfair in any event to force the city to continue to send its children to schools over which the city, because of the character of its arrangement with the county, has very little control. Id. at 467, 92 S.Ct. at 2205. The Supreme Court's answer to that argument must guide the court in its decision in the case at bar: The District Court, with its responsibility to provide an effective remedy for segregation in the entire city-county system could not property allow the city to make its part of that system more attractive where such a result would be accomplished at the expense of the children remaining in the county. Id. at 468, 92 S.Ct. at 2206. The year before, the Fifth Circuit had dealt with the issue of a splinter school district in a case involving Alabama splinters (Pleasant Grove, Vestavia, Midfield and Homewood) withdrawing from their parent (Jefferson County). Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Ed., 448 F .2d 403 (5th Cir., 1971 (\"Stout I\") [FN26] The court held: .. . [W]here the formulation of splinter school districts, albeit validly created under state law, have the effect of 19 435830-v1 thwarting the implementation of a unitary school system, the district court may not ... recognize their creation. Id. at 404 (footnote omitted). On remand, the district court ordered the splinter districts to accept a proper role in the desegregation of the county system. This was affirmed on appeal, Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 466 F2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1972) (\"Stout II\"), cert. denied, sub nom., Stripling v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 410 U.S. 928, 93 S.Ct. 1361, 35 L.Ed.2d 589 (1973), with the Fifth Circuit holding that legally created splinter school districts could be disregarded if their existence thwarted implementation of a unitary school system in the county as a whole. The court went on to say that courts should not remove local control indefinitely and that sovereignty should be returned to a splinter district when the splinter demonstrates \"by clear and convincing evidence\" that it is able and intends to comply with the court's orders concerning its role in the desegregation of the county school district. Id. at 1215. Valley argues that the latter holding in Stout II should cause this court to authorize it to operate a separate school system because it has pledged to the court that it would follow any order which the court might issue as to the role which the Valley district should play in assisting to complete desegregation of the schools in Chambers County. Valley also emphasizes its commitment to operate an integrated system, even hopefully a \"model\" system, within its new district for the benefit of children of all races. While the court accepts the sincerity of Valley's officer, accepts Valley's assurance that it intends to operate a fully integrated school system that would be eligible to be adjudged a unitary system if judged along, and accepts Valley's commitment that it has no intention to impede the progress of desegregation in the county system, this begs the real issue. As the Supreme Court has stated, \"[t]he existence of a permissible purpose cannot sustain any action that has an impermissible effect.\" Wright, 407 U.S. at 462, 92 S.Ct. at 2203. The issue here is not whether Valley could create a fully integrated unitary system for itself, or whether Valley is willing to accept a role in desegregating the county system. The basic issue before the court is whether a separate Valley system can be operated at this time, even accepting whatever role the court might assign it, in a way which does not impede the final dismantling of a dual school system in Chambers County. (Id. at 1500, 1501). 20 (Id. at 1502) (Id. at 1503) (Id. at 1503) The court has carefully considered Valley's proposals. Although it has expressed preferences, Valley has suggested several alternatives designed to address the various Green factors, all of which it is willing to accept. And, while the burden of proof is properly on Valley, the court has struggled with Valley's request that it \"mandate a desegregation plan that incorporates, recognizes and accommodates the existence of and in turn operation of a city school system by the Valley City Board of Education.\" (Brief in Support of Amended Petition to Intervene on Behalf of the Valley City Board of Education and the City of Valley, Alabama.). The court has concluded that it cannot be done at this time. What we must all seek -- the parties, the lawyers, and the court -is to finally remedy the constitutional violations created by the old state-imposed system of segregated schools to the end that the federal courts no longer have to supervise the operation of the public schools of Chambers County, not to adopt a patchwork approach which depends on continued court involvement to make it work. The facts in this case impel the court to the inevitable conclusion that this ultimate objective for the Chambers County schools would be impeded by the operation of a Valley school system at this time. Accordingly, the court will deny Valley's request to operate as a separate school district. Teacher Deployment As to teacher deployment, the petitioners stake out the naive position that the Federal District Court could simply order all the teachers to stay where they are. (Exhibit 17 at 8). This assumption ignores the realities of teacher unions, teacher contracts and previous admonitions from the United States Court of Appeals. For instance, the PCSSD successfully 435830-v1 21 enjoined an on-going teacher strike in 1996. The union appealed to the Federal Court of Appeals arguing that the union negotiated contract between the PCSSD and the Teachers' Union was none of the District Court's business. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversed the District Court and explained to the parties that the role of the District Court is to enforce the Settlement Agreement (which is silent as to the master contracts), but not to otherwise interfere with the rights of employees and organizations of employers. 112 F.3d 953@ 955. Petitioners' position is completely silent regarding recognition of a new teacher organization for a new district. Is this or is this not part of their proposed calculus? As the PCSSD knows from prior difficult and trying circumstances, many teachers prefer working in a district which recognizes a union. The Stipulations The M-to-M stipulation and the magnet schools stipulation are just that: Stipulated agreements among all of the parties. Therefore, as a threshold matter, it would seem that the specific written consent of Joshua, the Knight Intervenors, the North Little Rock School District, the Little Rock School District, the State and the PCSSD would be required before these \"agreements\" could be made operative in a detaching district. Indeed, as we know from the Eighth Circuit, a District Court cannot impose agreements but can only accept or reject them. 921 F.2d 1371@ 1388. Further, both stipulations are part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. It seems logical that the Agreement would have to be renegotiated and reexecuted by all of the parties to the case to include the new district. Query, would the renegotiated agreement then have to be submitted to the next session of the legislature to determine if the legislature was willing to fund this modified agreement? Again, as the Eighth 435830-v1 22 Circuit has taught us, the District Court cannot impose an agreement upon the parties to this case unless they all consent. The PCSSD Would Have To Rezone Zones 4 and 5 would be completely removed from the PCSSD. The detachment would require the residual PCSSD to constitute new zones some seven years in advance of the next census. This would constitute an unnecessary and unwarranted expense and disruption to the governance of the residual PCS SD. Time has yet to permit an analysis as to the effect such rezoning would have upon those protected by the Voting Rights Act if detachment was successful. Federal Court The strategy of the petitioners seems to be to shift as much of the process and decision - making as possible to the Federal District Court often re-assuring the State Board that the Federal Court can do whatever is necessary to impose obligations, agreements and the like. We have previously explained that the District Court is not all powerful. It cannot, for instance, as we have explained, tell teachers where they are going to teach. It cannot create capacity in schools where none exist. Indeed, the current jurisdiction of the District Court is \"only\" to enforce the Settlement Agreement (which it has done) and to monitor and enforce the desegregation plans (which it continues to do). The detachment statute is, in effect, an effort by a State to confer jurisdiction upon a Federal Court. So far as the PCSSD knows, this effort is unprecedented. It is also highly suspect. 435830-v1 23 However, petitioners successfully convinced the Board that \"the Federal Court will fix it\" , and won authorization for the election. Presuming a successful election followed by a large street party, the new district would then show up on the District Court's doorstep with a ten page laundry list of issues to be decided. This scenario is not calculated to advance the ultimate resolution of the case and should be ended now. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should determine that the statutes violate the Settlement Agreement, are an unconstitutional denial of equal protection, and will negatively impact desegregation and the ultimate resolution of this case. 435830-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By '-y)7 ' ?~ ~0~ M. _Srunuel Jones III (769 0) A-ifurneys 'or Pulaski c6un Special School strict 24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July ;25, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway . Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 435830-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M.S~nesII( 25 .. I  II II II II II  I I I I I I I .. I 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. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS History of the Settlement Agreement RE?L~D JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS  INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. 1982. The LRSD sues the State, the PCSSD and the NLRSD successfully seeking consolidation of the three districts in Pulaski County. 921 F.2d 1371@ 1376. 2. 1985. The Court of Appeals rejects consolidation but orders that the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD be adjusted. 921 F.2d 1371@ 1377. 3. 1985. This boundary adjustment caused PCSSD to lose fourteen schools and over one-third of its tax base. 4. Late 1988. Initial settlement discussions are commenced among the State, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. 921 F.2d 1371 @ 1376. 5. January 12, 1989. Senator Jerry Jewell introduces Senate Bill 39 to consolidate the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School District schools . (Exhibit 1) 434696-v1 I   I 1:  .- 1  I I I I .. I I 6. January 31, 1989. The State Board, LRSD and Joshua Intervenors reach a proposed settlement. The State's attorney reports that \"meetings to obtain the agreement of the other parties are underway today between attorneys and representatives of the State Board, PCSSD and NLRSD.\" (Exhibit 2) 7. February 9, 1989. The State hires the national law firm of Hogan \u0026amp; Hartson which specialized in school desegregation to advise it concerning desegregation. (Exhibit 3) 8. February 14, 1989. Counsel for the LRSD delivers a draft of Proposed Settlement Agreement to the State's attorney. This draft does not contain a Section II J . (Exhibit 4) 9. March 1989. The settlement is agreed to by all of the parties. The final version contains Section II J. (Exhibit 5) It is submitted to the legislature for funding . 10. March 3, 1989. In an editorial discussing the settlement, the Arkansas Gazette notes that: \"A key provision is that the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts recognize that they remain 'independent, sovereign desegregating' districts. This could become an impediment to a countywide consolidation in the future, and if so it is an unfortunate provision.\" (Exhibit 6) 11. March 7, 1989. The Arkansas Gazette reports that the county district's attorney told the county board that the settlement went through 27 revisions before being made public because of the complexity of the issues. (Exhibit 7) 12. March 11, 1989. In explaining the settlement to the Joint Budget Committee, the State's attorney noted that: \"This agreement is so fragile that if it starts to unravel in any way, if there's any kind of modification to it, it's going to fall apart and unravel in 100 434696-v1 2 I   I I I  I I I I I I -~ I different ways.\" In the same article, Senator Max Howell noted he did not want to vote for the settlement if it meant forever prohibiting consolidation of the three county districts. \"I'm not antagonistic toward the dollars, but I am concerned that I understand the small print.\" (Exhibit 8) 13. March 12, 1989. One statewide commentator, in characterizing Section II J, opined that: \"A brazen provision slipped into this settlement at the last minute guarantees there will be no consolidation of the school districts. Surprise!\" (Exhibit 9) 14. March 16, 1989. The Arkansas Senate approves the bill funding the settlement but adds an amendment asking the Federal Courts to consider four changes in the settlement including: \"Disapproval of language that would retain the autonomy of the three Pulaski County districts.\" As Senator Max Howell stated: \"I would hope the Court would be aware that we in the Legislature feel the folks who caused this should not continue to be in control of the situation.\" (Exhibit 10) The press reported that: \"Legislators have expressed concern that the provision would forever bar the State from merging the three districts, and the State Education Department's attorney told them Monday that McCutcheon (the Special Master) apparently shared that concern.\" (Exhibit 10) 15. March 18, 1989. Press reports described II J as one of the \"key\" provisions of the settlement. (Exhibit 11) 16. March 24, 1989. Mr. Herschel Friday writes the attorneys for the parties noting that: \"During the debate which preceded the vote to fund the settlement in this case, I was repeatedly questioned on whether changes requested by the legislature could be made in the settlement. A copy of the requested changes is enclosed for your 434696-v1 3       I I I . I  I ready reference. I agreed to follow through to see that the legislative requests were duly considered by the parties and to use my best efforts in this regard. . . . Will you please discuss these requests with your clients so that we can meet in the near future and address these matters.\" (Exhibit 12) A copy of the requested changes, which included Section II J, is attached as (Exhibit 13) . 17. March 31, 1989. Counsel for the AEA informs Mr. Friday that they object to removing any of the items from the settlement agreement. (Exhibit 14) 18. December 11 , 1989. The District Court purports to approve the settlement agreement but only after imposing certain modifications. 726 F.Supp. 1544, 1549 . 19. December 12, 1990. The Court of Appeals reverses the District Court, ruling that the Settlement Agreement should have been approved as written by the parties. 971 F.2d 160@ 164, 165 . Previous Efforts To Enforce Violations Of The Settlement Agreement 20. At least three times during the decade of the 1990s, the Pulaski districts were forced to sue the State to enforce the Settlement Agreement. 21. On January 13, 1995, the District Court ruled that the State had violated the Settlement Agreement as respects Workers' Compensation payments due the three Pulaski districts. (Docket No. 2337). This order was affirmed on appeal. 22. On January 13, 1995, the District Court ruled that the State had violated the Settlement Agreement as respects \"loss funding\" for M-to-M students (Docket No. 2337) and the financial award was affirmed on appeal. 23. Later, the District Court rules that the State has violated the Settlement Agreement as respects reimbursement for teacher retirement and health insurance benefits due 434696-v1 4 I  I I I I I I II I  l _i I . I . I le I the three Pulaski districts. This matter was subsequently settled and the three districts continue to receive these payments to this day. The Detachment Effort 24. 2001. The General Assembly enacts ACA 6-13-1501, et seq. Representatives of the PCSSD testify against the measure. The statute permits detachment under specified circumstances but only for districts with an average membership of at least 15,000 students but not more than 20,000 students. The PCSSD is the only district in the State of Arkansas which fits this criterion. 25. November 21, 2002. A so-called feasibility study for forming an independent school district in Northeast Pulaski County detached from The Pulaski County Special School District is completed. (Exhibit 15) 26. The study examines three alternative areas for detachment and concludes at page 39 that Alternative I be selected. (Exhibit 15) 27. February 25, 2003. An \"Addendum\" to the feasibility study is completed and is inserted in the back of the November 21, 2002, study behind page 89, the concluding page of the November study. (Exhibit 15) 28. March, 2003. A petition drive is commenced, subsequently concluded and petitions are delivered on May 19, 2003, to the Arkansas Department of Education. 29. April 15, 2003. The Legislature approves an amendment to ACA 6-13-1501, et seq. adding a criterion allowing detachment from school districts which encompass a total area of 700 square miles or more. The Pulaski district, at 726 square miles, is the only district which meets this criterion. 434696-v1 5        ,      le I I 30. May 30, 2003 . Carolyn Staley certifies that the petition has sufficient signatures. 31. June 4, 2003. The Attorney General's office, as required by this statutory scheme, renders an opinion but states he is unable to clearly opine as to whether or not the statutory requirements have been met because of the lack of information in the feasibility study. (Exhibit 16) 32. June 9, 2003. The State Board of Education conducts a hearing on the detachment petition but delays action. It instructs the petitioners to \"answer the questions\" raised by the Attorney General and to submit that information to the Attorney General's office so that the Attorney General may issue a \"definitive\" opinion on the issue. 33 . June 27, 2003 . The petitioners deliver their supplemental materials to the State Board and to the Attorney General's office including an opinion from an attorney regarding the affects or lack thereof upon desegregation. (Exhibit 17) 34. July 11, 2003. The Attorney General issues a new opinion which, while still highly qualified in many respects, opines that the petition could be granted if certain findings are made. (Exhibit 18) 35. July 11, 2003 . The State Board of Education, in the afternoon, gives notice that it has scheduled a hearing to take up this matter again on July 14, 2003. 36. The PCSSD objects to the timing of the meeting and the lack of notice. (Exhibit 19) 37. July 14, 2003 . The State Board of Education conducts another hearing and votes unanimously to authorize an election on the detachment issue. 434696-v1 6 I le I I I I I I I -I I I I I I  I I 38. 39. July 16, 2003. The State Board issues its \"Order for Election\". (Exhibit 20) July 24, 2003 . The PCSSD files suit in Pulaski County Circuit Court arguing that the Detachment Statute is unconstitutional and that the petition is invalid. (Exhibit 21) 434696-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 7 I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I  I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July J.(io03 , a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following : Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 434696-v1 8 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE II On July.2~003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the  following :  II   I I I  I I Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 434696-v1 8 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Raymond Simon Director State Board of Eaucation JoNell Caldwell, Chair Little Rock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Calvin King Marianna Randy Lawson Bentonville Ma~- Rebick u;7:'ffock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia REl, ... .-vED JUL 2 9 2003 OFFICE OF Arkansas D EGREGATIOH MONITORING Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 July 28, 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month ofJuly 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. ia~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier RECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 2 9 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAlNTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 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 2003. Respectfully Submitted, ~ Attorney, 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 __ , 2003, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 j.1aL~ Smit IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 2 9 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL OFFICE OF PLAINTIF~SEGREGATION MONITORING V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS 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 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. Us_!:! 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 , 2003 l@b.!iiij1w:~b.~ffii:;~~ii!ir~B~Jli~f.~'2'-i9.ailii!li!l:ifYt.~t~d.\\ffi~ 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. - ---- - - I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2003 ~lt.\\i;ie~iil~i~tlll\u0026amp;.i:1ir\u0026amp;liifi4nif;.$.QJ~i\u0026gt;.O~;Iif.i~:.A:t.li;\\~I~.a:r~:i~:tj_fq,r.;;fX C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2003 ~1i~~~-~~91i::g91t~E~t~.td~.Yti9'0:;2.f~~I~;:~!J~.!\\~~'tr2.t\\.\"'E;~nfffri:ef1.9.f.~.6X:q?/.9~-w.~re D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2003 ~1'9\\1~ Bi~~{~!~flilj~;i~f \u0026amp;iliklr40g:9.?lti'.ai~c(a(::JlJH~::3.0}~'bo~.f.off.Y E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Little Rock Division Eastern District of Arkansas JUL 3 0 2003 NOTICE JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ __,,=~- DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff vs. Case No.: 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al, Defendant ******************************************************************* Type of Case: CIVIL ** ****** ***************************** *** *************************** TAKE NOTICE that a proceeding in this case has been set for the place, date and time set forth below: ******************************************************************* Place: U. S . Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR Ave., Room 431 72201 Date: MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 2003 Time: 10:00 A.M. *- **************************************************************** Type of Proceeding: MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HEARING ******************************************************************* Presiding Judge : BILL WILSON ******************************************************************* Instructions: ******************************************************************* James W. McCormack, Clerk of Court r By: JOHNSON Deput c9 Counsel of Record Dated: 07/30/03 RECEIVED JUL 3 1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Fit1: ~-- tAsr~1:it g\\SiR1cr P STR1cr A2!J~, '\"\"NSAs JUL 3 0 20u3 JAMES W By:  McCORMACK - , CLERK UPDATE ON THE REDESIGN OF HARRIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THEEPCLERi,; REZONING OF SCHOOLS IN THE SHERWOOD AREA OF THE Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT July 30, 2003 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Horace R. Smith Associate Monitor    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_1754","title":"Joshua intervenor's comments regarding page 148 \"evaluations\", motion to withdrawal and substitution of counsel, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools.","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":["2003-04/2003-06"],"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":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Joshua intervenors","School districts","School integration","African Americans--Education","Charter schools","Educational planning","Students","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Joshua intervenor's comments regarding page 148 \"evaluations\", motion to withdrawal and substitution of counsel, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools."],"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/1754"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["44 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, the Joshua intervenors' comments on the submission of page 148 ''evaluations''; District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel and for substitution of counsel; District Court, notices of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools; Court of Appeals, brief of appellee; 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.     . ,:;-:- - b.BD ED -=-  u.f sM'rn1c;co,1,mr =-- !;/\\'fERN tHTRIQT ARN:\\1\\l~S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT oF ARKANSAS APR 1 4 :og, WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-:C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO . 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL . KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL . APR 1 ~ 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Joshua Intervenors' Comments on the Submission of Page 14s \"Evaluations\" INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors comment as follows on the \"[LRSD] Notice of Fil i ng Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph c of the Court's Compliance Remedy\" and the accompanying \"evaluations.\" This court held that the LRSD did not substantially comply with sec. 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, addressing \"Program Assessment/Program Evaluation [at 150).\" [At 168] The court noted the importance of this commitment. I find that the purpose of Sec. 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs promised under Sec. 2. 7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with Sec. 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students~ for, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under Sec. 2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced ~1th new programs. [At 150) The court's \"Compliance Remedy\" for the Sec. 2.7.1 violation 1 addressed in part \"program evaluations on each of the programs identified in page 148 of the Final Compliance Report.\" [At 170, 171) The court discussed the completion of these evaluations and their submission to the court and the parties, by March 15, 2003, after their approval by the LRSD school board. [At 171-72] The court also required, in effect, additional evaluations of \"each of the programs implemented under Section 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students.\" [ At 170] These materials are to be submitted on or before March 15, 2004. [At 172] This court also discussed the criteria to govern the LRSD's exiting court supervision. Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in Sec. 2.7.1, .it. must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: Cal demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under sec. 2.1 in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students; ... \" [At 110) The LRSD \"Notice of Filing\" describes the LRSD' s plan to prepare \"comprehensive program evaluation[s]\" as follows: The District will prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 15, 2004. [Exhibit A at SJ Joshua Intervenors have raised an issue about the scope of this plan pursuant to Section 8 of the Revised Plan. The page 148 \"evaluations\" were, as noted, submitted on March 14, 2003. A review of these materials and other relevant documents 2 show that if LRSD is to \"[demonstrate} that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sec. 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\" -- it will have to be by a future submission. In general, the documents submitted were either not evaluations, or very deficient evaluations. Joshua Intervenors offer the following examples of deficiencies identified in the page 154 \"evaluations.\" Early Literacy (Vol. 1-2] 1 Dr. Ross described the report as \"one of the best written reports from LRSD I've read.\" [At 2] He also discussed \"a number of weaknesses .... \" [l.s;l.] Dr. Ross' critique includes the following content: \"Of greatest concern overall is the writer's obvious efforts to 'prove' gap reduction even where the data support is weak or spurious.\" (At 3] \"Statistically, a very serious weakness is the lack of validity of the 'Percent Improvement' (PI) index.\" [At 3 J \"Another major statistical weakness is emphasizing the comparison of growth ratios (GR) between Band NB students .. The reason is the obvious ceiling effects on most of the measures.\" [At 4J \"Not surprisingly, on the two literacy tests that do .Il.Q.t. have low ceilings -- Writing Vocabulary and ORA -- the Growth Ratios are much less supportive of gap reduction (e.g., seep. 54, bullet 4), and could even be used by critics as showing extensions of the gap in a number of places. 11 [At 5) \"The present data are 1 This segment is based upon a critique by Dr. Ross, titled \"Review of Year 2 Evaluations.\" It was submitted to counsel _ang Mrs , Marsha 11 of ODM, by counsel for the LRSD, on October 2 s , 2 o o 2 . 3 I I I I I I I I I I II suggestive of definite early progress made by LRSD in improving - All students' literacy performance. There are also indicators of some progress in gap reduction in certain skills. However, given that we are dealing with teacher-administered tests having very low ceiling levels, the overall evidence is weaker than this report conveys. There is no reason to reduce the credibility of the findings by presenting them with such an obvious positive bias.\" [At 7] \"Conduct more studies that examine implementation quality and impacts on the school and the classroom.\" [At 8] charter school [Vol. 1-2] \"Performance data for the program evaluation were not disaggregated by race. The student body, however, was 87 percent African American.\" [Vol. 1-2 at l; Dr. Lesley) Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program [Vol. 1-2) - The \"evaluation\" documents produced by the Southwest Educational Development Lab contain neither a detailed description of the program implemented at Southwest Middle School, nor student achievement data. [Vol. 1-2 at 243-63] Collaborative Action Plan [Vol. 1-2] \"Although the 249-page study produced by SEDL that evaluated the project included student achievement data, those data were not disaggregated by race, and LRSD' s short-term ( one year) participation in the project would not predict that the involvement of this relatively small group of parents and community volunteers would result in improved student performance.\" [Vol. 1-2 at 528; Dr. Lesley) 4 ..... Extended Year schools [Vol. vol. 4J \"Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools' progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc.\" (Exh. Bat S: Dr. Ross] \"The external evaluator's conclusion was that 'Unfortunately, the limited nature of the original design and existing data do not afford us an opportunity to answer in a rigorous manner the key evaluation question of_ the extent of impact of the initiative on black student performance.'\" [Vol. 4 at 1732; Dr. Lesley: see also Vol. 4 at 1813 (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.] Middle School Implementation [Vol. 4] \"The study conducted by the external evaluator did not attempt to draw any conclusions related to this research question [impact on African-American achievement] since the student performance data available for the study were 'baseline', and there are serious questions about the appropriateness of the achievement measures and about the validity of some of the other performance outcome measures.\" [Vol. 4 at 1870; Dr. Lesley] \"The data presented in the original report does not support the interpretation of program effects on student performance. It provides a baseline for examining future effects, but needs to be extended and verified.\" [Vol. 4 at 1911; Youth Policy Research 5 I \\ . Group, Inc. ) ~lementary _summer school [Vol. 3] There is a lack of II implementation data to describe the  program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers.\" There is not \"an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of the summer school students could be compared.\" (Eh.Bat 3; Dr. Ross] \"Unfortunately, there are no additional details in the evaluation that describe the precise treatment afforded the students in the program. Missing is any indication of precisely how much of the curriculum was delivered, how and when it was del i vered, and neither by whom, nor its relationship to the previously identified objectives.\" [Vol. control group or norms \" [Vol. Education and Management Associates, Inc.] HIPPY [Vol. 3 J at--] \"No adequate at -- ] [ By Quality \"A limitation of the study, wh i ch unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used.\" [Eh . Bat 4; Dr. Ross] \"Conclusions are difficult due to limitations of the study.\" [Vol. 3. at 1554; Dr. Lesley] \"A third weakness is the gap between the HIPPY experience and the achievement scores analyzed .... By that time, several years had elapsed subsequent to the HIPPY interventions.\" [Vol. J at 1567; Dr. Ross] 6 campus Leadership Teams [Vol. 3] \" However, the 'evaluation data' collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members' reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representatives of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CLTs at the various schools.\" [Eh. Bat 5; Dr. Ross) \"These surveys were not intended to be a program evaluation., although they were mistakenly characterized as such in the District's compliance report to the court. No student performance data were collected, and, therefore, no conclusions could be drawn as to whether the Campus Leadership Teams' work has resulted in improved academic achievement for any students, nor specifically for African American students.\" [Vol. 3 at 1256; Dr. Lesley] \"There was no formal evaluation of CLT by the LRSD.\" [Vol. 3 at 1259; Dr.. RossJ Lyceum scholars Program [Vol. 4) \"Approximately one-half of the students participating in this small program ( 8 to 10 students total) were African American. Because the numbers were so small, neither performance data nor survey data were disaggregated by race. Neither the staff study nor that of the external evaluator could determine whether this program had any positive benefit on the academic performance of African American students.\" [Vol.4 at 1607; Dr. Lesley; see also at 1635 (inadequate description of treatment provided students in program; 7 Dr. Ross)] onward to Excellence (Vol. 3) The program \"was never fornally achievement data reports sent by the evaluated, except for principal to ADE.\" As \"implementation data are lacking,\" \"if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous other factors were the main cause.\" [Eh.Bat 4; Dr. Ross) \"In view of these factors, there is no basis for evaluating the 'study,' since none existed.\" [Vol. 3 at 1217; Dr. Ross] Vital Link [Vol. 3] \"Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived.\" [Eh.Bat Jr Dr. Ross] There is \"(i]nsufficient description of the program and its implementation.\" There is a \"[l)ack of pre-program (pretest) data for judging change following program completion.\" \"No examination of results for different subgroups (e.g., by ethnicity) . 11 [Vol.3 at 1542: Dr. Ross) 8 conclusion The need for high quality evaluations, if the LRSD is to exit court supervision, is clear. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. 405900 Attorney at Law J n John P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501.-663-9900 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleadilf.: been mailed, postage pre-paid, to all the counsel of record this .-~ (i._ day of ,t, , fJ , ?oc:S,  ~ ~ ?fa ~~~ ohnw.Wall\u0026lt;er .1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL RECEIVED APR 2 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education, by and through their attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for their Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, state: 1. Assistant Attorney General Colette D. Honorable left state employment effective April 10, 2003. 2. This matter has been reassigned to Assistant Attorney General Mark A. Hagemeier, who now represents Defendants and should be substituted as counsel of record. 3. Defendant requests that the Court and parties direct all future services and correspondence to Mark A. Hagemeier. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel and that Mark A. Hagemeier be substituted as their counsel of record . .l By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Assistant Attorney eral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 24, 2003, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark A. Hagemeier 2 --- ..... . .)_ RECEIVED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE APR 2 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORlNG Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Mr. M. SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. Mc.inley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 April 24, 2003 Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.us Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. et al. U.S. Dist. Ct. No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Enclosed please find a copy of Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, Notice of Filing and ADE's Project Management Tool sent for filing in the above-referenced matter. MAH/jle Very truly yours, ~.){ . MARK A. HAG~R Assistant Attom~::ral 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Cc: Mr. Ray Simon D. Scott Smith Mr. Louis Ferren Ms. Charity Smith .l UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR Z 5 1003 OFFICE OF DESEGREG\"i\\OM MOMliORlMG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 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 ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2003. Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Assistant Attorney eneral 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education #94127 .l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 24, 2003, 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. M. Samuel Jones, ID Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark A. Hagerne'e 2 .l IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS 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 April 30, 2003 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. Raymond Simon Director s: ate Board of -Education Shelby Hillman, Chair Carlisle JoNell Caldwell, Vice Chair Uttfe Rock Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Peggy Jeffries Fort Smith Calvin King Marianna - ane Rebick Uttfe Rock Lewis Thompson, Jr. Texarkana Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capilol Mall, Liltle Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 May 30, 2003 MAY 3 1 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 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 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 April 2003 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: Mark Hagemeier UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT .PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 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 April 2003. Respectfully Submitted, j~1t~~ Scott Smith, 251 Attorney, 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 May 30, 2003, 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.M. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS 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 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 May 31, 2003 !ii!ii~h.tii\\ii~,i~miiii%~iliti!!1f.1,a11gy1~t;~r'i\u0026amp;~ 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 COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NOS. 02-3867 AND 03-1147 RECEIVED - '/ /rJ d - (} It 'v?:h d, JUN0 1 8 2003 - ., tJZ l l'VI OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. !JNIUO!INOW N0l!V93H93S3a :10 3~1:1:10 Appellants EOOZ 8 1 Nnr v. 03Al3~3H LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., District Judge BRlEF OF APPELLEE CHRISTOPHER HELLER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. FRlDA Y, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Appellee SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT This appeal arises out of the interdistrict desegregation case filed in 1982 by the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") against the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), the North Little Rock School District (''NLRSD\") and the State of Arkansas. Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., (\"Joshua\") intervened during the remedy phase after a liability finding in favor of the LRSD against all of the defendants. In 1998, the LRSD and Joshua agreed to anew desegregation plan for the LRSD, lmown as the \"Revised Plan.\" The Revised Plan entitled the LRSD to a declaration of unitary status if it substantially complied with the plan and no party objected. The - Revised Plan provided that any party objecting would bear the burden of proof. Joshua objected to the LRSD being granted unitary status. Hearings were held on Joshua's objections. The district court found that the LRSD had substantially complied with all but one section of the Revised Plan and granted the LRSD partial unitary status. Joshua then moved to disqualify the Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. based on 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(2). That motion was denied. Joshua appeals the district court's grant of partial unitary status and denial of the motion to disqualify. The LRSD respectfully requests at least thirty minutes of oral argument due to length and complexity of the proceedings below and the substantial public interest in this case. Raymond Simon Director s: ate Board of Education Shelby Hillman, Chair Carlisle JoNell Caldwell, Vice Chair Little Rock Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Peggy Jeffries Fort Smith Calvin King Mananna  eRebick ock Lewis Thompson, Jr. Texarkana Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 CapiJol Mall, LiJtle Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 http:/ larkedu.state.ar.us RECEIVED June 30, 2003 JUL 1- 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller OFFICE OF Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 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 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 June 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, (} r} lJL~ ~~L Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED JUL 1 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS 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 June 2003. Respectfully Submitted, 9-\u0026gt;~vtc LtiA b f v,) Scott Smith, #92251 7 Attorney, 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 June 30, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depo~iting a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, ad~~~ ;VED each of the followmg: tiC\\., Cl Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 JUL 1 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 1 - 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS 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 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 AD E'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 June 30, 2003 l!i.iii~ll~1111.~ili!lliil~lf~ili!iii!lrs.itiwct:.lli~ 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.    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_1755","title":"Records regarding motion for additional time to file brief and related materials, mandatory filing program evaluations, brief and appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time, and notice of filing for Office of Desegregation Management report 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. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Sylvan Hills Middle School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Evaluation","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Students","School boards"],"dcterms_title":["Records regarding motion for additional time to file brief and related materials, mandatory filing program evaluations, brief and appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time, and notice of filing for Office of Desegregation Management report 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/1755"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["52 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt of Appeals, motion for additional time to file brief and related materials; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's notice of filing program evaluations required by Paragraph C of the court's compliance remedy; Court of Appeals, notice of filing, brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., and appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al.; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2002-03 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; 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.    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE'EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEIVED MAR - 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE VS. NOS. 02-3867 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. 03 -1147 MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE BRIEF AND RELATED MATERIALS DEFENDANTS APPELLANTS INTER VEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for an order extending the time for the filing of their consolidated brief, addendum and appendix for 14 days (with corresponding adj ustments to the other elemerts of the schedule). The basis for this motion is as fo llows: Joshua Intervenors' lead counsel John W. Walker began a trial, as defense counsel in Case No. CR 00:40, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, before the Honorable George Howard, Jr. on March 3, 2003. It appears that this trial will not conclude until March 14, 2003. Preparation for this trial and the trial have prevented lead counsel from working with co-counsel Robert Pressman, as well as Norman Chachkin, to complete the consolidated brief. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court grant the requested extension. 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 W. WALKE , .. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 74-3 758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rocle Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this~ day of ~' 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union Na.tivnal Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 415 North McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas RECEIVED MAR 12 2003 OFACEOF IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION A DESEGREGATION MONITORING W LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. f.fj\"  } : ,:J b~~-.. . t- -- --~ .. \"-- - ..... .. ...... iTORING ORDER Us oisTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 1 2003 JAMES W. McCOP.MACK, CLERK By: OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Now pending is PCSSD's Motion RE Portable Building at Sylvan Hills Middle School (doc. no. 3739). Joshua Intervenors have responded to the motion, indicating that they do not oppose the motion. The motion indicates that the band room at Sylvan Hills Middle School is plagued with standing water and requests permission to temporarily lease a portable building for use as a band room. This motion is GRANTED, and PCSSD may lease and use the portable building as requested through the end of the current school year. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED this/J!::aay of March, 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANQ.(__OJ3. 79(a) FRCP. ON 3-l/-O 3 BY~ S?:,99d'. 74 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVED 1/ul\"Jd- ;Jz/rvue rl MAR 1 4 2003 DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING PROGRAM EVALUATIONS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH C OF THE COURT'S COMPLIANCE REMEDY Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by the Court's Order of September 13, 2002 states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception Revised Plan 2.7.1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2. 7 .1. Paragraph C. of the Compliance Remedy stated: LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan - designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. A copy of the Compliance Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. As to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD concluded that the following evaluations had already been completed as required by Paragraph C and only needed to be submitted to the Board for approval: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, English-as-a-Second Language, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and Collaborative Action Team. The Charter School and Early Literacy evaluations were approved by the Board on October 24, 2002. The Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program, 2000 and 2001 ESL and Collaborative Action Team evaluations were approved by the Board on November 21, 2002. The Math and Science and the 2002 ESL evaluations were approved by the Board on December 19, 2002. These evaluations are bound together in volumes I and II attached. 4. The LRSD concluded that the following evaluations needed to be completed by an outside expert before being submitted to the Board for approval: Extended Year Schools, - Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (\"CLT\"), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. The LRSD sought guidance from Dr. Steven Ross, a desegregation and education expert approved by Joshua. Dr. Ross prepared, \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District,\" attached hereto as Exhibit B. The LRSD subsequently contracted with experts, including Dr. Ross, to complete the evaluations in accordance with Dr. Ross' guidelines. The Onward to Excellence, CLT, Vital Link and HIPPY evaluations were approved by the Board on February 13, 2003. The Lyceum Scholars Program, Elementary Summer School, Extended Year Education were approved by the Board on February 27, 2003. These evaluations are bound together in volumes III and IV attached. 2 WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits to the Court program evaluations on each of the - programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report as required by Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the Btrited Stat~s mail on March 14, 2003: - ~,,L cklQ Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Roachell Law Firm 1723 Broadway Plaza West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 F:IHOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200 I \\dcs-uniwy-March 15-2003. wpd Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Collette D. Honorable Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 {[-~i ~op hcer H.e~ller t\u0026lt;~ 3 Little Rock School District Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2. 7 .1 Approved by the Board on October 10, 2002 \"\"  EXHIBIT I A B. C. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly2 or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. * * * F. On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance with  2. 7 .1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with  2. 7 .1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 2The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2 Board-Approved Compliance Plan On October 10, 2002, the Board adopted this Compliance Plan to meet the requirements of the District Court's Compliance Remedy. Pursuant to this Compliance Plan, the LRSD will: 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04; 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; 3. Maintain written records of ( a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process; 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program; and 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. Each element of the Compliance Plan is discussed in more detail below. 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04. The LRSD will implement the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan calls for the administration of the following student assessments in English language arts and mathematics: Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Observation Surveys ( 5) Developmental Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (5) Development Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (3) 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 11 Development Reading Assessment Norm-referenced test to be identified for gifted/talented screening Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination End-of Course Algebra I examination End-of Course Geometry examination SAT9 Total Battery End-of-Level Literacy examination All of these assessments are administered in the spring. Consequently, the final student assessment before March 15, 2004, will be administered in the spring of 2003. 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board approved IL-Rl in conjunction with approving this Compliance Plan. IL-Rl sets forth the written procedures for evaluating the  2. 7 programs. 3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. IL-Rl mandates that the criteria used to formally evaluate a program be identified as the research questions to be answered, the first of which will be, \"Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of AfiicanAmerican students?\". Recommended program modifications and the members of the evaluation team are routinely included in formal evaluations. The Compliance Committee originally proposed IL-R2 to cover informal evaluations not 4 The District Court's Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter \"Opinion\") finding that the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception Revised Plan 2.7.1. Section 2.7.1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.71 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. The District Court's Opinion set forth a detailed \"Compliance Remedy\" to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2. 7 .1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. The Opinion then outlined the \"details\" of the Compliance Remedy as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. 1Revised Plan 2.7 provided, \"LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" 1 covered by IL-R2. However, the administration decided that IL-R2 was unnecessary and would be redundant of information to be included in the evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl. Rather than a separate written record, the program description in evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl will include a description of program modifications made during each year of implementation satisfying the requirements of Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD will continue to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The District will prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 15, 2004. 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. The following evaluations will be submitted for Board approval without additional work: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and CAT. If approved by the Board, they will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 14, 2003. The following evaluations will be \"completed\" by an outside expert and then be submitted for Board approval: Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (\"CLTs\"), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. These evaluations will be completed as follows: Extended Year Schools. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Middle School Implementation. An outside expert will be retained to rewrite the report 5 and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing data. - Elementary Summer School. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. HIPPY. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. CLTs. An outside expert will be retained to review the CLT survey data and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing survey data. Lyceum Scholars Program. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Onward to Excellence. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Vital Link. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. 6 Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Plan will be implemented in accordance with the following timeline. :- - -- ---- ,tl{trii-ite r\\n(:;fmi. 'T(:.l.'j ! l 0 fft~-; i 111:t1 ;:, 1 ---- ---  -c~--- - -- - - -------- - - - j 1. Place 2002-03 Program October 24, 2002 Ken James Evaluation Agenda on the Bonnie Lesley Board's agenda for review and approval. 2. Place on Board agenda October 24, 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval two previously Linda Watson presented program evaluations ( early literacy, and charter school). 3. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle School's SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 4. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the previously Karen Broadnax presented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. 5. Place on Board agenda December 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the three Vanessa Cleaver previously presented Dennis Glasgow program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 6. Issue Request for Mid-October 2002 Bonnie Lesley Proposals (RFPs) from Darral Paradis available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 7 r--- .. -- .,..c--r~;Jff~- -- ----- -  r  -i\"f~]:i:~1: -- ---- --:r . - - - m:-~f!}Ollt.'ili'i1f! r ~II 1, - - . --- --- --- .. - . - --- ________ J --- --- - - . - J 7. Form a screening team to Late October 2002 determine recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 8. Select and negotiate consulting contracts with designated external experts. 9. Assign appropriate staff to each external expert to provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc. 10. Monitor the work to ensure timely completion. 11. As each paper is completed and ready for circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. 12. As each paper is completed, place on the Board's agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 13. Write Interim Compliance Report relating to programs on page 148 to be completed. 14. Establish staff teams for each of the three programs on the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed for 2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002-February 2003 December 2002-February 2003 December 2002- February 2003 March 15, 2003 March 1, 2003 8 Ken James Compliance Team Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Attorneys Compliance Committee Bonnie Lesley ~ - , ... - ~~~{ITif[ .,  - --- 7'fff.ii-.ffuy~ ~ 11)'111,.\u0026lt;11ii1fiT I ---- - -- --- -- ----~L...~_:_------~'-- - --- . - - - . . j 15. Publish RFPs to March 1, 2003 Bonnie Lesley identify external experts to Darral Paradis serve on each of the two staff teams for the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/ science external experts are provided by NSF). 16. Establish consulting Late March 2003 Bonnie Lesley contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 17. Train each program May 2003 Bonnie Lesley evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. 18. Monitor the completion May- October 2003 Bonnie Lesley of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda. 19. Send copies of the With October 2003 Board Ken James completed Elementary agenda packet Bonnie Lesley Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 20. Complete the October board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the 2003 Pat Price Elementary Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 9 - -~\\1ifftnt - I' '1tfurr_-gJt,~ -- 'f\u0026lt;[~f!(ofti:..'llhinE\u0026lt; i -- -- ---  , - --- ---- - _j --- --- ------ -- - ------- - - _,, ,_  -  j 21. Send copies of the With November 2003 Board Ken James Secondary Literacy program agenda packets Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 22. Complete the November board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the Secondary 2003 Pat Price Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 23 . Send copies of the With December 2003 Board Ken James completed CPMSA program agenda packet Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 24. Complete the five-year December board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the CPMSA 2003 Vanessa Cleaver project (science and Dennis Glasgow mathematics) and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 25. Write Section 2.7.1 March 15, 2004 Ken James Final Compliance Report Attorneys for federal court and file Compliance Team with Court. 1 Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District Prepared by Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. The present guidelines are based on my review of the Revised Compliance Plan, the LRSD standards for program evaluation, and evaluation report drafts and associated materials related to the eight programs identified as requiring \"final\" evaluation reports. My analysis of this material, combined with my experiences as an educational researcher and familiarity with the Joshua case as it affected LRSD, was influenced by the following assumptions:  Invalid or questionable evaluation results can be much more detrimental than helpful to efforts to improve educational practices, and should not be disseminated without strong cautions and qualifications. Accordingly, studies that lack proper controls against bias or contamination from extraneous factors (e.g., differential sampling, history, diffusion of treatments) have limited value for guiding policies.  Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the \"treatment.\" The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and/or how it needs to be improved to impact atrisk learners.  Evaluations of programs that have been discontinued in the district are of much less interest relative to ones that are presently being implemented or informing ongoing practices.  To raise the achievement of African American students in LRSD, attempting to resuscitate existing studies that have insufficient data available, limited relevance to current practices, or require substantial time and resources with little promise of yielding useful information for policy decisions would be less productive than employing the \"lessons learned\" from the prior evaluation work to support high quality and informative future studies. One such lesson is that the LRSD research department (formerly PRE) was understaffed to perform evaluations of the quality and quantity needed. Based on the above assumptions, I will recommend below a basic strategy for the third-party evaluators to use in preparing the eight identified evaluations for approval by the school board. Four of the evaluations concern programs that are no longer in use by LRSD and have limited or no relevance to programmatic decisions (Lyceum Scholars, Elementary Level Summer Schools, Vital Link, and Onward to Excellence). Of the remaining four evaluations, two have limited available data (Middle School Transition and Campus Leadership Teams) that, even with supplementary analyses, would not permit confident (valid) decisions to be made about program effectiveness 1 ' EXHIBIT B 2 in general or about African American student achievement resulting from program participation. A seventh evaluation (Extended Year Education) could possibly yield informative evidence about an ongoing program, but to be sufficiently refined would require time and resources extending significantly beyond the current conditions for project completion. An eighth evaluation (HIPPY) also deals with an ongoing program, but unlike the others could possibly provide useful evidence through revisions completed within the available time frame. Accordingly, the HIPPY report is currently being rewritten by Dr. Ed Williams from LRSD. The suggested plan for the third-party evaluators is presented below followed by a brief review of each evaluation. A. Submit the current evaluation report as an attachment to a supplemental document as described in B-D. B. The supplement should begin with an expanded description of the program, its goals, and its history in LRSD. It should then describe the evaluation methodology and summarize and interpret the key findings. C. Most importantly, the supplement should discuss the limitations (and any strengths where indicated) of the evaluation with regard to: (a) informing current practices in LRSD; (b) using appropriate methodology; and (c) addressing student achievement effects, especially in reference to African American students. D. Finally, the supplement should present suggestions for conducting stronger studies of similar programs in future evaluation studies. 1. Middle School Transition (Moore) This evaluation is in near-completed form and needs mostly editing and expansion. Because the middle school program is current and continuing, this evaluation study can be useful (mostly for guiding professional development and implementation improvement) for informing district strategies. The achievement results are fairly minimal and uninformative, but at the time of the evaluation (1999-2000), only baseline data existed. Thus, aside from providing additional description of the results (the tables and the narrative are sparse) and a more meaningful interpretation of trends (especially with regard to African American vs. Caucasian students), there is probably little more that needs to be done for this essentially baseline time period. The survey data appear to be reasonably analyzed and reported, but the interpretation and discussion should be extended to provide more meaningful conclusions and recommendations. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3 2. Lyceum Scholars (McNeal) The Lyceum Scholars' High School Program, which was evaluated in 1998-99 and 1999- 2000, is no longer being implemented in LRSD. The latter consideration, coupled with the obvious limitations of the evaluation design with regard to rigor, depth, and meaningfulness of the data, substantially reduce the value of the study and the need for devoting more than minimal resources to it, beyond perhaps a supplemental summary and explanation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3. Elementary Level Summer School (McNeal) Similar to the Lyceum Scholars' High School Program (#2 above), the Elementary Level Summer School program is no longer being implemented in LRSD. In addition, the evaluation study conducted in the summer of 2001 is limited in its design and methodology. Among the major concerns are the lack of: (a) implementation data to describe the program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers, (b) an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of summer school students could be compared, and ( c) qualitative data to describe the experiences of students and teachers in the program. Due to \"differential sampling\" the multiple tables provided are neither overly meaningful nor informative regarding the progress of summer school students in general and African American summer school students in particular. Seemingly, there is little useful information to be gained for informing future policies by investing substantive resources in revamping the study. While more suitable control samples might be established using archival data, the absence of implementation assessments would still make the \"treatment\" essentially unknown. Therefore, suggestions similar to those made for the Lyceum Scholars program are also offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 4. Vital Link (Ross) The Vital Link program, designed to provide students with on-the-job experiences, was offered to 394 middle school students in the summer of 1999. Because the program was of very limited duration ( only one week) and is not focused on either academic curriculum or learning strategies, it is highly unlikely to have affected students' academic achievement. Although such a program would still potentially serve a useful purpose for fostering student motivation to achieve and complete school, it is no longer being implemented in LRSD. Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived. Therefore, suggestions similar to 4 those made for the Lyceum Scholars Program and the Elementary Level Summer School Program (#'s 2 and 3 above) are again offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 5. Onward to Excellence CSRD Program (Ross) The OTE model was implemented at Watson Elementary School for several years, starting in 1999. It has since been discontinued and was never formally evaluated, except for achievement data reports sent by the principal to ADE. Thus, in essence, there is no longer any program in LRSD to evaluate and no evaluation report to revise, expand, or redraft. It would seem wasteful of resources to reexamine historical data from this program, especially since implementation data are lacking. That is, if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous others factors were the main cause. Suggestions, therefore, are similar to those for #'s 2-4 above. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 6. HIPPY (Ross) Because HIPPY is a continuing program, this evaluation can be potentially useful to LRSD by providing initial program results on student achievement and benefits to African American children. A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used. The quantitative achievement results must therefore be viewed cautiously, but should still be at least suggestive regarding program influences. Substantive expansion and revision, however, are needed to increase the readability and meaningfulness of the report. For example, there is inadequate description of the program, context, methodology, and analysis design. Tables and findings need to be presented in a more readable (\"user-friendly\") manner. Suggestions: A. Reorganize and expand the introduction and methodology to be in line with district evaluation standards (i.e., more context, more detailed methodology, clearer questions and organization). B. Ed Williams needs to run the revised analysis and write up results by January 31, 2003. A program description needs to be provided. Results need to be disaggregated, if possible, for African American and Caucasian students. Expand the Results sections to provide more informative reporting of outcomes, clearer tabular presentations, etc. C. Expand the Conclusions section to: (a) directly address whether there are implications for the achievement of African American and other disadvantaged groups (there probably are not at this stage), (b) more fully discuss implications and recommendations associated with the findings, and ( c) propose further evaluation research that will validly determine both implementation quality and influences of HIPPY on student achievement. D. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy in expanding this report. 7. Extended Year Education (EYE) Report (Moore) 5 The EYE program is relevant to LRSD's current interests in improving academic achievement of its students. Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. Specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools' progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc. A more precise analysis would match students at the three schools to similar students at comparable schools not using EYE, and then examine progress using a multivariate-type (regression or MANOV A) analysis. It is questionable, however, that such analyses could be completed in the time remaining for the required submission of the final report. Also, the findings would be limited by having only two years of post-program data. Aside from the design limitations, the organization of the report is difficult to follow due to the many tables and brief but not very informative narrative descriptions. The survey data might be interpretable, but also need a much clearer and better organized presentation. Suggestions: The th1rd-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 8. Campus Leadership Teams (Ross) This initiative seems highly relevant to current and future goals ofLRSD. However, the \"evaluation data\" collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members' reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representativeness of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CLTs at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey; 10 in the certified/noncertified staff member survey) do not appear overly interesting or meaningful with regard to informing practice. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 12/3/02   II II II  II II -,II -.. -- VOLUME IV RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING II : VOLUME II II 1111 II  II II -- -- \\ - ~ III RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MDNITDRING I I : I VOLUME I I II I ,I I RECEIVED I MAR 1 4 2003 I OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING I I I la I ' - - - -     I I VOLUME I I I I 'II ' II II I I I  I I RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse 111 S. 10th St., Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. A'ITORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Overnight Delivery March 20,. 2003 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net RECEIVED '-ktl'JJ r D,?,/, vu tJ MAR ;vZ,)003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District, Appellee v. Pulaski County Specia.l School District No.l, Defendants, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Appellants, Katherine Knight, et al., Intervenors; Appeal Nos. 02-3867, 03-1147 Dear Mr. Gans: Enclosed you will find ten copies of Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. and Addendum and three copies of the Appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. for filing in the above matter. Also enclosed you will find a diskette as required by the rules. JWW:lp cc: All Counsel of Record I I  I -I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITEffSTATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. R~S~'-Y0 MAR 2 o 2003 :l ; {fJ.-P PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS OFFICE Of DESEGREG~llOM MOK\\lORlMG MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200  Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 II II ---- II  I I I II II I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. RECEIVED 1-1i,11-'ld - \u0026amp;. f, -. eri--l PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 O 2003  :Pfl--P OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 I le I I I I I I ,I , I I I I I I  I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE v. RECEIVED (-h,.,d- /Je/,.,-t ..-ci PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 O 2003 JI, , z-r  \" OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. APPENDIX OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A.  1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955  (\u0026lt;- I I I I I I I I r I I I 'I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE v. RECEIVED /b1Jc tJ./, ,eo,/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS . MAR 2 0 2003 J{ : f2f) OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. ADDENDUM OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCTNO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL. MAR 21 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors, by and through their counsel, John W. Walker, P.A., respectfully move the Court for an extension of time in which to respond to Little Rock School District's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Requested by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy, and for cause states: 1. On March 14, 2003, LRSD served a Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy on the Joshua Intervenors. 2. Due to undersigned counsel 's heavy trial schedule, including an extensive jury trial in federal district court over the past two weeks and the beginning of another jury trial on Monday, March 17, 2003 , in the matter of State v. Tyrone Gamble, Craighead County Circuit Court: CR-2000-0078 before the Honorable John Fogleman. It has become apparent that this matter will continue well into next week which precludes counsel from responding to the submission in a timely manner. .., .) . Therefore, undersigned counsel requests an extension of time to respond to LRSD's submission up to and including April 13, 2003. 4. There is no prejudice to any party by the granting of the delay. WHEREFORE, Joshua Intervenors respectfully request an extension of time of twenty _(20) days, up to and including April 13, 2003 , in which to respond to LRSD's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 12~J,~ 6 Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, J . J . , .A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing hm~s~nt by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to all counsel of records, on this;;t' day of 00/4... , 2003: J~er ,.., .) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSIIDA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On March 14, 2003, LRSD_filed its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations as required by Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy in my September 13, 2002 Order. On March 20, 2003, Joshua Inte.rvenors filed a Motion for Extension of Time in which to r\u0026lt;:spond. Counsel for Joshua cites a heavy trial schedule which would preclude him :from responding in a timely mwmer. No parties object to the extension. Therefore, Joshua's Motion (doc. no. 3747) is GRANTED, and Joshua Intervenors have until 12:00 p.m. on Monday, April 14, 2003, in which to respond to LRSD's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED this~ day of March, 2003. ~~nJDGE FILED EAS U.S. DISTRICT COURT TERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 2 5 2003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~~:MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK 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. RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD filed its motion for approval of a middle school site in Maumelle on October 22, 2002. Joshua raised certain questions concerning the proposed new school in its response - filed December 6, 2003, and the Court wrote a letter on January 28, 2003, to all of the parties making certain inquiries, particularly concerning recruitment to the new school for the proposed 200 seats that would be reserved for transferring M-to-M students. The parties have now responded, via pleadings, to the Court's letter. By and large, the following enumerated points are drawn from the supplemental responses of the parties, particularly those of PCSSD. On March 19, 2003, the Court circulated these enumerated points as a proposed order. All parties were given until March 24, 2003, at 12:00p.m. in which to file objections to the contents of the proposed order. As of today, March 25, 2003, no objections have been received. Therefore, I conclude that none of the parties have any objections to the proposed order. PCSSD's motion is hereby granted and the parties are directed to do the following: 1. The M-to-M stipulation, adopted as an order of this Court, presumes that transferring children entering the receiving district at one organizational level will continue DEP CLERK - their education at the next available organizational level and will be encouraged to do so. Hence, pursuant to the M-to-M stipulation, it is presumed that LRSD transferring students who have elected to attend Crystal Hill, Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementary schools will continue their education in PCSSD at the next organizational level. The PCSSD shall look first to the number of transferring LRSD students currently attending the three elementary schools in PCSSD which would feed the Maumelle middle school. Further, the Court is informed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton Interdistrict School through the 5th grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Maumelle. Also, the seats proposed for reservation at the new Maumelle school shall not be limited to Little Rock students but should include eligible students from North Little Rock as well. 2. The Court is informed that Little Rock currently takes the laboring oar in educating students in the LRSD about the opportunities at Crystal Hill. Most of the student body from Little Rock at Crystal Hill represents those students who were unable to gain entry to Gibbs , Booker, Williams or Rockefeller and who elected to come to Crystal Hill. Since the PCSSD hosts those students for several years, including some who currently enter as pre-K students and leave currently as sixth grade students, the PCSSD has a daily audience of 400 Little Rock M-to-M students and frequent contact with their parents and guardians sufficient to sustain \"on-going\" recruitment for the middle school from the time these children enter Crystal Hill. Thus, while the PCSSD will continue to rely upon the LRSD to initially - encourage children to attend Crystal Hill, the PCSSD will assume principal responsibility for 2 convincing those children to continue, consistent with the M-to-M stipulation, their education at the Maumelle middle school. 3. The Court is informed that efforts will be made to recruit M-to-M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, Pine Forest, Clinton elementary schools, and Oak Grove Junior High School (7th grade). Parents of 4th , 5th , and 6th grade LRSD M-to-M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, and Pine Forest, 4th and 5th grade Clinton M-to-M students, and Th grade M-to-M students attending Oak Grove Junior High School will be informed of the District's intent to build a middle school at the proposed Maumelle site. The District's website will provide information to parents from the three Districts about the plans and progress of the proposed middle school. Parents and teachers will be surveyed to identify needs, concerns, and expectations . Data from the parent and teacher surveys will allow input from the District's internal and external publics into the planning and implementation process at the Maumelle middle school. Parents of 4th and sch grade African American students in LRSD and NLRSD will also receive information about the new middle school in the Maumelle area. The Magnet Review Committee will also assist with recruitment. 4. The LRSD personnel primarily responsible for recruitment and assignment to stipulation magnet schools will continue to be those persons principally responsible for educating LRSD children regarding Crystal Hill. Once the children reach Crystal Hill (as well as Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementary schools), the teachers and counselors who work in those buildings will have principal responsibility for discussing the middle school with children and their parents and guardians. The PCSSD Department of Equity and Pupil Services and the Student Assignment Office will work with LRSD, NLRSD, and Magnet 3 - Review Committee personnel to recruit African American students for the proposed middle school. 5. LRSD will give PCSSD recruiters full access to students and parents through the LRSD schools. 6. The LRSD will be responsible for making sure that transportation for transferring students is adequate. 7. A parent/teacher committee drawn from the existing Maumelle middle school facility committee has been formed to evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs to attract M-to-M students. A representative from Joshua will be invited to participate. This Committee will evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs with, as a starting point, determining whether the current program at Crystal Hill Elementary School should be extended to the middle school. This program emphasizes communications with an emphasis upon technology and basic skills. 8. The PCSSD will follow the middle school plan previously developed and presented to the Court with appropriate refinements and additions. The final middle school plan was approved by this Court on June 4, 2001. 9. Given the foregoing, the PCSSD's proposal to acquire a site at the intersection of Murphy and Carnahan Drive for a new middle school is hereby approved. IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of March, 2003. DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ' ~ll~~~~L,,f1 ~8 AN~RCF  --='~0/~BY  ~D~ United States District Judge Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. 4 I ie i I i -i -I,_ I I I I I I ~ I E 2002-03 ENROLLMENT AND RACIAL BALANCE IN THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor March 26, 2003 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Polly Ramer Office Manager UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for March 2003 . Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General ~~ COLETTE D. H0NRABLE#96016 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-8123 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Colette D. Honorable, certify that on March 25, 2003, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P .A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ ColetteD.Honora 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS 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 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 March 31 , 2003 Basedonthe .informatitinavafiab(e a.i F~bri}arY:-2a, :20O3,:the Ap ~-caicuiated 'the EqUaiizatiori Funding for:FX.02103):JiuB1ed fo per,adic.aei}ustments: 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.    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_1790","title":"Court records regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle school site in Maumelle, PCSSD's motion for portable building at Sylvan Hills Middle School, and the 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, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Middle schools","School integration","School enrollment","African Americans--Education","Education--Finance","Students","School facilities","Educational planning","Sylvan Hills Middle School (North Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Court records regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle school site in Maumelle, PCSSD's motion for portable building at Sylvan Hills Middle School, and the 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/1790"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["71 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\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion of October 22, 2002, for approval of middle school site; District Court, plaintiff's response to the Court's letter regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) statement in support of middle school in Maumelle; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion re: portable building at Sylvan Hills Middle School; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion regarding portable building at Sylvan Hills Middle School; 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.    EDWARD L . WRIGHT (1903- 1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F . COX . JR .  TROY A . PRICE PATRICIA SI EVERS HARRIS ISAAC A . SCOTT, JR . KATHRYN A . PRYOR JOHN G. LILE 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SU ITE 2300 GORDON S. RATHER , JR . TERRY L . MATHEWS ROGER A . GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR . PATRICK J. GOSS LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 - 3699 ALSTON JENNINGS . JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLEST . COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L . LOWTHER , JR. CHARLESL . SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj . com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN ROb6R D. ROWE Writ er ' s Direct Dial No . 501 -212 - 1273 mjoncs@wlj . com JOHN D . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 February 4, 2003 J, MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HAN COCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLIN GS WI LLIAM STUART JACK SON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LAN CAST ER JUDY ROB INSON WILBER KYLER . WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON KRISTI M . MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY  M . SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T . ALL EN CIIRI STIN E J. DA l.i (jllEK T , rt1 I\u0026gt;  MI CHELLE M KA F.MMER LIN(.; ERIKA ROS S SCOTT ANDREW I RB Y MICHELLE HARGI S DILLARD PATRICK 0 . WILSON  lii.:cmsr:d co pl7f,tic:t: ht:10~ tht: Unirt:d Stares Patt:nt and Trad~marJ.: O!1h-r: RECEIVED FEB - 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No. : 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: In response to the Court's letter of January 28 , 2003 , I enclose a courtesy copy of the supplement to PCSSD motion of October 22, 2002 for approval of middle school site. The original has been filed and the parties served. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. MSJ:ao Encl. cc/w/encl.: Honorable J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW ):\u0026gt;ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SUPPLEMENT TO PCSSD MOTION OF OCTOBER 22, 2002 FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE The PCS SD for: its supplement to motion, states: RECEIVED FEB - 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has posed certain questions to the parties in this case regarding issues associated with the proposed new middle school. The numbered paragraphs set forth below correspond to the Court's letter of January 28, 2003. At the outset, it is instructive to note that what the District's desegregation plan states with respect to a middle school in Maumelle is simply that: An elementary school, located around 145th Street, and a middle school or junior high school in the Crystal Hill\\Maumelle area will be built. Exhibit A reflects updated student population data gleaned both from census data and enrollment record. 395608-vl 1. As a starting point, it should be recalled that the M-to-M stipulation, adopted as an order of this Court, presumes that transferring children entering the receiving district at one organizational level will continue their education at the next available organizational level and will be encouraged to do so. Hence, pursuant to the M-to-M stipulation, it is presumed that LRSD transferring students who have elected to attend Crystal Hill, Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementary schools will continue their education in the receiving district at the next organizational level, particularly when interdistrict schools are available to them. Accordingly, as explained in its October motion, the PCSSD looks first to the number of transferring LRSD students currently attending the three elementary schools in PCSSD which would feed the Maumelle middle school. 79 of those students currently attend Oak Grove Junior High, a rather significant number given that the new middle school was - conceived to replace the overcrowded Oak Grove facility which offers no special inducements for interdistrict transfer. It should also be noted that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton lnterdistrict School through the 5th grade. The seats proposed for reservation at the new Maumelle school are not limited to Little Rock students but include eligible students from North Little Rock as well. For instance, of the 79 students referred to in Paragraph 1, 26 of those students are from North Little Rock. Further, the principal junior high magnet school in Little Rock, Mann, is both being rebuilt and historically has never had sufficient room to house all Little Rock black students seeking education at a magnet junior high or middle school. 395608-vl 2 2. Both. Little Rock currently takes the laboring oar in educating students in the LRSD about the opportunities at Crystal Hill. Most of the student body from Little Rock at Crystal Hill represents those students who were unable to gain entry to Gibbs, Booker, Williams or Rockefeller and who elected to come to Crystal Hill. Obviously, since the PCSSD hosts those students for several years, including some who currently enter as pre-K students and leave currently as sixth grade students, the PCSSD has a daily audience of 400 Little Rock M-to-M students and frequent contact with their parents and guardians sufficient to sustain \"on-going\" recruitment for the middle school from the time these children enter Crystal Hill. Thus, while the PCSSD will continue to rely upon the LRSD to initially encourage children to attend Crystal Hill, the PCSSD will assume principal responsibility for convincing those children to continue, consistent with the M-to-M stipulation, their education at the Maumelle - middle school. 3. Please see response to question no. 2. Also, efforts will be made to recruit M-to- M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, Pine Forest, Clinton elementary schools, and Oak Grove Junior High School (7m grade). Parents of 4m, sm, and 6m grade LRSD M-to-M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, and Pine Forest, 4m and 5m grade Clinton M-to-M students, and 7m grade M-to-M students attending Oak Grove Junior High School will be informed of the District's intent to build a middle school at the proposed Maumelle site. The District's website will provide information to parents from the three Districts about the plans and progress of the proposed middle school. Parents and teachers will be surveyed to identify needs, concerns, and expectations. Data from the parent and teacher surveys will allow input from the District's internal and external publics into the planning and implementation process 395608-vl 3 at the proposed middle school. Parents of 4 m and 5m grade African American students in LRSD and NLRSD will also receive information about the proposed middle school in the Maumelle area. The Magnet Review Committee will also assist with recruitment. 4. The LRSD personnel primarily responsible for recruitment and assignment to stipulation magnet schools will continue to be those persons principally responsible for educating LRSD children regarding Crystal Hill. Once the children reach Crystal Hill (as well as Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementaries), the teachers and counselors who work in those buildings will have principal responsibility for discussing the middle school with children and their parents and guardians. The Department of Equity and Pupil Services and the Student Assignment Office will work with LRSD, NLRSD, and Magnet Review Committee personnel to recruit African American students for the proposed middle school. 5. Yes. 6. Yes. 7. A parent/teacher committee drawn from the existing Maumelle middle school facility committee has been formed to evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs to attract M-to-M students. A representative from Joshua will be invited to participate. This Committee will be asked to evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs with, as a starting point, evaluating whether the current program at Crystal Hill Elementary School should be extended to the middle school. This program emphasizes communications with an emphasis upon technology and basic skills. 8. The PCSSD will essentially follow the middle school plan previously developed and presented to Judge Wright with appropriate refinements and additions. The final middle 395608-vl 4 school plan was approved by this Court on June 4, 2001. It had previously approved the conversion of the Jacksonville Junior High Schools to middle schools. By 2003-2004, the PCSSD will be in its 5th year of operating middle schools and Maumelle would be the last to be implemented. 395608-vl Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 ue~ Jones III (76060) A~neys for Pulaski Cou~ S ool Districy - ------- 5 pecial CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On February 4, 2003 , a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 395608-vl 6 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General 's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West -Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 CENSUS DATA FOR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSED CRYSTAL HILL/MAUMELLE MIDDLE SCHOOL 2004-2005 The U.S. Census Bureau reported **2,246 children between the ages of 4 to 18 years old residing in the Maumelle Urban Cluster area for the year 2000. Data for school aged children ** 11 to 15 was reported at 749 for the same year. Age groupings **4 to 15 were listed at 1,880. Refer to Table 1 for individual age numbers. Table 1: Single Age Numbers for Maumelle Urban Cluster 2000 Census 4 156 5 142 6 151 7 161 8 169 9 175 10 177 11 141 12 166 13 139 14 150 15 153 16 132 17 133 18 101 EXHIBIT A Based on the 2002-2003 first quarter PCSSD enrollment figures ***1,643 elem~ntary students - attend PCSSD schools in the Crystal Hill/Maumelle area. This total is comprised of ***581 (34%) elementary age black students and ***1062 (66%) white students. The projected rate of enrollment growth for the proposed Crystal Hill/Maumelle area middle school for 2004-2005 is estimated to be ***662 students (Based on 2000 U.S. Census of *4.6% growth projections). Tables 2, 3 and 4 depict middle school growth projections . . Table 2: 6th Grade Crystal Hill/Maumelle Area Middle School Enrollment Projections School Year # Black Students Percent # White Students Percent Total 2002-2003 66 34 126 66 192 2003-2004 85 34 162 66 247 2004-2005 85 44 109 56 194 Table 3: 7th Grade Crystal Hill/Maumelle Area Middle School Enrollment Projections School Year # Black Students Percent # White Students Percent Total 2002-2003 57 41 81 59 138 2003-2004 69 34 132 66 201 2004-2005 89 34 169 34 258 Table 4: 8th Grade Crystal Hill/Maumelle Area Middle School Enrollment Projections School Year # Black Students Percent # White Students 2002-2003 38 31 2003-2004 60 49 2004-2005 72 34 Sources: *Census State Data Center UALR Institute for Economic Advancement **U.S. Census Bureau Profile of Demographic Characteristics: 2000 Geographic Area: Maumelle, AR Urban Cluster ***First Quarter 2002-2003 Student Enrollment Pulaski County Special School District 83 85 138 Percent Total 69 121 59 145 69 210 IN THE UN1TED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECE FEB - 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S LETTER REGARDING PCSSD'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby responds in tum to each numbered question in the Court's letter of January 28, 2003 regarding the PCSSD's Motion for Approval of Middle School Site: Question: Is interest in M-to-M transfers within LRSD's African-American communities sufficient to justify reserving a certain number of seats for M-to-M students at the Maumelle school? How do LRSD and PCS SD propose to ascertain that level of interest? 1. Yes. The LRSD agrees with PCS SD that it is reasonable to judge the prospective interest of its students in transferring to a new Maumelle Middle School based on the number of LRSD students currently attending the elementary schools that will feed the new Maumelle Middle School, the number of those students that traditionally continue in the PCS SD system following elementary school and attend Oak Grove Junior High and the number ofLRSD students who choose for the first time to transfer to the PCSSD for junior high/middle school. Question: Will PCSSD, LRSD, or both school districts assume responsibility for student recruitment? 2. Both. The LRSD has traditionally initiated most M-to-M transfers of LRSD students to the PCSSD. Once they are in the PCSSD system, the PCSSD has assumed responsibility for keeping them as they move to the next organizational level. The LRSD does - not intend to in any way to guarantee to fill any number of seats reserved for M-to-M transfers by the PCSSD. Question: What are the details of and timeline for the recruitment plan? 3. LRSD students are provided information annually about M-to-M transfer opportunities. The LRSD's two parent recruiters provide parents with their M-to-M options when LRSD parents are seeking information at the LRSD's Student Registration Office. They may also take LRSD parents on tours of PCS SD schools eligible to accept an M-to-M transfer. Question: What persons and resources will be assigned to M-to-M recruitment? 4. See Response to Question No. 3. The LRSD expends these resources promoting M-to-M transfers by LRSD students even though the \"Pooling Agreement\" (Settlement Agreement, Section II, paragraph 0) as interpreted by the District Court creates a financial disincentive for the LRSD to undertake these activities. Question: Will LRSD give PCS SD recruiters full access to students and parents through - LRSD schools? 5. Yes. Question: Will transportation provided by LRSD be adequate to facilitate the transfer of students? 6. Yes, for as long as it is paid for by the State of Arkansas. Question: What unique, attractive programs will PCSSD put in place at the Maumelle school to attract M-to-M students from LRSD? 7. The LRSD defers to the PCSSD's response to this question. Question: What steps will PCSSD take to ensure that the Maumelle school reflects the \"middle school concept\" in terms of facility design, academic programs, and staffing? 8. The LRSD defers to the PCSSD's response to this question. 2 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 6 -----.. lf2e__ _:::\u0026gt; / // BY: ' . ___ .. . ---~  / ChristopherHeller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on February 4, 2003: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor I Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Collette D. Honorable Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 ------- ~ ~ / / ./ -\u0026gt; '/ __. ,. t Af4i --. -~ Christophe~ 3 r ~' 'f/.1 rv- I\"' ! 1  , ,::-.) A31(-,f;_'. ht.j !J, '' I-, ~..:. 'J , .. ; r A, .\".i''r Fr:: u \u0026lt;Iv-JV\u0026lt;/.\\ -~-P,. 0 \"' s .1 .. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU[ 1M.s vv  \"' i00J EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS r.___ 1 \"-CO/  WESTERN DIVISION - - - ---~ _. ~ r::.i.:??:,: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RE\u0026amp;itW=ED .:,.:-:-:.~, . FEB - 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NLRSD STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MIDDLE SCHOOL IN MAUMELLE The North Little Rock School District has a significant number of African-American students attending school in the Pulaski County School District, particularly at the Oak Grove Junior and Senior High Schools. It is our understanding that, upon completion of a middle school in Maumelle, the Oak Grove facility will be reconfigured as a grade 9 - 12 high school and that the middle school will replace the remaining grades currently in the Oak Grove Junior High School. The creation of a middle school in Maumelle will extend the educational opportunities and choices presently available to the North Little Rock School District African-American children through majority-to-minority transfers. Past experience has shown that a new facility is a substantial factor in attracting students. We would expect this to hold true in this instance as well. Therefore, the North Little Rock School District believes the construction of a new middle school in Maumelle would enhance the attractiveness of the PCSSD District attractive to North Little Rock School District African American students. By: -, -ste en W. Jones 3400 TCBY Towe\"'- 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading was served on all counsel of record as listed below this 4th day of February, 2003 Christopher J. Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg . 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 2 - Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 I \\North Linlc Rock School Oistric1 0001\\0cscgrcgation Mauers 0002\\PLEADING\\NLRSD S1a~m:111 or Suppon :-..11ddlc School r.. taunidlc 02 03 03 wpd C, ; ~ ILCt.,. ~ -\u0026lt; ...,.,._ /J.A..._ 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 MOTION RE PORTABLE BUILDING AT SYLVAN HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL The PCS SD for its motion, states: RECEIVED FEB 1 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The band room at Sylvan Hills Middle School is periodically plagued with standing water. The PCSSD believes that this problem can be remedied during the summer when school is out. 2. In the meantime, the PCSSD desires permission to lease a portable building for use as a temporary band room until the end of the current school year. 3. The PCS SD does not believe there is actually anything within the four comers of Plan 2000 requiring that this matter be presented to the Court. However, under the predecessor plan, the PCSSD pledged to eliminate portable buildings and to replace them with permanent construction. It did so. 4. Accordingly, lest any person question the current motives of the PCSSD, it seeks an order of this Court granting it permission to lease a portable building for use as a 397582-v1 band room until the end of this school year. Such a lease will not constitute an expansion of the capacity of Sylvan Hills Middle School. 5. Personnel from the PCS SD have made contact with representatives of the other parties in this case and undersigned counsel is therefore authorized to state that no party has voiced an objection to the relief sought in this motion. WHEREFORE, PCSSD prays for an order granting it permission to lease a portable building at Sylvan Hills Middle School for use as a temporary band room until the conclusion of the current school year and for all proper relief. 397582-vl Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 Special 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On February 12, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 397582-vl Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 M.Samu~~( 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 82:CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL  DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION REGARDING PORTABLE BUILDING AT SYLVAN HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL RECEIVED FEB 2 5 2003 DESEGRE GjjfbiE OF MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS Joshua resolved this matter with school district officials on or about February 10, 2003 . Therefore, the Joshua Intervenors do not oppose the Motion of the PCSSD. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P,A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 50 58 50 CERTIFI I do hereby state that a copy oft record on this24th day of February, 2003 . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION -.1 .::..:,_' -::- - - .. -~ ~S.:--- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIF1~-=-=--~-~-------.:::::-~:'\" V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS 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 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 C 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 February 28, 2003 . ~~-t:~;~~itn~ JG~~~;~~-~-;::~~~t~bjbrti1,~t,i;~gr~ri!r J8;fig ~~fcui~tedu,e 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. RECEIVED MAR - 3 20D3 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. 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 AD E's Project Management - Tool for February 2003. RECEIVED MAR - 3 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General ~ COLETTE D. HONORABLE #96016 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-8123 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Colette D. Honorable, certify that on February 27, 2003, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~z Colette D. Honorable 2    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_1744","title":"Notice of appeal and notice of filing Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool and court order regarding Office of Desegregation Monitoring budget from 2002-2003.","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":["2003-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School districts","Little Rock School District","Education--Finance","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Joshua intervenors","Elementary schools","Harris Elementary School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Notice of appeal and notice of filing Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool and court order regarding Office of Desegregation Monitoring budget from 2002-2003."],"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/1744"],"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":["100 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, two orders; 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.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JAN - 3 200!' OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS 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 ADE's Project Management Tool for December 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General DENNIS R. HANSEN, # 97225 Chief Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2081 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dennis R. Hansen, certify that on December 30, 2002, 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.M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dennis R. Hansen IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AD~SPROJECTMANAGEMENTTOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 2002 i1~i~:~~11~~~~tiil{f~1l~il~~;~~:~r~i~,r.~'1g:~~~l.iV~~:f jif~~~;~icW~tg~ ' B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. RECEIVED JAN -8 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER ru .... c:u U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKNJSAS JAN - 7 20G3 ~~:MES \\N. McCORMAC:(, CLER:-': PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the proposed 2002-2003 budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Though both LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors filed \"Responses\" which aired concerns about the budget, no specific objections were made by either party. 'I hereby approve the proposed budget as submitted. I am mindful that there may be a motion to adjust OD M's final budget for 2002-2003 following determination of the appeal of my order granting LRSD partial unitary status. ODM's goal should be to submit a proposed budget for 2003-2004 by May 1, 2003, so that I may approve the budget before the 2003-2004 budget cycle begins. If my Order on unitary status is affirmed on appeal, ODM should work with all parties, prior to submission of the proposed 2003 -2004 budget, to develop a more equitable means of apportioning LRSD's share of the cost ofODM. ft; IT IS SO ORDERED this day of January, 2003. \"i 7 2 FILED EAsTMR\\ g,srn,cT COURT ISTR/CT ARKANSAS JAN 0 7 2003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coUR; EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS B~:MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS JAN - 9 2003 INTER VENO RS OFFICE OF INTER VENO RS DESEGREGATION MONITORING NOTICE OF APPEAL The Joshua Intervenors give notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 3(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure with respect to Honorable William R. Wilson Jr.' s order and the corresponding judgment, both entered herein on December 20, 2002. t.~ll-~ Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Respectfully submitted, /Jh.101~ John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 Rickey H. Hicks Attorney At Law 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501-663-9900  CF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been forwarded to all counsel of record via United States mail, postage prepaid on this 7th day ofJ anuary, 2002. JliJiJu.~ FILED IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN 2 3 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: PLAINTIFF DEP CLERK VS. 4:82CV00866 WRW / JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. 1, et al. .MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. RECEIVED JAN 2 8 2003 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Joshua's request for an extension of the deadline for filing a supplemental pleading on the issues raised in their Response to Motion Regarding Site Selection at Maumelle is granted, and Joshua has until noon Monday, January 27, 2003, within which to file this response (or the potential agreed order referenced in Joshua's letter of this date). (\\c\\ IT IS SO ORDERED this ]Zday of January, 2003. - UNITED STATES DISTRJCT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE o~;J..J~Sj,\" Am~ ~:~p 728 RECEIVED :~- FILED U S DISTRICT COURT JAN 3 0 2003 ': a: EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES'OISTRICT COURT JAN 18 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK ,By: DEP CLERK '-, 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. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court is hereby informed that counsel for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Joshua lntervenors submit the following agreement with - respect to the Harris Redesign and Sherwood Rezoning: 1. The parties agree that the redesign of Harris Elementary School is consistent with the School District's plan and commitment not to close schools that are located in predominately African American areas. 2. The PCSSD Enrollment Count for October 1, 2001-2002 indicates a decline of 484 students. According to the First Quarter 2002-2003 Enrollment Report student enrollment declined from the first quarter of 2002-2003 to the second quarter of 2002-2003 by 209 students. Harris is a predominately African American School with a declining enrollment. Its racial percentage for the 2002-2003 school year is approximately 69% African American and 31% Caucasian. The proposed reassignment of African American students will increase the African American student enrollment from 394491 -v1 1 69% to 78%. African American students fron, Brushy Island will not be reassigned to Harris but will continue to attend Cato Elementary. Cato Elementary student enrollment will remain 75% Caucasian (white) and 25% African American (black). 3. The parties agree that working toward a racially balanced student body is an appropriate goal for Harris Elementary School, and is consistent with Plan 2000. 4. These parties agree that PCSSO shall vigorously recruit minority students (white) from North of the river for placement in the Harris Elementary School. The Director of Equity and Multicultural Education who will report to the Assistant Superintendent of Equity and Pupil Services shall direct this intensification of effort. Timely reports regarding monitoring activities will be sent to Joshua lntervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The parties agree to the establishment for the Harris Elementary School of a standing \"recruitment committee\". The committee will provide documentation of their efforts to the Director of Equity and Multicultural Education. One of the recruitment activities efforts will be to partner Harris with Sherwood schools for exchange activities and to provide desegregative experiences for students attending Harris Elementary. 6. PCSSD will vigorously recruit white students North of the river to attend Harris Elementary School. Recruitment will include but not be limited to the following: transportation will be provided, approximately 50 percent of the seats for the four year old, and before and after school programs will be allocated for white students electing to attend Harris. The recruiters explain the educational advantages of attending Harris to parents who are being recruited. 394491-v1 2 7. The Director of Equity and Multicultural Education will closely work with Real Estate Agents, government and community organizations, PTA and PTO's to recruit and provide information about the Harris Specialty Program. 8. PCSSD will locate staff development offerings to showcase the Harris program. 9. It is the objective of the redesign and rezoning plan to a) maintain educational presence in the affected area; b) improve the educational quality of offerings made available in that area; c) help racially balance the other schools in the Northern section of Pulaski County; d) reduce the disparate transportation burdens upon African American students; and e) attract students from home schooling and private schools back to District schools in the Sherwood area. It is expected that these - enrollment percentages will not substantially affect Clinton Elementary School in part because it is an interdistrict school where the ratios are substantially fixed. 10. The projected enrollment at Harris Elementary School will be a minimum of 200 students for the 2003-2004 school year and thereafter; and that present plans will allow a substantially greater enrollment if student demand, after appropriate recruitment efforts, increases. It is the objective of the parties to continue to review the racial balances within the school to maintain racial balances within Harris Elementary School. A primary method for achieving this objective will be to promote the rich and challenging curriculum that the district intends for this school will set it apart from the other schools similarly situated. 11. The parties agree that some faculty changes will be required. A concerted - and sustained effort will be made to provide the students with a racially diverse staff. 394491 -v1 3 12. The parties commit, in the manner provided by the Revised Desegregation Plan, to resolve their matters to the extent possible before either party seeks court review of any differences they have between them regarding Harris Elementary School issues. With these considerations in mind, it is the recommendation of the parties by their counsel that the Court enter this proposal as an order of the Court. Accordingly, having concluded a hearing, the Court approves the PCSSD motion dated December 16, 2002 (doc. no. 3719), as amended and supplemented by the foregoing paragraphs numbered 1 through 12. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AN~~CP ON/:-J..K-03 B \u0026lt;) 394491-v1 ,___ ___ - --- - UNITED STATES DI RICT JUDGE , .--i,9-1)3 DATE 4 I:,,\\ t: :; 'i\u0026gt; !r.,.U,- f; S1f..J..:(' /  h ' ! ,. , '7-l_)e.    ..,. . ..'),j ., .. .  \u0026lt;:u._,,)r JAN  .,_, ,v,11;,)~SA.s JAA  3 0 2DOJ 8 ,v,Es l'V ' IN THE Y:  fv,ccc RMAc UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT f(, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, 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 AD E's Project Management - Tool for January 2003. RECEIVED JAN 3 1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General G~ COLETTE D. HONORABLE #96016 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-8123 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Colette D. Honorable, certify that on January 30, 2003, 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. M. Samuel Jones, ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~~{Q_ Colette D. Honorable IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS 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 January 31, 2003 1111~- . ~~~iflt~m~;;~~i11111~;;.i~k,i.\u0026amp;1'.1~~r.im~q~l~!.tj 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.    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":9,"next_page":10,"prev_page":8,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":96,"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}}]}}