{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1738","title":"District Court records of Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2000 and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Court's order.","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":["2002-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","School employees","Educational law and legislation","Magnet schools","Retirement","Insurance","Educational planning","School improvement programs","School integration","Students","African Americans--Education","School enrollment","School attendance","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century"],"dcterms_title":["District Court records of Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2000 and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Court's order."],"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/1738"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["64 pages"],"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\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Court's order dated March 1, 2002; District Court, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, Joshua intervenors' notice of filing as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, order; Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to the Joshua intervenors' notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, second motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua intervenors' notice of filing as required by order filed March 1, 2002; 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 APR -1 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING AGREEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") files the agreements identified below and attached hereto as required by the Court's order filed March 1, 2002: I. Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Program agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD; 2. Early Childhood Special Education agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD andNLRSD; 3. Agreement between the LRSD and the State dated March 19, 2001 re: unitary status, sale of bonds and $20 million loan. 4. Memorandum of Understanding between the LRSD and the State re: magnet seats. 1 5. Agreement between the LRSD and Knight dated February 6, 1999, re: teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 1Attached is what the LRSD believes to be the final draft of that agreement. Counsel for the LRSD could not locate an executed copy of the agreement in their files. - 6. Agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua and Knight dated February 8, 1999 re: teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 7. Settlement Agreement between the LRSD and PCSSD dated February 9, 1999 re: pooling agreement and teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 8. Agreement between the LRSD and Joshua dated June 10, 1998 re: past and future attorneys' fees for monitoring of the LRSD. 9. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992, as modified and incorporated into Section 4 of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and Section E of PCSSD's Plan 2000 (not attached). 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Settlement Agreement as revised September 28, 1989 (not attached). The \"Allen Letter\" dated May 31 , 1989. Magnet Stipulation dated February 16, 1987 (not attached). M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986 (not attached). Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD, PCS SD and NLRSD regarding hiring teachers under contact with another district. Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD and the LRCTA regarding the use of intern teachers to fill vacancies. 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 BYoiu~:c. t-~d' Fendley, Jr. 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on April 1, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen 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 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 A. COVER PAGE Arkansas Department of Higher Education Grant Competition - FY2002 Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Program , PROJECT TITLE Teachers of Tomorrow 2002 1. LEGAL APPLICANT/RECIPIENT a. Institution Little Rock School District and University of Central Arkansas Please check ~ categcry: Recruilment -L Preparation __ Professional Dev. b. Street/P.O. Box_ __- -\"9'\"'4. .1.7. \"--\"G\"\"e'\"'\"y\"\"er-'S\"\"p'-'-r'-'-in_,g=-s.:..R:.:o.:a=-d_ ___c . City Little Rock GRANT APPL/CATION NO. d. County ___ P-'u=la~s\"'\"k'\"\"i ___________ e. State_\"\"'A'\"'R ___ f. Zip Code. _ __:.7-=2=20=9._ __ _ g. PROJECT DIRECTOR(S) Name _ W.;..:.;:a:.:.:n.:d=-a ,B:.:a:.;:s:.:.:k:..:.;in:.:.s..:a:.:..:n.:d..;.Ka::ac.:.:.th.:.:.;lee=-=n'-\"A..,t,.,,ki::..,.n:::..s _______________ _ Email: WFBaskila)MCC.LRSD.Kl2.AR.US Telephone: 501-570-4144, 501-224-7736 and 501-450-5429 Department: Career and Technical Education Fax: 501-570-4144 and 501-224-7736 2. NAME(S) OF COLLABORATING SCHOOL 3. NAMES, TITLES AND PHONE #'S OF COLLABORATING SCHOOUCOLLEGE OFFICIALS Dr. Kathleen Atkins, Chair of Early Childhood and Special Educ. 501-450-5429 DISTRICTIS) AND COLLEGES Little Rock, North Little Rock, Pulaski County Special School District, UCA, UAPB, UALR, and Henderson PERSONS WHO WILL PROVIDE INSTRUCTION (name and department) A Dr. Alvin Futrell, ColleQe of Education at Henderson and Dr. Kathleen Atkins, ColleQe of Education at Univ of Central AR  Or. Bill GeiQer, ColleQe of Education at UALR 3. Or. Dorethea Davis, College of Education at University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 6. PROPOSED FUNDING 7a. FEDERAl. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT a. Grant Request $ 47,400 .00 (#) OF APPLICANT INSTITUTION(S): b. Applicant Match $ 48,050 .00 .00 7b. FEDERAl. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT (#) OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS SERVED: c. Cooperating Partner Match $ $ 1---------------+--------------i d. Other .00 Ba. PROJECT START 8b. PROJECT DURATION e. TOTAL $ 95,450 .00 JANUARY 1, 2002 12 MONTHS 9. PROJECT DIRECTOR NAME (Print): Wanda Baskins Kathleen Atkins SIGNATURE: 10. 11 . AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR GRANT ACTION TAKEN a. Awarded ____ _ b. Rejected ____ _ :eturn for amendment _____ _ d. Withdrawn _____ _ NAME (Print): Wanda Baskins Kathleen Atkins SIGNATURE: 12. FUNDING a. Grant Award $ b. Applicant Match $ c. Cooperating Partner $ Match d. Other $ e. TOTAL $ TITLE: DATE: TITLE: DATE: 13. REMARKS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TOT Program Director Chair/Early Childhood TOT Project Director Chair Early Childhood ...;  EXHIBIT \\_--------~------..J-----~---------~1 I !,. IC 8. PROJECT ABSTRACT Arkansas Department of Higher Education Grant Competition - FY2002 Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Program Please type. Complete all items on both sides. This form will be submitted to the Governor's office. PROJECT TITLE: Teachers of Tomorrow 2002 INSTITUTION: University of Central Arkansas PROJECT DIRECTOR(S): Wanda Baskins (Little Rock School District) Dr. Kathleen Atkins (U.C.A) PARTICIPATING LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS: Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District Category chosen ___X _T eacher Recruitment and Retention _____ Teacher Preparation ~ ___ Teacher Professional Development (check which area) Mathematics Science __ Foreign Language __ Special Education NUMBER OF ANTICIPATED PARTICIPANTS: _330 _In-Service Teachers --- Pre-Service Teachers _50_ College Faculty _350_ Other (Explain) Celebration in Teaching Program Banquet and Hall High Symposium PROJECT RATIONALE (Brief statement of assessed needs) : According to The National Education Association we are facing the most critical teacher shortage in history . Nationwide, some 2.4 million teachers will be needed in the next 11 years because of teacher attrition, retirement, and increased student enrollment. An estimated 6 percent of the nation's teaching force leaves the profession and 7 percent change schools per year. The National Center of Education Statistics report twenty percent of all new teachers will leave the field of teaching within three years, while nearly fifty  percent of new teachers in urban areas will exit the profession their first five years of teaching . As we face higher teacher attrition rates and decreased number of graduates in teacher education programs, public school student enrollment will continue to increase. By 2008 public school enrollment will exceed 54 million, and approximate 2 million increase over today's enrollment. - While research based statistics on teacher shortage in Arkansas are difficult to locate, districts in the state are finding that hiring new teachers is becoming more problematic (\"School Districts Make Sweet Deals to Attract Teachers,\" Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 1999). The Arkansas Department of Higher Education 2 disseminated data in 2000 on the number of graduates with Baccalaureate and Master's Education Degrees in Arkansas from 1994-1999. This data indicates fewer number of students graduated with education degrees jiSE and MSE degrees combined) in 1999 than in previous years. Clearly this will have an impact on the . ilability of future teachers. Recruitment of future teachers must also focus on quality. With the current state and national emphasis on student achievement, we must recognize in order to improve student achievement we must improve the quality of teaching. Our future teachers of Arkansas must receive preparation programs that ensure the building of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of a qualified teacher. The Teachers of Tomorrow Program seeks to continue long-range teacher recruitment efforts for Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County School Districts by promoting and expanding the future teacher clubs/classes and by providing activities that will broaden its mission and service into other areas of the state. Although fewer college students are pursuing teaching careers, the redesign of the Teachers of Tomorrow Program using the South Carolina Teacher Cadet and Pro Team curriculum is encouraging. The Teacher Quality Enhancement (TQE) funding is vital for the enhancement of secondary and middle school classes being offered, and is needed to help provide networking opportunities for educators in the state who are interested in teacher recruitment and retention. \"For many, the pre-teaching experience acts as a springboard to college, career, and personal relationships where learning can be applied and nurtured.\" (May 2001 Recruiting New Teachers, Inc.) 3 GOALS (Statement of specific learning and performance objectives for participants): 41,als of the Teacher Quality Enhancement grant, TOT 2002, are to: 1) implement elective classes designed to encourage secondary students to consider teaching as a profession (using the South Carolina Teacher Cadet curriculum) 2) promote networking and recruitment opportunities between public schools, two-year colleges, and four year institutions 3) develop an awareness about the teacher shortage in Arkansas and 4) complete training/certification of two Teacher Cadet trainers. GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION (ABSTRACT} which will be shared publicly (200 words): The Teachers of Tomorrow program seeks to continue its long range teacher recruitment efforts for Arkansas by promoting and expanding the existing Teachers of Tomorrow program and by providing activities that will broaden its mission and service into other areas of the state. The activities will include: providing materials and training for secondary school teachers to implement the Teacher Cadet class (senior high school) curriculum developed by the South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment.  conducting a statewide Teacher Recruitment Conference in fall 2002 that is designed for secondary and higher education students, public school administrators and faculty, and teacher educators.  providing the means for two Arkansas teachers to become Teacher Cadet trainers (by completing final cycle of training in Little Rock summer workshop).  designing and distributing a teacher recruitment pamphlet for students in two-year colleges . .  supplying Teachers of Tomorrow Clubs and TOT coordinators in the tri-district area with support in order to plan student activities and carry out various collaborative activities.  Expand elective classes to include middle school students exploring teaching as a career (using the South Carolina Pro Team Curriculum).  Create a TOT website which will include a database for club and class participants. Institutions involved in the Teacher of Tomorrow collaborative include: Little Rock School District, North - ittle Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District, Henderson State University, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, and University of Arkansas at Little Rock. 4 . .03/ 21/ 2002 10:33 5014901352 I t \u0026gt;    EQUITY Pl.FIL SERVICE .. I( : ~. .- 2-1-20. 02. 1.0 ;~ 14 . F.'R (JII! TO:';'l~ i\"---------~ ~- ------------=---- : . :  .. I ' I ; ; CONSOLIDATED PRESCHOOL ' GRANT APPLICATION FOR I ' SPECIAL EDUCATION AND ; : RELATED SERVICES : :::  : I .. . . ,   ~ L  \\ . . I j ; .. ' ; ; ' I I . I I SECTION6J.9 OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH I I DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT ' I. -AND STATE FUNDS /: I :1 : I' ' ~ ' ' ' : : fi ' i ; ' : ; ' ARKANSAS DEPARTivfENT OF EDUCATION ., : , ; ' 2001-02 .. ' : ,. f .. I .. i ; I .. ; . . '. ' ., : ; J .. ' : -- - -- ..  i l .~ IC p~ 02/16 P . 002\"'01 .1 i: ! .. , i ' :t ., '  ' . I ; : : - '' i ! ii !/ ~ -. '  ! ' : ; EXHIBIT z ' I I i '  ' . ;., , - 1: : . ,. :i l !! I I EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: '34900254 ASSURANCES AND AGREEMENTS FOR EDUCATIONAL SERVlCE AGENCIES . Adopdon of Proccdul\"C$: The applicant agrees to implement Spectal Education and Related '. Srrvi~~: Procedural \u0026amp;cp,tremuit:l and Program Standards and S~cial d11catlon Ellgib/Jily ; Cr/Jeri a and Program Guidelims for Childrun with Dlsabilitie$. Ages 3  21 to ensure that it  provid~ special eduwion services to emlble clu1dren with disabilities, ages three to; five~ to ' participate in regular educational programs and that each child has a properly developed , inc,vidualized education program. ; AdvJSory Committee: Where several LEAs consolidated their prcschool .scmccs, the applicant :. agrees to establish a local advisory committee. The committee must consist of the special ; edu~tion supervisors from participating LEAs and at least one superintendent. The committee : will be co-chaired by the early childhood coordinator and a LEA special education supervisor : select~ by the committee. The committee will meet at least bi-monthly, DocumentAtion of each meeting will be kept en file. : A!,istive Technology: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300,308, shall ensure that . assistive technology devices or assistive technology~ or both, as defined in 34 CFR 300.5 ,  300,6, are made available to a: child with a disability if required as a part of the child's (1)  Special Ed1.1cation under 34 CFR 300,26, (2) R~ated services under 34 CFR 300,24, or (3)  Supplementary aids and ser'.Vices under 34 CFR 300,28 and 300,SSO(b)(2), : Child Ctrc: The applicant assures that preschool grant funds shall not be used for the securing ' ofbasic child care and that these monies be used only for the provision of special education and rcl~ted services rend~ by,. a qualified provider. It i\u0026amp; pemussible ro expend preschool grant funds to pay costs associ.ited with a regular daycare placement when it is determined ~hat: ' l,;'~stidr educational placement-is needed to provide :a Free Appropriate Public Education ' (FAP.E) to a child, and  . ,. I ~- ; ; ' '  2. ::sbch:educarlqnal placement is necessary to satisfy th~ provisions of the cl\\ild's individualii=  , : education program (lEP). The decision to place a child'\"in, a rc:gula.r daycare program -win be made on a ca1\u0026amp;-by-asc oasis, The State guidelines for a Integrated Preschool Settine must be used in determining a child's ; riee.d(for,an educatjonai pla~ent in a regular daycare program .  1., : , . . Complaint ProcufuttS of ID State! The applicant, in accordance with EDGAR 34 CFR 660, ' ~ that it will provide a. copy of the wrinen procedures fur Complaint Management to parents of children with disabilities when they llre notified of their procedural safeguar\u0026lt;is, 2 .. .. , ' I PAGE 03/16 P.003-'014  :i ; 1 i ' I ,''- . 03/ 21/2002 10: 33 5014901352 'i ;_  . :I . l\". FR-, 21-20 02 10~ 14 ~: EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: ';),q~e0c:54 , Coordination of Projects: The applicant, in accordance with EDGAR 34 CFR 76.580, as~ : to the extent possible, it coordinate each of its projects with other activities that are in the same ; geographic area served by the project and targeted groups. Appropriate methods of coordination  include:   l. :Planning the project with organizations and individuals who have sinu1ar objectives or concerns; : 2.  Sharing information, facilitie~, staff, services or other resourc~;  J .. ~ngaging in joint activities such as instruction, needs assessment, evaluation, monitoring, technical assistance or swf training; ;. 4., 1N?_t ~uplicating or counteracting the effects of funds used under 9thcr programs; ilild S. Using the project funds to increa.(e the impact of funds made available under other programs , . :for the same purpose. Dls:ciplinnry Information: The applicant, in accordarn:e with 34 CFR JOO .Sl9  300.529, ' as~r'es thnt it will maintain in the records ofa child with a disability a statement of any current  or -previous di5ciplinary action that has been taken against the child and transmit such statei:nent -~ to th~ same extent that such disciplinary information is included in, and transmitted with, the  studt;tt records ofnondisahled children. If the State has such a policy, and the child transfers from one school to another, the transmission of any of the child's records must include: both the child1 s current individuaftz;cd education program and any such statement of current or previous disciprmary action that has been taken !lgainst the child. ' Idui!:itional Responsibilil)'! The applicam agrees to provide special education and related  services on the behalf of assigned LEAs for duldrcn with disabilities, ages three to five; under  Section 619 of IDEA 97. The applicant will develop an inter-agency agreement with the: : appropriate Head Start pro,rain for the provision of special education a.nd related services as specified in the Memo~-um ofUndersr.anding (between the Arkansas Department ofE.ducation and !_iead Start) consi!tent with the federal regulations for Head Stcrt, Public Law 102A01 . . E1cess Cost: The applicant, in accordance ',l,,'ith 34 CFR 300.184  300.185, a.$SUres that funds pr9ided under Section 619 of IDEA 97 wit! be used Q!ll:l for excess costs. Extended School Ycsr: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.309, shall ensure that ~ded school year $er-vices are available as n~ as to provide a m:e appropriate public education. H~r.ing Aids: The applieant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.3031 shall ensure that the hearing aids wom in school by children with hearing impairments. including d~ are functioning properly . . . . I : . -: .. . : ; :,, PAGE 04/16 P,l!IEM'01,q -I !: rnunv PUPIL SERVICE T0:'3'1~4 Least Restrictive Environment: The applicant, in accord Mee with 34 CFR. 300.SSO - 300.556, assures it has adopted the policies and procedures of Special Education and l~laled Serv/\"3: Procedural Requirements and Program Standards, Section IJ, pages 1 and 2; and Section 17, pag$2. I L\u0026amp;2J lnterngcncy Committee: The applicant agrees to establi$h a local interagency committee comr.osed oflocal agencies and int~ parties for the dissemination of information and to establish a network of services. The committee will meet at le~ quarterly. Documentation of attendees and minutes of i;aeh mc::ting must be kept on file. Meet[nis: The applicant agrees that individuals employed under this application will p81t!cipate in training institutes and scheduled meetings sponsored by the Arkansa. Department of 4.u~tion, Sp~ial Edu~tion. I N o.n~crimhultioa and Employment of tndividuala wil.h Disnbilitics: The applicant assu~ that the program assisted under. Section 619 of IDEA 97 will be operated ,n compliance with Title!45 of the Code ofFedenl Regulations, Pa.rt 84. (A formal ast:Urance statemem should be on -~e with the U.S. Dept. of Health and Hllman Services.) , I Nonsuppbnting: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.230, usures that funds prqvided. under Section 619 of IDEA 97 will be used to supplement and, to the cctcnt ptjlciicablc, increuc the level of State a.nd Local funds e,\u0026lt;pended for the education of children with disabilities, ages three to 6ve. and in no case to supplant those State and Local funds. :: ..- :; ,, : . Nti~ber or Days for l\u0026gt;ired Services: The prcscltool instructional calendar shall consist of200 days of direct services .funded by the prescltool grant. The first day of services can be Jio earlier th~\\August' 1. Dim:t services will cease by June 30. An audit will be peronned to verify sctvice delivery of200 days; Faiturc to comply will result in an audit e,c~on. Please provide a school calendar or llstin.g of day per momh that services will he provided. Please use the caJ~dar included in the application. Personnel Devdopment: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR. 300.221, assures that it ba.-. tiled':with the State information to demonstrate that (1) all personnel necessary to cany O'llt Section 619 o!lDEA 97 within the jurisdictign of the agency are adequate!y prepared cons~ wi~ the requirement of 34 CFR 300.380- 300.382, and (2) to the extent the public agency determine! appropriate, it shall contribute to and use the Comprehensive System of P~onnel Development of State established under 34 CFR 300.135. 1 f, . . Foliciet .and Program, Consistent with EUgfbillty Provisions: The appficant. in accordance withi 34 CFR 300.220, assures that it has in cffcc:t policies.. procedure! and programs- that are ~$istei,t with Stare policies and procedlftS established under 34 CFR 300.121 - 300.156 . . The applics.nt mUSt have on file with the State polici~ and procedu~ on the following: (l} Child Identification, (Z) Confidentiality, and (\u0026gt;) Individualized Education Program. I I ' 4 ': I ' . / PAGE 05/16 P,00S\"014 / . 1: .; 03/ 21/2002 10: 33 5014901352 l1 : ~~~ ;10:1~ FROM: . j iii . EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TOt94980a54 iL\\ ,  .-;,, Procrdund Safeguards: The spplicant, in accordance with 34 CPR 300.500 - 515 300.517 incorybrat~ by rcfcn:nc~ tile proi:ed1.2~ of the SEA in Special Education and Relatfd  Stsl'Vices: Procedural Reqz/iJ-emrmts and Program Standards., Sections 4 through 16. , \"ro,grnm Options: The applicant, in aoc;ordance with 34 CFR. 300.124, usures compliance with th~provi~on of.a continuum ofser-lice options. The program options that arc designed to meet thejull educational goal in pre.school education are as follows: 1. , Preschool class on the public school campus 2. Regular p~hool (including Head Start)  3. Special Day Service Facility licensed by Developmental Disability Services  4. 'Home ServiQ?S 5. Itinerant Service - Services provided to children through an itinerant mode for intensive _;_ ,  :.i?struction which may~ developmentally appropriate or therapeutic. Primary use of.this '  service may be speech-l11nguage pathology given by a qualified provider or special instruction . by an e.u-ly childhood special education consultant teacher. 6 .. '. '.Hospital 7. Re!idential  Note: Each child mu!t be presented with at least three placement options (settings) wh~re the IEP can be appropriately implemented.  P~t~tion in tvnlu!!rion Procedures: The applicant, in ~ccordance with 34 CFR 300.530. ' 300.536, adopts by reference the procedures of the SEA in Special EducaJJon and Related . Se.ry/ce3: Procedural Requirements a,id Program Standards, Sections 4, 6 and 7.  I f   , , Pul\u0026gt;l~c! Control of Funding: The appUce.nt assures that control of funds provided under Section '.. 619 qflDEA 97 and Statc/I.oc.al funds committed to Special Edu.cation in accordance with Ark 6de Ann. 6-203 l 0 and title to property acquired with those funds is in a public agency for the ._ \\lSCS and purposes-authorized and as provided in the Mansas Department of Education, School  and :Educational Service Cooperative F'inincial Accounting Manual. . .. J:lccdrd, lhld Reports: The:applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.240, agrees to ;provide information as may be neceasary to enable the State Education Agm:;y to perf'mm its duticz, and  the applicant agrees to -keep such records a, the State Educ:itional Ageney may require to ensure '. rhe'~rrectness and verification ofthe iruorma.tio~  Rctciltion of Records: Education Department General Adrninisir:\u0026gt;tive Regulations (EDGAR) 34: CFR. 76.734 requires that recipients of Section 619 funds retain for five (5) years after completion of the activity for which they use grant or subgrant funds, any record needed to fully show compliance with pn)~ and administrative requirements. The Special Education Office !fas been advised by the U.S: Department ofEducation, Office of. Special Education Programs, 5 PAGE 07/16 .-.-,w. .. I   I I I I; Ii !' ~: 1 .. ... ,''. EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO:~ that~ include individualized education progmns (IDs). The ilRplir.ant as,w~ to take all of the necessan: steps to retain nil records for at tesst five (S} years after tbe completion of the activitv S~ces :ind Aid.s That Also ~enetit No.nd.i!abled Oindren: The applicant, in accordance with: 34 CF'R. 300.235, as!ures that costs of special education and related services and supp/ementary aids and services provided in a regular class or other education-related setting to 2 ,}illci with a disability are in accordance with the individualized education program of a. child, even if one or more nondisabkd children benefit from such services. . I . Gtn~rnl Education l\"n,visiona Act: The applicant assures that it will comply with :the assurances set forth below as stated in the General Education J\u0026gt;rovisions Act in compliance with 20 llS.C. 1.232 e(b)(J),(S),(7),(A)\u0026amp;(B),(S) and (9). The general application submitted by a i pu~li~ asency under subsection (a) shall \u0026amp;et forth assurances -   1)  1'hiU the public agency will administer each program covered by the application in  accordance with all appUe2ble statutes. regulations, program plans, and applications; ; 2) : That the control of funds pr.ovided to the public agency under each program and titl~ to : property acquired with those funds, will be in a public agency and that a public aiency will  . :~minister those funds and property;  : 1' 3) .. That the public agency will use fiscal control and :fund accounting procedure\u0026amp; that will ensure  .' P,roper disbursem~ of, and accounting for, Federal funds paid to that agency under each \\ ;:program; t) ;i'l:h~t the public agency will make reports to the State agency or board and_ :to :,the .. ) Commissioner u may reasonably be necessary to enable the Stare agency or board: and:the ;: .. -Commissioner to perform their duties and that the public asency will maintain such records, J ncluding the records required under Section 437, and provide access to those records, as !he  St~te agency or board or the Commission~ deem necessary to pem,rm their dutic~ 5) . That the public agency will provide reasonable opportuniti~ for the participation QY ~e~ : parents, and other interested agencies, organizations, and individuals in the planning for an ;  : operation of each program;  6) ,That any application. evaluation, periodic program plan or report refating to each program : will be made readily available to parents and othet memben of t~c general public; 7) . That in the case of any project involving construction - A.) The project is not inconsistent with overall Staie plans for the construction of school facilities, and 6 . ,,, : PAGE 08/16 P.007\"81~ .j ., ! j. I  1 ; . i ! !:\u0026gt;Ul4'.:H:H 352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: '3\"t~  / B) 1n developing plans f'or construction, due consideration will be given to excellence of   architecture and d~ign and to c:ompliance with standard~ prescribed by th1: Scc:~buy under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in order to emure that fkcilitica ' ' construeted with the use ofFedcral funds are acc:!Ssiblc to and usable by individuals with disabilities; . . . I S) '.That the public: agency has adopted emctive procedures for acquirilli and disscmi~atirig to teachers and admmistrators participating in each prosram significant information from , cduational research, demonstrations, and .similar projects, and for adoptini where  I '  appropriate, promising educational p~cticcs developed chrough such projects; and 9) .: That none of the funds expended undc:r any applicable pYOgnm wtll be used to ' acquire equipment (Including computer software) in any inStance in which such acquisition results . , . _ir,i a direct financial benefit to any organization representing the interests of the purchasing ,.. :: entity or its employees or ~y affiliate of such an organization.  Notice of Required Actinn~ by tbe SEA . The SEA is required under Section 619 of IDEA 97 to pr~vide notice to public agencies of the foll,o~ing actions: Direct Services by the Seate .Educ:ttion Agcnty: The Arkansas Department cf Education (ADE), Speci~l Education.Unit has the responsibility to ensure that the provisions of a free appropriate public education (F APE) are met for eligible stud~s with disabilitie5, ages 3 - 21. Consistent with the provision! afJ4 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) 300.360, a State Education Agency (SEA) shall use the payments tlm othei:wiae would have been available to an LEA or to a State agency to provide special ed~cation arid r.cl~ scrvic:es directly to children with disabilities residing in the area served by that local agency, or for whom tha1 State agency is n:sponsiblc, if the SEA determines that the LEA or Stat~ agency - a. Hu not provided the infonnation needed to establish the eligibility of the agency undsr  Part B of lhe Act; . -~. Is unable to establish and maintain programs ofFAPE that meet the requirements of this , ',! I ; part; .. :c.  1s unable or unwilling robe consolidated with one or more LE.As in order to. establish and ; ,,'. ,; .; maintain the programs; or  , d. Has one or more children with disabilitiC$ who .can best be served by a regional or State program or service-delivery system designed t9 meet the needs of these childmi, 7 PAGE 10/16 P. 008-'e:. :, ., :J i I . , :: i , ;ii . r:: I . i i I ; ~: 1 ! 1r :l i 1:. i 1.JJ l I ... . !: .  EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: 9\"1900254  ..: , ! , When It is brought to the attention of the ADE through: .  ai  The enforcement of a decision .from an Impartial Due Process Hearing; b.  A complaint invcstignrion under the Complain, Procedures of the State; . c: Compliance monitoring of a public s.gency; or ' .  ,: l A request from a parent or public; aicncy tha~ the SEA assume the responsibility for . Direct Services; , I . . '. th~:ADE, Special EducatiotrUnit will implement the following procedures before final action is ' tak;ai by the ADE to assume the provision of Direct Services to an eligible student(s) with ~'-, ~i~iliti~s, ages 3 - 21. 1.  The Associate Director for Special Education will: :  a; Provide written notice co the public ag~cy that the SEA ha.s re3$on to suspea t~t it is . not providing a free appropriate public education to an eligible student(s) with .  ; : , disabiliti.es. ages 3 - 21, on rhe basis of one or more of the conditions set forth in 34 CFR . 300.360    -:bl  State the sourcc(s) of the_ infonnatio~ that has led.the SEA to suspect that the district is . not providing a fu;c appropriate public erlucution for the student(s) in question. c. Appoint a Team to conduct an investigation onhe situ.stionfc;omplaint.  I ; ; l.  ,The Investigative Team will review the public agency's provision ofFAPE in light of the  ; 'conditions set forth in 34 CFR 300.360.  . . : 3 . . The Team will follow the procedures the ADE has ~opted for its Complaint Procedures of ' ; the, Slate, as provided for in 34 CFR 300.660  300.662. ; . :.; ; i . : . . . . : 4,:;1The.Team will provide a written report and submit it to the Associate Ditectot. S' .. iF'.ollowing receipt of the report. the Associate Director will notify the parties concerned as \u0026gt;to the findings of the !nvc.,tigative Temn.  6 . . : Showd sufficient _evidence exist -to demonstrate that the public agency is not providing F ~  as a result ofa condition in 34 CFR 300.360, the Associate Director \"'ill notify the puplic agency that the ADE. intends to take the neccasary 3teps to provide Direct Servi~c:s to an . '.. .eligible swdcnt(s) with disabilities, ages 3 -21, within the jurisdiction of the public'ageticy. 8 i :' PAGE 11/16 P.089\"1U\u0026lt;I ,i .i ; ! I .! . . . ! u~, ~ ~l~UU~ 10 ; ~~ OOlq~Ul3~L EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE J: -~1-2002 :nh1, ml'!= TQ:94900254 \"I . : r . . .. . ,. .   : r ., . , I : !; ~1 , . i 1. I I r,=- I :1 -,;   1! ' I_ l i \\ : ;: ,. ! r  1 :1 t J! ! l I I' 1'. ! '\"i' ;: ! ' ~ ~ .' ''. ; 7. ,The public agency will be provided notice that it h~ the opportunity for a hearing on this :matter before the State's chief e\u0026lt;.il.lcation official, (the Director of the AD), or his/her - ~~  ; \u0026amp;.  :To :avail itself of tM opportunity for a hearint on the proposed provision of Direct Services : by the APE, the Chief Administrative Official of the P\\Jblic Agency must $Ubmit a written request for a hearing to the Associate Director for Special E\u0026lt;iucation within 3 O days of notice or the proposed action by the ADE. - 9.  'Within ten (lO) busines; day.s ofretQpt by the Associllte Director afa written request by the ;-pilblic agency for a huring, the ADE Director will .set a mutually agreeable dtte, time and .location for the hearing and advise the Chief Administrative Official of the Public Age'rq of this in writing. 1 -: ' I .. _ ! . io. The ADE Director, or dcsignee, will consider the evidence presented by the Chief  Administrative Official of the Public Agi:ncy and the Associate Director for Special  'Education, or designee.    11. Within ten (10) business days af completion of the hearing. the ADE Director will submit :written findinss of fact, the decision and reasons fof the ruling with regard to the provision . ; -of:Pirect Services by the ADE. in compliance with 34 CFR 300,360. ; 12. lfthe AD. determines that its action v,,ag contrary to state or fodE:ral statutes or regul:itions '.t~at govern the applicable program, the ADE shall rescind its action . . ! . : .. J'.3. Public agencies will be notitied of their right to ap.peal a decision of the ADe Director to - ;~h~old IDEA- Part B funds to \\he Secretary ofqjucation, U.S. Departm\u0026lt;:nt of'Education. 14. The public age,cy must file a notice oFthe appeal wtth the Secretary wi\\hin 20 days after the : :public agency has been ~otitied by the ADE Director of the tinaf decision of the hearing. - 1.S. 1)lc .Associate Diraotor fbr Special Education will advise the Administrator, Grants ~f!d Dara )vfanagement, in writing as to when to witlihold and when to restore IDEA -! P~ B payments to che Public Agency. ; ! t ' ' I : WhJ ~~ ADE has det~ncd that it will assu~ rhe provision of Direct Services tci ensure F APE,. the A.OE may provide special education and related scr.-ices in sucll a manner and at !Uch lo~ons (including, regional or State centers) as the ADE consideTS appropriate.  i . Public Agency Compliance: If the SEA, in accord~ with 3 4 CTR 300: 197, after reasonable ~ notide .and an opportunity. fer a hearing; finds that a public agency that na.s been determined to , I '  I 9 ' ' l '  . '. PAGE 12/16 ~ .~ld'IOl\"' I  ,. 'i :j i :, ,, . _p3t 21/ 2002 10:33 5014901352 ~;-21-2002 : 10: i 7. FROM:  EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE T0:9'\\900aS4 ' j -   , I .  i .. l;,e-digi1\u0026gt;1e under mis :scdion ~ Awl1J to com9ly 'Mth acy reqwremem d~ed in 34 cat. 300:220 -300.250, the SEA shall reduce orma:y -not ~de any iiu1her psyments to the LEA or: stz1e ageney utd tho SEA is satl!ilcd that lhe eublic agency is complying w\\th that \\ ~~  ~ p-.i,lic agency in re.a:ipt o a notice desc:n'bcd in the first pan.graph of this section shall. by ,m~ of public~ take the mea.ues necessary to~ the pe:11de:'D)' of an action punmnt w this ~on to ~ \u0026amp;ttcntion of the publle within 1he jurisdiction of~~- -~ ~ out its funaion undet this secticn, each SEA shall co~dcr urt decisiOll resu11inl fi'om a hearing \"l,Illde:-34 CF.R. 300.S07 - 300.52\u0026amp; that is adverse ta the pubiie agem;y involnd iD'tbc ~sioca. ~cies 'Will ~c ~t othia infonnariOG by i.ignu,1 pa\u0026amp;e 10  . . .  I .  :. _m'ITfICATION . I,, ,:mt UNDERSIGNED A'U'l11ORl'ZED lW'RiS!:NTATlV?, RDOY CERTll\"Y UL\\T THE APPUCANT ACENCY,S GOVERNING BODY JIAS ~OPTE~ THE ,'BOV:t ASSURANCES AND lS Aw All or u.QU!.R.!l\u0026gt; ACIIOl\"iS )Y nm SEA . UUTIVE TO DIRECT SERVICES AND POBUC J\\GENCY COMPLIANO. '. :_ .. . ~ : . .' ; ?l'tith-Little a:d. Sdl:Xll ~ \"-nd~a.d.yQuldlXd~ i.f -~  '  ; ~ '.  ! :  !\" : . i ' ; :. \\ '. . ~ t  ~! -~ . ~  . . .  I  j 10 PAGE 13/16 I-' .16l.l'112l. .. ' ' t EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO:~ Au.dlo~oo l:ctu\u0026amp;;atiou Sen-ice ooperaeive ~ Chilclhoo4-Spctjal Edua\u0026amp;n  2001~ ~oo, Y~ . ~ ~ol districts ~ below hn-c established an ~emo:Ji urviee c:oopcratiw  a\\:!mmistra.tive mangemem flit 1hc purpose or providhla =arJy r;hildhood spc:cial cducatiai services in accordance widi Ark. Code AM. 6-41-~ and Section cSl 9 ot'mt IDEA 97. The ; ~e of this coopcr.mve is: ' '  'lt\\-otstnct .k1Y ~ Little a:a: I.EA.Number Supcrin~d=t's Signature l!tx1h LiC:la lt)dC ~ , 1 . School District : LEA# Sc:hool ])istrict LE.All Superlnt;ndcnt's Signature  Su~cniicut s Sign~  ,.   School Disuict LEA# School District LEAi Superilltcndcnt', Si~ Superiutcndent' s SignDJre.  :: 1  School Dinrict I .i  , , ; :, .,, LE.A.# .,  .  I . Superintendeat's ~ - .. '' ;  'School District I.EA# School District LEA# ; ' I  48 PAGE 14/16 P.012\"014 .I, .:' F I ;i ! ., . ' ' ! EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE T0:9'1900254 Authoriation . Ednca.tiOJl Senicc C-oop~tive E:nly ChilAood Sp,dal 1?:duc:i.1io~ 2001~2 School Y c:iT   The scl\\ocl districts listed 1,elow have established u educatioa service c:aoperadve . ..  ~e ammgement fonbe purpose o!providmg early childhood specai ~an '  ::: StJ'Yic:siaacariaDcc with Ark. Code Ann. 6-41-220 and Sccticn619 otlaeIDEA97. :tnc: ' ~ ~this COQye:iative is:  . .  'B:l.-ciec:ril%. ! QJ:i.lthm ~ Little lb:!( exi:z ., , Cooperative . 11ie sigr.atum bel0w verify !his arrangement 1M mtborize \\he above named coo~ to use . : : : funds a:pproprlllted by kt 1392 of 1999 to help provide services to three through nve 'fe3r old  ( i:bildd~isab-ilities.  .:;_~ ' ; '  . Si.penmen  s Signature Su~deu't' 1 Signattn .- :~9?Jl:'i 8)-03  Schoel District Soperintendem' a Signature .. . : I ; . lEAi . 1. : I.EA# .. , .... __________ _ Saperinttndeat'i Signature '! .  .,! .I;.._. - '-----,---- -~-- .,  , ,  Scllool Distiict LEA I  i . : Sc.~ool District LEA,# ,a School D~trict School District Supetiattndent' $ Signatite School District LEA :;, Superin~s SignatuR School District LEA. ,. I . ,. ' ,,I ' i EG!U11Y PUPIL SERVICE T0:~90025-4  Authorizatioa Educado11 Senice Cocp~tive bdy Owdhood Special Edutatio lOOI-G? School Year Th:\u0026amp; ~chool districts listed below haw eatabtisbcd m educatioa. iemce eoopermve . , ., - nistrative aaangeaicmfor1he purpose of-providing early childhood special edu.ciltioti sctvictt in accordance with Ark. Code Aim. 641-220 and Section 619 of the IDEA 97. ne name af1his eoopendiVe is: ,: I 'lri~ ?arly ~ ~ Y' tt''! );xx O:,oper.dive B\u0026gt;:02 LEANambl:r The si~ below verify this arrangement a:id authorize the above :named cooperative 10 use fun~ appropriated by Al:t 1392 of 1999 to hclp provide secvi~ to 'three through five year old (?hild~ with dist   I -'i  . './ ~  I ~ bx ED-01. School Dutrict . LEA# ': ' f .Superintendent's Signatutt  ' I LEA# Superintendent's Signaiure School District LEA# ;i I ,' '  1 : S11perinteo.d.el1t'1 s~ LEA# r i i . I  i ; ' . Supcrin~cndent's Sign\u0026amp;IUre School District I.EA# Superintendent's. sign~ School Di3aic:  LEA# School Dutrict ' LEA# Sup~e:nt's Sjgnatun, School :Oisaict , , ., PAGE 16/16 j\" ;  ' i ! VVr 1\u0026lt;.Vr V...L AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE STA TE OF ARKANSAS Ths Agreement is by and between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and the State of Arkansas (the \"State\"), by and through the State Board ofEducation, the Arkansas Department of Education and Governor Mike Huckabee. LRSD and the State shall collectively be referred to as . the Parties. REC1TALS WHEREAS, LRSD and the State are parties to the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, (\"1989 Settlement Agreement\"); WHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement imposes certain obligations on the State but contains no provision stating when those obligations end; WHEREAS, LRSD will seek to be declared unitary and released from federal court monitoring and supervision but is concerned that if it is declared unitary the State may seek to tenninate its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State has advanced loans to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of$20,000,000.00 (twenty million dollars), and there is presently a dispute between the State and the LRSD as to whether those loans will be forgive~ or must be repaid pursuant to Section VI.B.(6) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement; WHEREAS, under the State's current funding formula for public school districts, LRSD's per pupil revenue affects the total amount of funding which the State must distribute through the formula; WHEREAS, how LRSD structures its bond debt affects tRSD's per pupil revenue; Page I of 8 -,i EXHIBIT 3 VO/ 701 U..L .l.D.L1 .J..U . LlO rrt.A WHEREAS, the State wants LRSD to structure its bond debt so as to minimize the financial impact on the State; WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: AGREEMENTS I. LRSD agrees to pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in good faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has been obtained or until the termination of this Agreement, whichever comes first. 2. LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual debt service payments will be 11 .8 million dollars beginning with the 2002 calendar year. The State Board of Education does hereby approve the LRSD's bond application as submitted on February 19, 2001. 3. In order to facilitate and encourage LRSD's efforts to attain complete unitary status and - release from court supervision. the State agrees that it will not seelc to modify or terminate any of the State's obligations to the LRSD under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including any reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement Agreement or court decisions enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement up to and including June 1, 2008. This covenant shall remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD, the Pulaski County Special School District, and/or the North Little Rock School District obtain partial or complete unitary status and release from court supervision. 3. I Provided, however, that this Agreement does not limit, and should not be construed or interpreted as limiting in any way, the State's ability to seek modification or  termination of any of its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including Page 2 of 8 ~UUJ court decisions interpreting the Agreement) that relate exclusively to the North Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, or any other party to the action. Further, this Agreement does not prohibit the State and the LRSD from jointly petitioning the court for modification or tennination of any aspect of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, nor does it prohibit the State from asserting any and all defenses it may otherwise assert in response to any motion or allegation of the LRSD to the effect that the State has violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 3 .2 The State agrees to cooperate with and assist LRSD in opposing any challenge to the legality of this Agreement or any effort by a third-party to modify or tenninate the States' s obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Such cooperation and assistance shall include, but not be limited to, any or all of the following: (I) filing joint pleadings supporting the legality of this Agreement; (2) filing joint pleadings responding to any request to modify or terminate the State's obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement; (3) filing a joint appeal of any order, decision or judgment which directly or indirectly undennines this Agreement; (4) filing a joint brief opposing any appeal of an order, decision or judgment upholding this Agreement or refusing to modify or terminate the 1989 Settlement Agreement; and (5) filing joint pleadings to remove or transfer any chaUenge to the legality of this Agreement to United States District Court and to consolidate the challenge with the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866. 4. In recognition of the LRSD's efforts to obtain unitary status and complete release from federal court supervision, and to facilitate the success of the LRSD's efforts, the State and the LRSD agree Page 3 of 8 1.1:!JVV't U!\u0026gt; / ~0/U.l lllLI J. 0 . '10 r JU. as follows: 4.1 The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first $15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Any and all funds in the joint escrow account estabfo;hed by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of the J 989 Settlement Agreement will be released to the LRSD as soon as practicable. 4.2 In addition, with respect to the remaining $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay these loans if the LRSD obtains a final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision on or before July 1, 2004. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is relieved of its obligation to make payments of principal or interest on these loans into a joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 4.3 For purposes of paragraph 4.2, the phrase \"final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision\" shall mean the entry of a final, appealable order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004. In the event an order granting the LRSD complete - unitary status and release from federal court supervision ~ of July I, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Court but is appealed and Page 4 of 8 ~vvu subsequently reversed in whole or in part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to repay the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of . interest and principal as set forth in Sections VI.B(l) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the State the cumulative amount of any and all interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2. 4.4 The Parties shall promptly and jointly petition the Court for any modification of Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement that is necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 4 .3 of this Agreement, and shall take such further action as may be necessary to obtain such a modification, including but not limited to appealing any adverse decision or ruling of the District Court. 4.5 In the event th.is Agreement is terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Parties shaJI negotiate in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI .B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the tourt, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. Page S of 8 4.6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, hut the Court approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the provisions of paragraphs 4 through 4.6 of this Agreement shall be null and void but severable from the remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that all other promises and obligations of the Parties shall remain in fu)] force and effect. In such an event, the Parties shalf negotiate in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event stJch relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the Parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. 5. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of execution. 6. This Agreement will terminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if the LRSD has failed to apply to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from court supervision by June 30, 2004. 7. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, and that the United States District Court shall have jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement, to resolve disputes between the Parties arising out of this Page 6 of 8 U~/ZG/U1 lHU 10:4/ t'AA - Agreement and to hear any challenge to the legality of this Agreement. 8. This Agreement expresses the entire agreement of the parties and may not be modified or altered except by a writing executed by the authorized representatives of the LRSD and the State. It is specifically contemplated that this Agreement may be modified or amended, with the approval of the LRSD and the State, after further consultation and discussion with the Joshua Intervenors. 9. AJ1 covenants, conditions, agreements and undertakings contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal successors in interest and assigns of the parties. 10. This Agreement is entered into as of the '6ay of March, 2001, by the undersigned officers of the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas Department of Education, each of whom is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. Page 7 of 8 ~vvo UtS / l!l / Ul. 1.11LI .to : \u0026lt;11 rft.A ~vvo UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION H:lliligatioo~uget\\A,bi,su AG - Oacglmi\u0026gt;cll_lS_OI \u0026gt;8\"ffll'Lwpd Page 8 of 8 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY 1192219941 Wll.LIAM H. SUTTON , P. A . BYRON M . EI SEMAN, JR . . P. A . JOE O BELL . P. A . JAMES A BUTTRY , P. A . - EOERICK S . URSERY , P. A . CARE . DAVIS . JR . . P. A . M ES C . ClARK , JR. P. A . ,HO MA$ P. LEGGETT , P. A . JOHN DEWEY WATSO N, P. A\". PAUi. B BEN HAM 111 , P. A . LARRY W BURKS , PA. A WYCKLIFF NISBET , JR, P. A . JAMES EDWARD HARR I S, P. A . J PHIi.LiP MALCOM . P.A JAMES M SIMPSON , P. A . JAMES M SAXTON . P. A . J SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111 , P. A . DO NALD H. BACON , P. A . WILllAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A BARRY E COPLI N, P.A RICHARDO TAYLOR. P.A JOS EPH 8 HURST . J R. , P. A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY . PA Ci, F41STOPHER HEL LER . PA LAURA HENSI.EY SMITH . PA ROBERT S. SHAFER . P. A . WILLIAM M GRI FFIN 111 , P. A . MI CHAEi. S. MOORE , P. A . QlANE S. MACKEY . P. A . WALTER M EBEL 111, PA . KEVIN A CRASS, PA WILLIAM A WA00Ell. JR . PA see n J l ,),NCASTER , p A M GAYLE CORLEY . PA . ROBEAT 8 BEACH , JR . P.A J LEE 9ROWN . PA ,i.:.. ME S C BAKER . JR PA H.:.RRY A llCHT , P.A FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNE YS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201 -3493 TELEPHONE 501 - 376 -2011 FAX NO. 501 -376 -2147 June 5, 2000 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock , AR 72201 Re: Magnet Schools Memorandum of Understanding Dear Tim: SCOTT H. TUCKER, P. A. GUY Al TON WADE . P. A . PRICE C. GARONER. P. A. TONIA P. JONES , P. A . DAVID 0 . WILSON, P. A. JEFFREY H. MOORE, P. A . DAVID M . GRAF, P. A . CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P. A . JOHN C. FENDLEY , JR. , P.A. JOHANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER, P. A . R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON . P. A. GREGORY O. TAYLOR, P. A . TONY L. WILCOX , P. A . FRANC. HICKMAN , P. A . BETTY J. DEMORY. P. A . LYNDA M . JOHNSON, P. A . JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W . PLUNKETT OANIEL l. HERRINGTON IC. COLEMAN WESTBROOK , J R. ALLISON J . CORNWELL ELLEN M . OWENS HELENE N. RAYOER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL CHRIS A . AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A , KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH o, COUNSll 8 . S. CLARK WILLIAM l. TERRY WILLIAM l. PAT TO N , JR . H. T . LARZELERE . P. A . JOHN C. ECHOLS, P. A . Wlllf(lll'S OIIIUCT NO. 150 11 370 - 1506 I have enclosed what I hope to be a final draft Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Magnet Schools. draft incorporates your proposed \"insert A.\" Please let me of a This know whether this draft meets with your client's approval. CJH/bk Encl osure ... EXHIBIT 4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS, Section II.E of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement (as revised September 28, 1989) (hereinafter the \"Settlement Agreement\") between the Little Rock School District ( \"LRSD\") and the State of Arkansas provides that the State of Arkansas, acting primarily through the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") will continue to pay its share of the Magnet School operational costs and transportation costs for the six original magnet schools (Carver, Williams, Gibbs, Booker, Mann and Parkview); and WHEREAS, Section II .D of the Settlement Agreement limits the State's magnet funding obligation so that the State is required to provide magnet funding only to the original six magnet schools; and WHEREAS, the total seating capacity for the six original magnet schools in 1989 was 4 ,065 seats; and WHEREAS, Section II.D of the Settlement Agreement can be read as limiting the State's total magnet funding obligation to 4,065 seats or as limiting the State's magnet funding obligation on a school-by-school basis to the 1989 capacity at each of the six original magnet schools; and WHEREAS, pursuant to its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD reorganized its schools into a new configuration which includes middle schools; and WHEREAS, the Magnet Review Committee requested and won the District Court's approval to change the grade structure of the interdistrict magnet schools and the number of seats within five of the six schools; and WHEREAS, a consequence of LRSD' s change to the middle school configuration is that some of the six original magnet schools have a greater capacity than they did at the time of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and some of those schools have a smaller capacity than they did at the time of the 1989 Settlement Agreement; and WHEREAS, ADE has filed an objection with the District Court, in which it asserts that the State's magnet school funding obligations are limited, on a school-by-school basis, to its share of funding for students up to the 1989 seating capacity at each of the six original magnet schools; and WHEREAS, LRSD has filed a motion with the Court requesting , among other things, that the Settlement Agreement be modified so as to increase the State's magnet school funding obligation beyond its share of funding for a total of 4,065 students for all six original magnet schools; in the alternative, LRSD's motion requested that the Settlement Agreement be modified so as to increase the number of magnet seats funded by the State for certain individual magnet schools; and WHEREAS, the LRSD and the State wish to amicably resolve their differences concerning the effect of LRSD' s restructuring on the State's obligation to fund the six original magnet schools. THEREFORE, it is understood and agreed between ADE (on behalf of the State) and the LRSD as follows: LRSD shall withdraw its motion to modify the Settlement Agreement to the extent it seeks an increase, beyond a total of 4,065 seats, of the State's obligation to fund the six original magnet schools, and LRSD will not take an appeal from the District Court's order denying its motion to so increase the State's obligation . ADE shall withdraw its objection to District Court approval of a change in the number of seats proportionately funded by ADE at 5 of the 6 original magnet schools, provided that ADE will not be required to fund more than a total of 4,065 seats for all 6 original magnet schools collectively. The withdrawal of LRSD's and ADE's motions and objections is based upon their agreement that the restructuring of the LRSD's schools was intended, as part of LRSD's Revised Desegregation Plan, to enhance the quality of education in the LRSD and was not instituted solely as a means to increase the State's magnet school funding obligations. Nothing in this agreement should be construed, interpreted or asserted as a waiver of LRSD's or the ADE's ability to seek future modifications of the Settlement Agreement in regards to the seating capacities or funding of the magnet schools, or the LRSD's or ADE's right to object to proposed changes in seating capacities or funding obligations for the magnet schools, based upon factors other than the LRSD's restructuring of its schools under its Revised Desegregation Plan. Executed this __ day of June, 2000. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION By: ______________ _ Tim Gauger, Its Attorney LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: ______________ _ Christopher Heller 2  AGREEMENT BETWEEN LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND KNIGHT INTERVENORS RELATED TO THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement (the \"Agreement\") is made and entered into on this 6th day of February, 1999 between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Knight Intervenors (\"Knight\"). WHEREAS, LRSD and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (\"LRCT A\"), which is represented in this case by Knight, previously agreed that the amount of the teacher pay increase for the 1998-99 school year would be related to the amount of damages recovered by LRSD from the State of Arkansas on its teacher retirement and health insurance claims; and WHEREAS, LRSD, Knight and the other Parties to the Pulaski County School Desegregation case are expected to agree to a settlement of LRSD' s teacher retirement and health insurance claims which will result in an award to LRSD of an amount less than the full amount of its claims, which agreement and result is material to the validity of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That Knight agrees that LRSD teachers shall receive a 4.25% base pay increase for the 1998-99 school year and that this Agreement supersedes and replaces the following two provisions of the original agreement between LRSD and its teachers with regard to an increase in base pay for the 1998-99 school year: First, the language concerning distribution of a remedy in excess of LRSD's actual cost for teacher retirement and health insurance (paragraph 4 of the original Agreement); and second, the 4.5% base pay provision. 2. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by both Parties; and, EXHIBIT i 5 .f - - - - -- ' 3. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 6th day of February, 1999. Richard Roachell Attorney for Knight Intervenors AGREEMENT AMONG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, JOSHUA INTERVENORS AND KNIGHT INTERVENORS REGARDING TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE This Agreement among Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSDD\"), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), Joshua lntervenors (\"Joshua\") and Knight Intervenors (\"Knight\") regarding teacher retirement and health insurance remedy (the \"Agreement\") is made and entered into on this th day of February, 1999. LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua, and Knight shall be collectively referred to as the \"Parties.\" LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD shall be collectively referred to as the \"Districts.\" WHEREAS, the Parties disagree as to the correct method for calculating the three Pulaski County school districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; and, WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that it is in the best interest of all of the Parties to reach a voluntary settlement of their disagreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That the Districts' collective damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs shall be calculated pursuant to the methodology proposed by ADE as set forth in Court's Exhibit 504; 2. That the Parties shall submit to the Court within five (5) days of this Agreement final numbers for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years from which the Districts damages may be calculated using the methodology proposed by ADE as set forth in Court's Exhibit 504. The State should be ordered to pay those damages within fourteen days of this Agreement; 3. The State should be ordered to reimburse the district in future years on the same ..  EXHIBIT / i 0 a: - monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current year State minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made in January and June based on current year actual participation numbers. The State should be ordered to make payments for the 1998-99 school year, within thirty days of this Agreement, as necessary to bring it into compliance with this paragraph. 4. That the total amount of damages for the Districts as calculated according to the methodology set forth in court's Exhibit 504 shall be distributed each year as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD and I 0% to NLRSD; 5. That the amounts received by each district pursuant to paragraph 3 above shall be regarded as the actual amount of each district's teacher retirement and health insurance remedy. 6. This Settlement Agreement does not resolve the question of whether the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State. That issue is ripe for adjudication by the Court. 7. That LRSD and PCS SD have entered into a separate agreement related to the Pooling Agreement and challenges to the Act 917 funding system which, in part, serves as consideration for this Agreement; 8. That LRSD and Knight have entered into a separate agreement related to teacher pay which, in part, serves as consideration for this Agreement. 9. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by all Parties; and, 2 --------- I 0. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf IN W1TNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 8th day of February, 1999. st~eJones A)~ Attorney for NLRSD 3 Richard Roachell Attorney for Knight  SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Trus Settlement Agreement (the \"Agreement\") is made and entered into on this 911t day of February, 1999, by and between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"). WHEREAS, LRSD and PCSSD disagree as to the correct method for calculating the three Pulaski County school districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; WHEREAS, the district court's interpretation of the Pooling Agreement will likely result in a substantial payment by LRSD to PCSSD; WHEREAS, PCSSD may pursue damages from the State of Arkansas for additional violations of the 1989 Settlement Agreement resulting from the State's change from the Act 34 - funding system to the Act 917 funding system, pursuant to the methodology utilized in PCSSD's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as Regards MFPA filed September 8, 1998; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That this Agreement constitutes consideration, in part, for the settlement agreement entered on this same date concerning the districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; 2. That LRSD's liability to PCSSD under the district court 's interpretation of the Pooling Agreement shall be capped at $450,000.00 for the 1998-99 school year and that neither district's liability to the other will exceed $400,000.00 per year for all subsequent years that the Pooling Agreement is in effect; 3. That LRSD shall receive 30% of PCSSD's damages recovered from the State of - Arkansas for additional violations of the 1989 Settlement Agreement resulting from the State's EXHIBIT 7 - change from the Act 34 funding system to the Act 91 7 funding system pursuant to the methodology utilized in PCSSD's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as Regards MFPA filed September 8, 1998. 4. However, in no event shall PCSSD's damages paid to LRSD pursuant to Paragraph 4 above exceed that amount of LRSD's loss in teacher retirement and health insurance damages resulting from the settlement agreement entered on this same date concerning the districts' damages for the State of Arkansas ' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; 5. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by both Parties; and, 6. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 9th day of February, 1999. 2 I I I I I I ,, I I I I I I HU18CHll N. F\"tOAT Ct82Zlt WILLIAM N. SUTTON. P.A . JAMES 1lf . MOOIIE IYaON M . US(MAN. Jfl . ,.A. JO( O. 8(LL. r . A . JOHN C. (CHOLS. r . A . JAM[S A . IUTTPtY. ,. . A . Ffl(OUUCI . UJHUIY. , .A. OSCAa ( . DAVIS. JII .  f'.A. JAM(S C . ClAtlf; . Jfl . , . A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P. A. JOHN O[W(Y WATSON. P. A. PAUL a. l(NHAM Ill . P.A . LAJUIY W . IUfllS . P . A . A . WYCltllFF NISl(T, Jlll., r . A. JAMES EDWAlliO HAIIIIIS , P. A.. J . ,HILUP MALCOM, r .A. JAM[I M . ltMrSON, P . A . JAMES M . SAXTON, P .A. J . IHlrHUID flUIS(ll IU, P . A . OONALO H. IACON, P . A . WILLIAM THOMAS IAXT[II, r . A. IAIIIIY ( , COPLIN, P\".A. IIICHAJIO D. TAYLOII, , . A. JOS[P'H I. HUtllT, Jll ,, P.A. [UZAIETH flOll(N MUIUIAY, P .A . CHIIISTOPH(II HU. LUI , P .A. LAU\"A HENSLEY SMITH , l\" . A. ltOl(IIT S . SHAF[II, P.A. WILi.i.AM M . GJUFFfN Ill. , . A . MICHA(l S . MOOft(, ,. . A. DIAN( S . MA.Cl[Y , , . A . WALT(ft M . (au Ill , .. . ... . l(VIN 4 . CIIASS , P' . A. WtlllAM A . WADO(Ll, Jft . , r .A . John W. Walker FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLA!tK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCIC, ARKANSAS 722013493 TELEPHONE 601 - 3782011 FAX NO. 601-378-2147 June 10, 1998 VIA FAX and HAND DELIVERY JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: Attorney's Fee Settlement Dear John: SCOfT J . LANCASH  . \" \"  M . OAYl( COIIIUY. r .A oauu I . l(ACH. Jlt . . ,  . J . U( ... OWN , f' . A. JAM(S C . 1141(11. J . P' . A HARRY A . UGHT . , .A . SCOTT N. lUCC(III . r . A . .JOHN ClA'flON \"ANDOll'\" P'  CUT Al TON WAO(. P .   f'l1UC( C . CA110Nl . ,.  TONIA,. JON(S. ,. A . DAVID 0. WUSON. P . A . J(FFlll('f H . MOOU. r  0AYID M . GIIAJ. P . A . CAllllA GUNN(lS S,-AINHOUfl. ,. A .IOHH C. IF(NOl(T . J . . PA . II. CMllll  TOl\"N(III LAWSON Cll(GO\"'f 0. fA'flO\" TONY L. WILCOX FIIAN C. NIClMAN l(TT'f J . 0(W0fl'f  .... A .. A J . ...... o l 'fNOA W. JONNSON JAM($ W . SMITH CllFFOO W . l'lUNl( ff OAHtll l. M(flllllNC:fON ALLISON .J . COIUtW(LL 1000  cu (LUN lot . OW(NS H(l(N( N . ATOUI .JASON I . N(NDA(N SUSANN. CHILDUIS IIIIUC[ a . TIOWUl o, covu WllLIAM J . SMITH a . S . CLAIU WILLIAM L. HT WILLIAM l. ,-AT TON. J H . 1' . lAllll[UR( . , . A . 16011 370 I 601 I will have delivered to you today a check from the Little Rock School District in the amount of $35,000.00 for attorney's fees in the school desegregation case. We have now paid you $100,000.00 based upon our expectation that we will be able to reach a complete agreement concerning past and future fees and costs in the desegregation case. In accordance with our telephone conversation today, we now have such an agreement subject to the approval of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. I expect the Board of Directors to approve our agreement at its June meeting. LRSD will make the following payments for past fees and costs: $100,000.00 on or before June 30, 1998; $100,000.00 on or before August 31, 1998; and $500,000.00 on or before October 31, 1998. U or fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD will reimburse your firm up to $48,333.33 per year for three years beginning July 1,1,a---, 1998. - The payments described in this letter will constitute full anc complete payment in satisfaction of all past or future claims for attorney's fees and costs except as specifically set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Please sign this letter l:iCI ::z: 00 \u0026gt;\u0026lt; Ill 1 It I I I I I I ,I I I I I - It I I John w. Walker June 10, 1998 Page 2 to indicate your acceptance of these terms and your willingness to sign a comprehensive settlement agreement containing these terms. Thank you for your cooperation. I will keep you advised of the progress toward approval of this agreement by the LRSD Board of Directors. The Joshua Intervenors agree to the settlement terms set forth in this letter. rney A PROF\"\":.SSIO~Al. CORPORATI0:-1 :\\TTOR..'-'EYS\"AT L~W 120J '\\J:.'CRTI;EN aANlC Bl,'U..OL'-:G LITi1..E Rea:. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 314-7100 -:-a.E:c::rl' CX'IJ n~l\u0026amp;ll :!ay 31, 1989 ~e: ~ittle ~eek School Dist=ict vs. Pulaski C~unty S?ecial School District No. 1, et al, NO. LR-C-82-866 John W. Walker, Escr. Christopher Heller; Esq. Ste?hen W. Jones, Esq. M. Sa~uel Jones, Esq. ~ic~ard W. Roachell, Esq. Dear Counsel: In_ accorc.ance wi t:1 III.A. o:f the ?ulas}~i County Deseq:::-ega tion Settlenent .::..greement c-f .Ma::::-ch, l 9 8 9, we are enclosing an Arkansas DeDartment of Education ?12.n fer ~c~i toring i!uplementation of compensc.to~y educ2. t.ic:1 ~n t.he ~tree school c.istricts. The settleme!\"lt 2gree;:1e!lt does not !)rov:i.Ce :\"c::- :::..lir:c; . or -:ve\" submission of ~his document ~o the Cou::::-t a~ -;:::.:s time. :-:cwever, we are senc.ing copies to both Judge ;,oocs and Xr. ~cC~tcheon so that thev mav be aware that this re~ui=enent of t~e settlement acree~e~t has been met. We antici?ate that the enclosed olan ma'v be .nodified afte:::- :::-eceivinc .cur com.':lents 2.nc after-we learn more about the monitoring r~le ~hat will be untertaken by Eugene Reville. :rW.V:-im :Snclosure cc: The Honorable Hen=y ~ccts Sincerely yours, ALLEN !..A\\: FIF.N ~iJw_(JJJ__ H. William ,AJ,,len , ', The Honorable Aubrey V. Mccutcheon, Jr. ~c~: Dr. Ru~~ Ste~le Sam Sratton, ~sa . Sharon St=ee~~, -~3~. Esa. .; 1 ~ lC EXHIBIT l l  One of the Att One for NLRSD WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS By ~~ -- M. Samuel Jones One of the Attorneys _for PCSSD ROACHELL By tJJ -=p-a--'-u-::1:--:~'-=-::-~-~------ 0ne of Knight the Attorneys for the Intervenors e - i\\RlQ.NS;l.S DEPJ..R.TMDIT OF EDUO..TIOH PULASKI COUNT'! DESZGREGATION MONITORING The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement (the Agreement) provides for the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of ~ducation (ADE), to monitor the irople_~entation of compensatory education programs by t:he school districts in Pulaski Co~nty. The ADE defines comoensatocy educatiQ~_p.J:.agm~ as those o~qg;:_ams wnich are directed at .La,provina the ac2de:nj c r:e,..-=or:;;12:nce -0f-.bl2.ck s..t:udents whose acaaern.ic achievement bas been adversely affected  discriminatorv practices w  D...J:h.e school. Tb.e___state comoensato effects of the programs shouia:'oe it~es in eaucationa Although the Agreement identifies compensatory education as the ~rimary area 'for monitoring, the state's monitoring responsibility is necessarily broader in order to ensure an eauitable education for all students and demonstrate fiscal a~countability to the tax payers of Arkansas. 1:-lonitoring responsibilities for ~esegregation effectiveness by necessity must permeate all elemen~s of schooling to ensure equal opportunities through special state funded remedial progr~s- Therefore, it shall ~e the goal of the ~.DE to ?rovide extensive monitoring and eval\\!acion oi the Agreement. The primary focus of the orocess shall be a continuous assessment 0 the remedial effectiveness of ~rcgr~~s supported partially or f~lly by special state funding resulting from Little Rock School Districc vs. ?ulaski Countv Soeci2.l School District, et al., No. LR-C-82-866. The programs and serv~ces receiving special funding include: 1. ~pe~satory ~cucatio::i)) 2. Magnet Schools ~ 3. Magnet School Transportation 4. Majority to Minority Transfers The Agreement commits ~he state to: l. Direct funui~g to the districts (~ithin the limits provided in ~he Agreement) 2. Principles o~ desegregation a. Remediation of racial academic achievement dispari~ies l ------ ------------------~ b. d. Standacdi:ed test yalidation R~~i~l bala~~e ir. ~pecial programs Minority !'ec:::-u.it:nenc a.nci employ;;ie!1t 3. Site selection c=lceria for school constructio~ or ~xpansion 4. Staff dcvelopme~c release days fer ~he t.~ree districts through _l990-l991 5. -r-... ~ni:-.y million dollars loan to Litt.le ~cc~: School Districc .:.o d~velo? programs for remediacing .a~~ievement disparities and or ~t~er programs and initiacives which facilitate desegregat.ion 6. Selection oi an a~:::-eed standardized test t.o satisfy the loan forgiveness of t.~e ~grcement ..,. .. 3. The ADE shall ~r~vicc 4egular w~it.t.~n ~cn~t.ori~g reporcs t~ t.hc ~art.ies anc tje court. Monitoring by t~e st.ac?. shall be i.idependenc of t.hat of the other parties. As a .last resor~, P.DE may petition the cou~t for modifications or changes in such programs ~eing implemenr.ed ~y ~he districts lbut ~ot fvr ~ r?.6uction in the agr~ed level of stata funding). 4. Any recommc:nca.:ic~s mci.,-:e  oy l\u0026gt;.DE shall :1oc ::or.n t.he basis of ~ny ~ccitior.~l f~nc.ing responsi~il:-::i2s 0f .:h~ _state. Jl.lthongh, i:'!.e .!..DC: rnoni::.;):!\":.:,g shall be inc..~?e?;dc:1c :::)= .::iat of t':le other par~ies, the dis~=:.c~s are advised to cs.:ablish an internal monitoring pla=-i. ~he ;:nr;-ose sha.ll be to det.e=mine anc. document:. that: \\. Th~ desegrega.:ion plan ~as, or is ce~~; implemented on a timely b.;sis, 2. Inequities do no.: exisc and/or do n~r recur; and 3. J\u0026gt;.11 ~tuden.:s a-:e afforc.ed an equi-::a::,le educa-=.ion. 2 L.. !.;CN 1 TOiUHG ~he monitoring process shall be conducted to ensure effectiveness of court order remedies and will include site visitaticns, review ~ plans, review of statistical and administrative data as we11  as percep~ual responses from school personnel, patrons and students. Further, monito_ring ' isits should provide evidence that the school $lte is representative of the pl~ralistic nature of the Air,erican Society. Monitoring tcc:.ms shall be selected by the Director, Arkansas Department 0 Education (]illE), General Division. Tbe teams shall include ;h.DE personnel and may include others as designa-c.ed by the Director. Monitoring visits shall be contl~cted acco~a~ng to a scnedule ~stablishcd by -che i\\DE. The mor1i taring process shall include anno11nced and unannounced visits. Monitors sholl record ~vents and conditions during sit~ visits. Monitors shall observe and report f ind.ings only.  E:ach district shall include in the six-year plan and unxwal school improvement: plans appropriate objectives to c1chieve .;,.:impliance with each court orde:r rela.ted to the Agrcem\u0026lt;::nt.. The ADshall monitor the  si:;;:-vec:1.r olans and :i.nnua.i school improvement pLrns t0 de:t~r~ine progress towa!:d cchieving educational equi tY. District plans should prov-ide evid.ence of ~ompliacce ~ith court aiders and a process to ascertain progress. 'The AD'E shall identify relevant daca necessary to formulc::.te conclusions and recommendations. ~ata should provide: 1. Evidence that policies, pro~edures, rules and requlaticns are developed and implemented to facilitate de$egrega,:ion. 2. Evidence that plans r~lated to reducing achieve~ent disparity between black and non-black students are progressively successful. 3. Evidence ~hat student assignments to schools, clc::.sses and prc:\u0026gt;grams at each organi:::at:ional level are made without bias. 4. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the ~greement are used to facilitate the desegregation process . . 5. Evidenc~ that travel time to and =~cm schools is ~ot disproportionate among black and non-black students and the percentage of black scudents transportea =or desegregation is not significantly greater than the pe.~entage of non-black students transported for desegreg~tion. 6. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the ne-=ds of a diverse student pop11lation . 7. Evidence of intern~l procedures for ensuring thr-t materials for appraising or counseling s~udents are non-discriminatoty. 8. Evidenc~ that cur~icular content ~na'instructio~al strategies arc utilized to meet: the diverse ne2ds of the student population serv~a. 9. Evidence that personnel is recruited, employed and :i~signed in a 1nanner to meet ~he goals of a desegregating school district. 10. Evidence that nroce~u~es related to cxtracurricula and ;::o,:urricula 3.ccivit.ies are develooed and imolemented t.o identify and eli~inate =onditions.that resuit ir. participation th~t is dispr.oportionate to the studen~ population. 11. Evidence of aiverse representation on appointed dist.r.i.ct\\.Jic.e nnd school-based committees. 12. Evidence of efforts to .ensure that oaicnt attendance at :.;chool function:~ 1::; not ,11.::proporti~nate t\".o the student population.  l). EJiden,::e of- succ~s:; relate:! to Hajority to Minor:..;:y ~-~a.tts!ars . ;_ 11. Evidence that magnet: schools are an eifective interdis~rict remed.t fo~ racial balance. The collection of data shall include ~t le~st the following: A. Enrol~nent/Attendance 1. Enrollm~nt by race, gender, school, grade, transported, nontransported and instructional prog 1:a.ms. 2. Enrollment by race, gender, grade, .:ransported, nontransporced and instructional program fo~ each magnet scnool. ) . Numbe . .r. of non promotes by race, gender, grace, sch.ool, ::eacher, transported. and. n0nt.ranspor~ed.. B. Test Data Arr:ans;:..s Ninirr.um Performance Tesc results by race, gender, grade, school and :;ocioeconomic status {SES). N:umber of eighth graders failing to axcain 1nast.ery after the first, second and third ad.ministration of test. by race, gend~r, SES and school. Nwnbe= 0 eighth graders th2. t: are non promotes f _or failir.g ;:o at.tain mastery aft.er thi:::-d adrni:1istration of test ~y race, gender, SES and schoql. 14. Metr0politan ~chievement Test - 6th Editiun or other . national normed tests ~s may be adopted by the ADE. Results should be given by race , gender~ grade, school, s~s and teacher. ~S .. ~umber of llth and 12th graders b~ race, gender, ~chool ~na guidance counselor who t~ke the PSAT, S~T or ACT. C:. St:aft , 1. Number of Full TimP- Equivalent lF.T.E.) classroom t1:acl1ers by race, gender, school, years of experien~e. 2. Number of ?.T.E. school-based aaminiscrators by job category, r2.ce, gender1 school, ye2.rs oi experience. 3. Nun\\b~r of F.T.E. counselors by race, g~nder, school, years ct CX?erience.  5 - -'\\ . 5_ 6 . 7 . 8. Numher of F.T.E. kindergarten teachers by race, gender, school, years of experience. Number of F.T.E- librarians oy race, gender, school, years of experience. Numb~r of F.T.E. department heads by race , . gender, school, yea.rs of experience. Nt1mber of F.T.E. secretaries by race, gender, school, years of experience_ N'..llnber of =.T . E. cent~al offic~ positions by job category, race, gender, school, years of experience. D- Policy and Program Infonnation 1. Administrative chart indicates titles, names, responsibilities and reporting responsibilities_ 2. Policies and regulations related to student entrance and exit criteria for course offerings ~nd special state funded programs including: ::'I.. Ma.gnet Schools h. Compensatory Education c. Majority to Minority Transfers d. Transportation 0  - ~   M - - -  3. Student assignment policies, rules ~nd regulations. 4. District policies, rules, regulations and written administrative directives governing: a. Class Assignment b. Testing c. Guidance and Counseling d. Extracurricular Activities e. Student Rights and Responsibilities f. Libr~~Y Usage g_ Student Records S.  Copies of current negotiated agreements with all e~ployee groups. E. Budget Information Quarterly (or monthly, if available) financial reports including: 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by .funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). 6 .. 2. Transportat:i on cost: and funding sour,ce. 3. All legal fees reported by type of services. 4. Compensatory ~ducacion Program cost 5. Magnet school cost: F. Student Discipline 1. ..liW.IlP_er of discipl~D~ .. r .ef err.als _ by __ !,\u0026gt;chool and teacher repbri~d by ra~i.- gender, grade, subject and  teachers' ye:;.rs cf experience; .. 2. Student suspensions, exclusions and expulsions according to type of infractions, length of punishment by race, gender, school and teacher. G. Perceptional Data Results of survey to ascertain perception toward school quality, ~ s_~ces, district ... c:3,I).Q. _ building ~rship, speclal s~ate funded programs and educational equity summarizeci.b~ace, gender, attendance zone, school and grade. ii. Majority to Minority Transfer Number and percentage of students by gender, race, school and grade lev~l, by sending and receiving district. /' ~alysis of data _shall be __ conduct.ed by appropriate ADE personnel and other persons as designated. by the ADE director, Additional data may be required of the c.istricts, a$ deemed necessary by the ADE for the monitoring repor-.s. A schedule . for submitting the data shall be established by the Jl..DE - Si!1ce the moni torir1g is ~assi ,:e anci. e~~ompassir:.g, the A.DC: shall establishmonitoring priorities as. follows: 1. Programs and se~vices supported by special state. desegregation funding incluqing. compensatory educa~ion, magnet schools, majcri ty to minority transfers and related.transpor-.ation. 2. Low achieving schools. 3. Schools with new principals. 4. Any situation icient~fied as unusual. 5. Expanded monitoring as resources permit. 7 -. / ;t,onitoring activities shall be coordinated by the ADE Equity Assistanc~ Center. The site visitation will be conducted by a Learn of no less than two members and no more than five members. At least one team member will be an education professional from the }I.DE. The Equity Assistance Center may conduct random monitoring to ensure the quality of monitoring procedures. Since data analysis is essential to the monitoring process, the state requests the Court to instruct the three districts to provide the ADE all data necessary to implement the monitoring actiJi ties. P.EPORTING The ADE shall provide a written report to the parties and the . Court on a semiannual schedule initially. These initial reports will be on February 1 (or nearest workday) and July 15 (or - nearest workday) of each year or as directed by the Court. The Equity Assistance Center shall be responsible for the written monitoring reports. The written report shall contain a description of the progress of the desegregation process in Pulaski County. Programs end services receiving special state funding resulting from Little Rock School District vs. P11laski Countv Special School Dis~rict 1 et al . , No. LR-C-82-866 shall receive reporting priority. The reports will contain both financi2.l and program information. * The _ADE Desegregation \u0026gt;.ssistance Te~n s~all provide ~ech~i~al . assistance atid suzoort as necessary to implement monitoring ana ..,reporting respor_isibili ties. Current team members are: Administration Student Services Emma Bass Brenda l1a.tthews Sterling Ingram ~1argie Po.vell Robert Shaver Sue Swenson Sue McKenzie Gifted/Talented Martha Bass Federal Programs Clearence Lovell Blizabeth Gaston Incentive Schools Carolyn Elliott Glenda Peyton Marie Parker Early Childhood TBA curriculum Lynda White Horace Snith Janita Hoskyn 3 Special Education Diane Sydoriak Benny Abraham Staff Develoomcnt c-aylc T2al Jackie Dec.man .:.taff 1'.t.tornev Sharon Streett Vocational Education Jean i-lcEnt:.ire - - --- - -- Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD regarding hiring teachers under contact with another district. The districts have agreed not to hire teachers under contract with another district from one month before the start of a school year through the end of the school year unless the position at the hiring district is considered a promotion. EXHIBIT /j Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD and the LRCT A regarding the use of intern teachers to fill vacancies. The LRSD and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association have agreed that a teaching position that becomes vacant after the first student-contact day will be filled with an intern teacher whose teaching contract will not be renewed at the end of the school year. At that time, the position will be listed as vacant and filled consistent with District policy and the PN Agreement. The intern teacher may apply for the position, but he or she is not entitled to any preference in hiring. -.. EXHIBIT 1 i IC \\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. PCSSD RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER DATED MARCH 1, 2002 The PCSSD for its response, states: RECEIVED APR . -2 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. It has reviewed the proposed submission of the LRSD and believes the LRSD has adequately described those items that are responsive to the Court's March1, 2002, Order. 2. Item 3 of the LRSD response is a copy of its agreement with the State. The PCSSD wishes to note that the only parties to this agreement are the State and LRSD. PCSSD was not involved in the negotiation of this agreement, is not a party to it and does not believe the agreement has any legal effect upon the PCSSD. Further, the PCSSD does not believe that said agreement could operate to affect or diminish or curtail in any manner those sums and payments which the State is obligated to pay to or on behalf of the PCSSD for the desegregation and other financial programs described within it. 327291-v1 3. Finally, a discrete section of the May 1988 \"Joshua Agreement\" retains vitality. It addresses student balance goals in the PCSSD and is referred to in each of the ODM monitoring reports concerning racial balance. The operative language is quoted by the Court of Appeals as follows: \"However, at a minimum, at the end of the implementation period, no PCSSD school shall have a black enrollment which exceeds the then prevailing black ratio, by organizational level, in the Little Rock School District.\" See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 @ 1378, 1379 (8th Cir. 1990). 327291-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 B -~..-=--:--f-..;..:_-:-:-:---:::-::~-:-:--+----ci a I 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 1, 2002, 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 327291-v1 3 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Ms. Colette D. Honorable 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 P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff, V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. , Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., I ntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., lntervenors. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED APR .- 2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING NLRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING AGREEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 In its Order of March 1, 2002, the Court directed the parties to identify and submit copies of all its agreements with any other party to the case. The Little Rock School District has shared its list of agreements as contained in the LRSD's Notice of Filing Agreements as required by Order filed March 1, 2002, with the NLRSD. The NLRSD agrees that the agreements listed by the LRSD are in fact agreements among some or all of the parties. The NLRSD is not aware of any additional agreements. Therefore, the NLRSD adopts the Notice of Filing Agreements as its own. However, the NLRSD notes that it was not a party to Item #3, Agreement between the LRSD and the State dated March 19, 2001 re: Unitary Status, Sale of Bond and $20 million loan. Therefore, while the NLRSD agrees that this Agreement exists, it reserves its right to object to the legitimacy and/or scope of that Agreement. Respectfully submitted, Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P. A. 425 W. Capitol 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-1122 Si:WA)~ Stephen W. Jqnes (No. 78-083) I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons via U. S. Mail on this 1st day of April, 2002. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue 2000 Bank of America Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell Law Firm P. 0 . Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 _......, ~\u0026lt;GW~ ephen W. Jones // RECEIVED APR - 3 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING p= ;; ~ '''-=\"' I\"\"'' 1;= J l1 k= 4 1 a ~--=bl-.II U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARMl'1SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAl~SAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 82:CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT, ET AL. :rv.tRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. _l,l\\MES W. McCORMACK CL:: :-;: .r- ' -,' --------~ PLAINTIB'F c.: - -~ DEFENDANTS JNTER VENO RS JNTER VEN ORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF FILING AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1. 2002 On March 1, 2002, the Court required the parties to identify any agreements, formal or informal, that existed between the parties. Joshua responds as follows: 1. Joshua Intervenors would be involved in monitoring activities involving plan implementation regarding the three districts. The Districts agreed to cooperate and otherwise facilitate Joshua monitoring. 2. Joshua was to be involved in Little Rock and Pulaski County with the selection of principals for certain schools; devisation of programs, policies and procedures where changes in school operations were contemplated; and were to be informed of administrative plans which had desegregation implications before those plans were presented to either of the school boards for final action. 3. The parties were to cooperate in identifying programs, policies, and procedures which actually either worked or did not work to achieve expected goals of the settlement agreements and, where necessary, to either build upon such programs or to discard them and replace them with programs which had greater probability of success. 4. The districts were to provide data and other information when requested by Joshua in the same manner that such data was to be prepared to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring when requested by that body. 5. The State Department of Education, though relieved as a party, was expected to comply with the requirements of the Allen letter. The State Department was also expected not to forgive the Little Rock School District loan of 20 million dollars without the remediation goals set forth in the Consent Decree having been achieved. 6. There was a scholarship commitment imposed upon Little Rock schools, formerly - identified as Incentive Schools, which guaranteed every student of those schools who graduated from a Little Rock high school with a \"C\" average college tuition. 7. The State Department ofEducation and the parties were required to identify legislation and other state actions which had discriminatory impact upon black students. The State of Arkansas agreed to discontinue and to prevent continuation of those practices. 8. The agreement entered into between the Pulaski County School District and the Joshua Intervenors known as the Joshua Agreement. CONCLUSION The Joshua Intervenors had hoped to continue their discussions with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in seeking to identify other possible agreements but due to the absence of ODM Moniror, :Wlrs. Ann S. Marshall, we are unable to have that input before the filing deadline. Joshua, therefore, requests leave of court to supplement the foregoing understandings after Mrs. Marshall returns to her office. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) ( CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing filing h counsel of record via United States mail on this 1st day of Ap  , 20 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT us FILED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN W,~~~1, c;_TT COURT \" ARl\u0026lt;~ NSAS WESTERN DMSION APR 3 Z002 , ' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * JAMES Vi   fi , v. /Vi c 1...~li ACK, CLERK Qv , _ ,~ DEP.CLERK No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED APR -5 2002 OfACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER The Joshua Intervenors' unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status is GRANTED. Responses to the LRSD motion are due on or bef;:;ursday, April 18, 2002. DATED thid _ _ day of April, 2002. TATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE 0~ 11;~ A~~/0 79(a) FRCP 589 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL v1 (),At:u l 1t i. f/4_ RECEIVED APR 1 7 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF FILING AGREEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Response to the Joshua Intervenors' Notice of Filing Agreements as Required by Order Filed March 1, 2002 states: 1. The LRSD admits that it contemplated that Joshua would monitoring the LRSD's implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). The LRSD also admits that it agreed to \"cooperate or otherwise facilitate\" Joshua monitoring to the extent consistent with Revised Plan 8.2 and 8.3 and with the agreement between the LRSD and Joshua dated June 10, 1998 regarding past and future attorneys' fees for monitoring, attached as Exhibit 8 to LRSD's Notice of Filing Agreements as Required by Order Filed March 1, 2002. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 1 of Joshua's April 1, 2002 filing. 2. The LRSD denies that it agreed that Joshua was to be involved in the selection of principals for certain schools; the devisation of programs, policies and procedures where changes in school operations were contemplated; and was to be informed of administrative plans which had desegregation implications before those plans were presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval. 3. The LRSD admits that it agreed to \"cooperate\" with Joshua in identifying programs, policies and procedures which worked or did not work to the extent consistent with Revised Plan 2.7.1, 8.2 and 8.3. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 3 of Joshua's April 1, 2002, filing. 4. The LRSD denies that it agreed to provide data and other information when requested by Joshua in the same manner that such data was to be prepared to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring when requested by that body. 5. The LRSD admits that the \"Allen letter\" represents an agreement among all the parties to this case. See Exhibit 11 to LRSD's Notice of Filing Agreements as Required by Order Filed March 1, 2002. The LRSD denies that there was an agreement not to forgive the $20 million loan to the LRSD from the State pursuant to the 1989 Settlement Agreement. To the contrary, it was not contemplated at the time the 1989 Settlement Agreement was negotiated that the LRSD would ever have to repay the $20 million loan from the State. 6. The LRSD admits that it agreed to provide scholarships to the extent consistent with-Revised Plan 5.8. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 6 of Joshua's April 1, 2002, filing. 7. The LRSD admits that the 1989 Settlement Agreement required the State to \"research and list\" laws that impede desegregation and obligated other parties to assist the State 2 in identifying existing or proposed statutes and regulations that impede desegregation. See 1989 Settlement Agreement,  IILD. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 7 ofJoshua's April 1, 2002, filing. 8. The LRSD takes no position with regard to the \"Joshua Agreement\" identified in Paragraph 8 of Joshua's April 1, 2002, filing. 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 BY:------,4-'li\"L,C--l_.__;_i~~~~~':L...:......- 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on April 17, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen 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 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor I Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Offi~e of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 4 9NIHOllNOW NOllY93H93S3a ~o 3~1:1:fO ZOOZ 6 1 ~d\\f RECEIVED APR 1 9 2002 OFACEOF FILED U.S. DISTRICT GOURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS . APR 1 8 2002  a3Al303t:t DESEGREGATION MONITORING JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT co~ ' EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERK WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. :tvIRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSD'S MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Come the Joshua Interveno~, by and through undersigned counsel, John W. Walker; -P.A., and respectfully move the court for an extension of time for an additional thirty days in which to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for An Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. Joshua respectfully states: 1. In accordance with the Court's orders ofJanuary 25, 2002 and February 12, 2002, Joshua and the LRSD have engaged in settlement discussions regarding LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status. The parties agree that additional time is needed to continue these discussions. 2. Counsel for the Little Rock School District, Mr. Chris Heller, has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate to the Court that the Plaintiff, LRSD, does not object to the requested extension. 3. Neither party will be prejudiced by the court granting the requested extension. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court enter an order extending the time which to respond up and including May 20, 2002. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) \\! , '' l ', , ~, By~d-    / . (, JJo n W. Walk.e r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been sent to all counsel of record via United States mail postage prepaid on this 1 t 11 day of April ,, 002.  Jk,_\u0026lt;j( i V\"' 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 APR 2 9 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF FILING AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 The PCSSD for its Response to those paragraphs of Joshua's filing which relate to it state: 1. Admits that it knew that Joshua would seek to engage in monitoring activities, but denies that Joshua has engaged in appropriate monitoring activities. 2. Denies that Joshua was to be involved with the selection of principals, denies that Joshua was to be involved in administrative plans, but acknowledges that Joshua has a role to play as respecting programs, policies and procedures as set forth in Plan 2000. 3. Admits that a role for Joshua is set forth in Plan 2000 regarding programs, policies and procedures regarding educational achievement. 4. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4 as phrased, but acknowledges that Joshua is enterprising in its efforts to obtain information from the PCSSD. 5. 333093-v1 Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 7. 6. Admits that a portion of the Joshua Agreement retains vitality as respects student assignment in the PCSSD. 7. Denies the remaining allegations contained in Joshua's submission. 333093-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 --- -- c--::J:-  ~ .,,.. r,, By J) I --\u0026lt; / ;  \\'- ) '-----' M. Samuel Jones Ill (76,,060) Attorneys for Pulaski-e\"ounty Special School Distr-ict ......._ ___ -- -.. - 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 25, 2002, 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 333093-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Ms. Colette 0. Honorable 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 P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 M. Samuel Jones Ill (___) J . 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REC-EIVED APR 3 O 2002 OFACE 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 April, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney Gen 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 29, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: 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 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 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 April 30, 2002 ~tttizit~~~;tA~~wltgt~~S'.~~g1iiil~il.~if~r~1,~1111,~,~-ftdl~-t~'aHhe 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_1704","title":"Court filings: District Court, amended motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Report on the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) Preparations for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan''; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' amended motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, response to Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and motion to modify settlement agreement; District Court, brief in support of response to Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and motion to modify settlement agreement; District Court, notice of filing, 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. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1999-08"],"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--20th century","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, amended motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Report on the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) Preparations for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan''; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' amended motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, response to Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and motion to modify settlement agreement; District Court, brief in support of response to Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and motion to modify settlement agreement; District Court, notice of filing, 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/1704"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["80 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  RECEIVED AUG 9 1999 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF WESTERN DIVISION DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AMENDED MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE DAMAGES For their amended motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) (the \"Districts\") state: 1. On February 18, 1997, this Court found that the state changed its method of funding the teacher retirement program to the detriment of the districts and in violation of the settlement agreement. This Court made the same finding with respect to the health insurance matching program on April 22, 1997. On July 1, 1998 the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's decisions with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance and directed this Court to decide what relief would be appropriate for the districts. 2. After a hearing, all of the other parties agreed to accept the state's proposed - methodology for calculating damages. That methodology is set forth in Court's Exhibit 504. See Exhibit A to \"Motion for an Order Directing the State to Distribute the Districts' Undisputed Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Damages,\" filed February 9, 1999. 3. On February 9, 1999 the districts asked the Court to order the state to pay the undisputed amount shown in Exhibit 504 for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years. On March 4, 1999, this Court entered the requested order. The districts' efforts to reach an agreement with the state for payment for the 1998-99 school year and future years have been unsuccessful. The districts must therefore seek an order from this Court requiring those payments. 4. Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the state should be ordered to reimburse the districts each year on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current state minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made in September of each year using current year actual participation numbers. ~or the 1998-99 school year, the state should be ordered to immediately pay the districts the amount necessary to bring it into compliance with this paragraph. The districts have agreed that the total amount of damages calculated according to the methodology set forth in Court's Exhibit 504 should be distributed each year as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD and 10% to NLRSD. WHEREFORE, the districts pray that the state be ordered to immediately pay the districts' damages for the 1998-99 school year calculated in accordance with Court's Exhibit 504 subject to an amendment in September, 1999; and, using the methodology in Court's Exhibit 504, to reimburse the districts in future years on the same monthly schedule as equalization  funding using prior year average participation numbers and current year state minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made each September based on current year actual 2 participation numbers; and that the districts be awarded interest, costs, attorneys ' fees and all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT FRJDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 ~ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT M. Samuel Jones WRJGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501-371-0808 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501-375-1122 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 51h day of August, 1999: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 4 Melissa Guldin Associate Monitor Norman Marshall Associate Monitor Horace Smith Associate Monitor u.s';fh.ED EASTi=RN o,srr,c ' '~.vRT ,, T t,,,,,,NS!\\S Report on the r. u ,.. l .ti ti l  ,-,09 Little Rock School District's  1 ..:.:., ' '1~ ~ . Preparations for Implementation of it~v-' ... :.:. .'.\" ::'.-.;-; f'L .::- .-  -.., Revised Desegregation and Education Pfair  .,_ -' K August 11, 1999 Office of Desegregation Monitoring l[.S. District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor - i:-;,~ Gene Jones Associate Monitor Margie Powell Associate Monitor Polly Ramer Office Manager IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVEO AUG 2 o 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONiTORINQ. LITfLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO THE DISTRICTS' \"AMENDED MOTION FORAN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE DAMAGES\" On May 11, 1999, the Districts filed a motion requesting immediate partial payment of their fiscal year 1999 teacher retirement and health insurance \"damages.\" In that motion the Districts also requested that, for FY 2000, they should be paid such damages \"on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current state minimum required numbers, with adjustments to be made in June of each year using current year actual participation numbers.\" In its response to that motion, filed May 25, 1999, ADE noted that the methodology used to create Court's Exhibit 504 - the methodology the Districts \"agreed to accept ... for calculating damages\" - requires full-year data on school district employee health insurance participation, for the Districts and for all other school districts in the State. Further, the methodology used to create Exhibit 504 also requires - full-year data concerning health insurance participation by employees of the ODM. As of the date of its response, such data was not available because FY 1999 had not ended and LRSD had not yet provided to ADE data concerning ODM employee health insurance participation for FY 1999. In their \"amended\" motion the Districts again ask for immediate payment of their teacher retirement and health insurance damages for FY 1999. In addition, the Districts have only slightly modified their proposed schedule for such damage payments for FY 2000. With respect to FY 2000 and beyond, the Districts now state: Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the state should be ordered to reimburse the districts each year on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current state minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments made in September of each year using current year actual participation numbers. Amended motion, ,r 4.1 With respect to the Districts' request for \"immediate\" payment of their FY 1999 retirement and health insurance damages, the motion is moot. ADE has now obtained complete full-year FY 1999 data on school district retirement costs and health insurance participation and has also received from LRSD full-year FY 1999 retirement and health insurance data for ODM employees, which has enabled it to perform the \"Exhibit 504\" 1 In its initial motion filed May 11, the Distric:ts correctly noted that there were issues concerning teacher retirement and health insurance\" damages\" that had not been resolved by this Court. The Districts' amended motion has deleted any reference to unresolved issues, but unfortunately unresolved issues still exist. LRSD and PCSSD have appealed this Court's June 16, 1999 order, in which this Court rejected the Districts' contention that they were entitled to damages to compensate them for more than 100% of their actual retirement and health insurance costs.  2 - damage calculations for FY 1999. See Exhib~t A hereto. The attached calculation and supporting paperwork have already been submitted to the Department of Finance and Administration and warrants payable to the Districts, in the amounts indicated on Exhibit A hereto, should be available shortly. The Districts' request for monthly payments during FY 2000, based upon some form of II averaging\" of prior year's participation data, should be denied. As the Districts admit, the Districts \"agreed to accept the state's proposed methodology\" for calculating damages, and that methodology clearly requires full-year actual cost data for the Districts and all other school districts in the State before the calculation may be performed. More important, though, is the fact that the Districts' proposal makes little sense in light of the way the Exhibit 504 calculations are performed and in light of the availability of the data necessary to perform the Exhibit 504 calculations. For example, as best ADE understands it, the Districts' proposal would require payments II on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding,\" which means that some sort of estimated payment would need to be made in August of each fiscal year. At the same time, however, the Districts' motion appears to concede th~t in some circumstances final data for the prior fiscal year's damage calculation might not be available until the September after the fiscal year has ended,2 and as the Districts know, information 2 Amended motion, 1 4 (requesting\" adjustments to be made in September of each year using actual participation numbers [for the prior fiscal year]). 3 concerning school district retirement matching costs is not available until sometime in October of the fiscal year. While ADE is willing to agree to some form of interim payment schedule in which estimated payment or payments would be made to the Districts at some point or points during the fiscal year with a final accounting and adjustment to be performed when compete fiscal year data is available, the \"monthly payment\" plan proposed by the Districts, as best ADE can understand it, makes little sense. Accordingly, the Districts' motion should be denied. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on August 19, 1999, I caused a copy of the . foregoing document to be served by first class U.S. Mail on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M.SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 5 \\ Page 1 State 1998-99 Equalization Additional Distribution Equalization Est. Total for Est Funding Pursuant Eimdin1 D!.lnifii11 D!.lnifit!I R!.lguir!.ld to Qrd!.lr / / Little Rock School District: $ 46,660,674 $ 14,681,738 $ 6,966,462 $ 7,616,276 $ 6,173,264 North Litlle Rock School District: $  26,187,899 $ 4,914,660 $ 3,917,710 $ 996,941 $ 1,028,877 Pulaski County Special School District: $ 66,864,014 $ 10,032,813 $ 8,367,266 $ 1,676,666 $ 3,086,632 State Totals: $ 1,340,461,886 $ 200,602,491 $ 200,633,098 $ 10,288,773 $ 10,288,773 14.96% ~('c . -,~ ~~ T ~ 11--:r r:\u003e ,1,.(. o~~ -\" ...... ._ ---- -------- RECEIVED AUG 3 1 1999 OFflCE 01- DESEGREGATIOtl MONITORING ufol6~cijRT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C'OSRllT'J DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 7 1999 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: OEP. CLERK PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO ADE AND MOTION TO MODIFY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT For its Response and Motion, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: 1. LRSD's revised Desegregation and Education Plan requires the reorganization of , LRSD's grade structure to employ the middle school concept in all schools including Magnet - Schools. The Arkansas Department ofEducation (\"ADE\") did not object to this aspect of the revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 2. The Magnet Review Committee has approved a change in the grade structure and the number of seats at the Magnet Schools for the 1999 school year. According to the MRC's letter to the Court seeking approval of its action, the entire MRC, including the two ADE representatives, voted to change the grade structure and to increase the number of seats in the Magnet Schools. The MRC determined that ADE and the three Pulaski County School Districts should share the cost increase in the same proportion each party now pays to support the Magnet Schools. This is a fair and reasonable approach supported unanimously by representatives of all the parties concerned. 3. The MRC's May 7, 1999 letter to the Court asked the Court to approve a proposed increase in ADE's share of Magnet School funding in the amount of$567,270.00. With respect to the proposed increase in the number of Magnet School seats, the proposed cost increase, and the allocation of the increased costs among the parties, the MRC Chairperson told the Court: \"All MRC members agree to the described changes, and the MRC respectfully requests the Court's approval of these changes.\" 4. The ADE now objects to the changes proposed unanimously by the MRC. No other party has made an objection. The MRC's request should be approved by the Court. 5. The total number of seats potentially funded by ADE under the settlement agreement is 4,065. If the Court does not approve the MRC proposal in its entirety, the Court should at least require the State to continue to fund this number of seats regardless of the fact that the location of some of the seats has been changed because ofrestructuring. 6. The terms of the settlement agreement and the Allen letter obligate ADE to help LRSD achieve unitary status. Magnet Schools are an important part of that effort. A modification of the settlement agreement to permit the changes unanimously supported by the MRC would be a permissible modification of an equitable decree to further the purpose of the decree. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the accompanying Brief, LRSD requests a hearing and prays for an Order approving the MRC's action described in its May 7, 1999 letter to the Court and, if necessary, for an Order modifying the settlement agreement to the extent necessary to approve the MRC's action. 2 Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHRISTOPHER HELLER JOHN C. FENDLEY FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on trusZ}__ ~y of August, 1999: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown VIA HAND DELIVERY Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol A venue -==~ ~--- 3 9E~E!l'~~ ufol~~~RT .AUG 31 1999  OFFICEOF fGREGATION MONITORJNQ EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 2 7 1999 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMACK, Qbg~K By: -----'\"Rifl6DE\"P~m\u0026EfRfRi LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO ADE AND MOTION TO MODIFY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The MRC Correctly Decided the Magnet School Issue The Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") requires that LRSD change its grade structure: Middle Schools. LRSD shall establish a schedule for the orderly conversion of some or all of its Junior High Schools to Middle Schools for grades 6, 7 and 8 and move the 9th grade to High Schools. As a part of this conversion, LRSD reserves the right fo -change the grade level structure at all of its schools, including Magnet Schools. Revised Plan 3.4. No party objected to this requirement of the Revised Plan. The Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") is the policy making group which governs the Magnet Schools hosted by the Little Rock School District. The MRC is composed of representatives of the parties in the Pulaski County desegregation case with two representatives from the Arkansas Department of Education. On December 15, 1998, the MRC voted unanimously to approve a change in the grade structure and the number of seats at the Magnet Schools for the 1999-2000 school year. The reasons for that vote are set forth in the MRC Chairperson's May 7, 1999 letter to the Court seeking approval of the MRC action. The MRC decisions described in the May 7th letter are clearly the product of cooperative hard work by representatives of all the effected parties. Even though representation on the MRC is weighted in favor of the Arkansas Department of Education, the MRC members were able to reach a unanimous agreement about all of the issues related to restructuring the Magnet Schools. That agreement is well described in the May 7th letter which should be adopted by the Court. ADE's Position is Directly Contrary to its MRC Representatives The ADE has objected to the MRC action and now takes a position directly contrary to the position taken by its two representatives on the MRC. ADE argues that its funding obligations for the Magnet Schools should be limited in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. The MRC clearly decided to proportionately increase the funding obligations of the three Pulaski County School Districts and the ADE and seeks the Court's permission to alter the terms of the Magnet School stipulation and the March 1989 settlement agreement to the extent necessary to implement its decision concerning restructuring of the Magnet Schools. ADE Should be Estopped to Oppose its MRC Representatives The representatives of the MRC worked on this issue for a long time before their December 15, 1998 decision. The ADE has been on notice for all of that time about the position taken by its representatives and, ultimately, the vote of the MRC. After all the time and effort devoted to this issue by the MRC, the ADE should not be allowed to take a position directly contrary to the position taken by its representatives and relied upon by the other members of the MRC for almost a year. This Court has the equitable power to prevent the State from attempting to nullify the position taken in good faith by the State's representatives on the MRC. The Eighth Circuit Court 2 of Appeals has previously addressed an estoppel argument in this case. In LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904,914 {8th Cir. 1995) the Eighth Circuit discussed Joshua's estoppel argument that LRSD should be barred from closing Ish because Ish's low attendance was due to LRSD's failure to implement its recruitment duties. The Eighth Circuit resolved Joshua's estoppel argument as follows: We have recognized that \"estoppel is an equitable doctrine, and it should not be given effect beyond what is necessary to accomplish justice between the parties.\" Maitland v. University of Minnesota, 43 F.3d 357, 364 {8th Cir. 1994). Justice would not be served by requiring Ish to remain open when the evidence indicates that the goal of desegregation will be served by closing it. Thus, Joshua's estoppel argument must fail. Id. at 915. In this case, however, the MRC's action in restructuring the Magnet Schools promotes desegregation. Thus, ADE could appropriately be estopped from attempting to reverse the position taken by its two representatives on the MRC. - Modification of the Settlement Agreement In addition to its equitable power to estop the ADE from taking a position contrary to its MRC representatives, this Court clearly has the authority to approve the MRC's action by granting a modification of the settlement agreement to the extent necessary to implement the MRC' s decision. The United States Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992) outlined the standard for modification of a consent decree: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving party meets this standard, the Court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id. at 393, 116 L.Ed.2d at 866. The Eighth Circuit applied the Rufo standard in affirming this Court's decision to close Ish Incentive School and to assign the former Ish attendance zone students 3 to the new King Interdistrict School. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). It held that modification was appropriate where the modification furthered the goal of desegregation. Id. The Eighth Circuit's application of Rufo is consistent with the rule of equity which allows the Court to modify an equitable decree to further the purpose of the decree. See e.g., Larkin Minnesota, Inc. v. Wray, 881 F.Supp. 1413, 1419 (D. Minn. 1995). It is also consistent with decisions from other jurisdictions which have identified myriad changed circumstances which justify modification. See, e.g., Jacksonville Branch, NAACP v. Duval County School Board. 978 F.2d 157 4, 1582 (11 th Cir. 1992) (\"Modification [ of a consent decree] may be considered when ( 1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met, (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or ( 4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side - has a legitimate interest to be considered.\"). Therefore, the issue before the Court is whether the MRC action described in its May 7, 1999 letter would further the goal of achieving a unitary school system. The Magnet Schools were among the very first methods to promote desegregation agreed upon by the parties to this case. They predate the settlement agreement. It has always been a priority among the parties, through their representatives on the MRC, to make certain that the Magnet Schools are well run and adequately funded. The Magnet Schools have established a reputation as providing a high quality education in a racially balanced setting. The MRC' s decision makes good sense for the Magnet Schools and will enable those schools to continue to promote county wide desegregation. This Court should therefore 4 adopt and approve the action of the MRC described in its May 7, 1999 letter, even if it is necessary to modify the settlement agreement to the extent necessary to do so. The changed circumstance which required MRC action is the restructuring ofLRSD schools for educational reasons. The MRC's decisions about how the adjust the Magnet School program in response to restructuring are suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. They represent the minimum necessary change to the settlement agreement in order to fairly maintain the educational and financial foundations of the Magnet Schools. Conclusion The Arkansas Department of Education should be estopped from taking a position directly contrary to the position taken for the past year by its MRC representatives. If the Court determines that an estoppel is not appropriate in this case, the Court should modify the settlement agreement to the limited extent necessary to implement the MRC's decision. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John C. Fendley FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-201 i 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this'Z7~ of August, 1999: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 6 Ms. Ann Brown VIA HAND DELIVERY Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED SEP 1  1999 Off!CH'f DESmRESA1UlY ~ 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 August, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education 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 August 31, 1999 i~!iiiifi~i;~iwdi~t~~~,j~,~!%.\\~~!~}ii~~lifiil!!il!~l:~~i~il'~411 i;ij t6i 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. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1676","title":"Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, 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":["1999-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","North Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","School discipline","Students","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, 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/1676"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["36 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  MAY 11 1999 - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONlTORma IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, No. LR-C-82-866 ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY t O 1999 JAMES1W. M\\CORMACK, CLERK By: \\_ ,~ U ['\\ MO ,y' OEP CLERK Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") to increase the MRC office budget from $150,000 per year to $185,000 per year effective with the 1998-99 school year. The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court by the chair of the MRC in a letter dated January 6, 1999 (attached). After reviewing the matter, the Court is inclined to approve the request. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals established the MRC in 1987 to supervise the operations of the six magnet schools in the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"). The District - Court later allocated $150,000 per year to fund the operations of the MRC and its office. The 3261 Court determined that the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of Education - (\"ADE\"), should pay $75,000 of that allocation and each of the three Pulaski County school districts should pay $25,000. The MRC has never presented its office budget to the Court for annual approval; instead, the MRC staff has reconfigured line item allocations each year to total $150,000 and the MRC members have approved that budget each year. In the letter submission, the MRC chair explained that, over the years, normal inflation in the price of goods and services has strained the committee's $150,000 budget. Additionally, notes accompanying the budget explain that the restructuring of LRSD schools to accommodate the middle school initiative has required some substantial changes in the magnet schools. These changes necessitate an increase in advertising and recruitment costs, because brochures and other recruitment materials must be redesigned, printed, and distributed. The MRC further requests that the budget increase to $185,000 be shared by the ADE and the three districts in the same proportions as in the past, increasing the state's share (which is one-half) to $92,500 and each district's share (which is one-sixth) to $30,833 .33. The letter submission asserts that four MRC members voted for the increase, one abstained, and one was absent. In August of 1998, the MRC approved a budget for the 1998-99 school year for the usual total of $150,000 in an apparent failure to foresee the need for increases in the same year. The need for additional funds to flow quickly to the MRC leads the Court to believe the request for a budget increase to $185,000 for 1998-99 should be approved. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to approve MRC' s request for an increase in its 1998- 99 budget from $150,000 to $185,000. The Court will allow the parties until and including May 2 24, 1999, in which to object to MRC's request. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order providing that within one week, each of the parties is to pay the MRC the amount of money that represents the difference between what the parties have already paid for the 1998-99 MRC budget and the expanded 1998-99 MRC budget hereby approved. IT IS SO ORDERED this J'-day of 1.--- 1999. IA?.,\"'~ '-BfIBFm(}\"\"\"-t UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET 1H XMPUA~ woi; ~if 58 ANDIOR ?9(1) fRCP )N b -I .. !Y .1C ~ 3 ?~{~j~~if~ .nna Grady Crear Executive Director ' C January 6, 1999 . 7 (501) 758-01156 ' , I\", r  I. ;~;~;.~~j~~~~tt~:: ~.-  ii; I _..\"S, , .,_~ ,./~--; ,.-- . :..- -:- -: .... :.\"'-~  .' *~ - ', -2- January 6, 1999 ~.. , I ~ :(.;'~ { - contribution $92,5001$7S,OOO, plus the additional $17,5001. The $35,000 additional funding request reflects a 231. lnaeose in the budgeted amount for the Magnet Review Committee. If you should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely, ~~f Magnet ReYiew Committee .  . cc: ..;.,. ,. j J \"\\ .. , -~ : ;i  ? .; EXPENDITURES 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ AQ1.!AL ~ ~ 8MQUNT FRINGE BENERTS 9,500 14,173.16 12,800 20,819.94 lndudes Social Security, Medicare, Teacher Retirement, Life Insurance, Health Insurance and Dental tn the approved budget, this figure was Input at a lower rate, due to the anticipated changes in teacher retirement, insurance, etc. The new figure most accurately reflects the costs for this line item. PRQFES~IQNAL ~ TECHNI~ Sc\u0026Yl!:ES 11,800 16,925.68 12,000 1s.ooo Utilization of persons or organizations to provide specialized services. This category indudes costs of the lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Evaluation Annual Report, and the monthly travel allowance provided to the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. - Because of additional professional services required as a resuh of providing updated recruiting tools /e.g., creative layout and design for brochures, radio/TV ads, etcJ and the Website master ad design which reflect changes in magnet schools, including new prindpals, updated curriculum, and the middle school transition, an increase in this line item is expected. MAJNTENA~E QF tQUleMcNT ~ VEHICLES 1,600 733.45 1.400 l,650 This covers the costs of service contracts for the office copier, the phone system and the IBM Personal Typing System in the MRC Office. Because of contrad cost increases since the equipment is over ten years old, an increase in expenses is expected. - - MRC EXPENDITURES !Continued) Poge2 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ ACIIJAI. ~ ~ ~Q!.!MI RENTAL QE LANO ANO ~!.!!LOI~ 14,256 14.256 14,256 14.256 Monthly rent for the MRC Office is Sl.188.0011.296 square feet) and will remain that amount. TRAVEL QUT OF [)ISJRICT 6,000 7,984.05 3,500 6.000 This line item is used to send MRC members to the International Magnet Schools of America Conference and the NCSD Conference each year. The re~ amount is requested to bring travel funds back to the 1991-98 budgeted amount. POSTAGE 2.000 2,492.25 2,500 2,500 lndudes postage necessary to respond to parent inquiries. bulk mailings for recruitment purposes, and all other moilouts as necessary for the operation of the MRC office. No change in amount is requested. TELEPHONE 3,500 3,418.31 3,500 *4.225 lndudes monthly billings and long distance charges. Internet access monthly charges. and FAX expenses. The Internet access hos been added to the MRC's computer system. and the telephone/communication costs wil go up in this category. - MRC EXPENOOURES IContinuedl Poge3 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 \"1998-99 ~ ACil.!Al. aJ.!.C2QfI RfY!ill2 AMOUNI ADVERTISING 23,600 25,658 .35 23,595 36,900 The MRC is charged with the responsibility for recruiting students to magnet schools and M-to-M transfer. with new prindpals in place in several of the magnet schools. new curriculum information to be distributed, and the middle schools transition taking place. a reconfiguration of all advertising brochures, M-to-M flyers, videos and any other materials requiring modification is necessary. PRINTING ANO BINDING 2,800 2,560.25 1,200 3,200 This category ties in with - advertising expense. Even though the MRC Office copies whatever possible, voluminous jobs, such as application forms for magnet schools for enroll-ment. ore handled by outside agencies. Again, this amount has been increased to handle large proieefs related to advertising the changes in the schools' make-up, new prindpa/s, and curriculum changes. - MRC EXPENOOURES !Continued) Poge4 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 1998-99 ~ ACil.!AI. .eJ.!.QQfI ~ AMQUNT QTHER PURCHASED SERVICES 3,000 5,025.68 2,000 4,000 lndudes any outside help necessary to finish a job for the MRC Office. This will also indude the cost for our fiscal agent. oue to increased meeting adiYities, Magnet Fair expenses. all other recruitment fundions, and contrad labor for incidental i\u003cJbs, this amount has been increased from the 1997-98 budget. SUPI\\IES 1,800 1,872.36 1,500 1.405.06 Materials necessary for the operation of the Magnet Review Committee Office. PERIQDICALS 616 604.78 500 595 Used to purchase media of interest to the MRC and its activities le.g .. Education Week. Arkan~s Democrat-Gazette, Arkan~s Times, Magnet Schools of America materials!. Also includes MSA yearly membership fee to obtain a reduced rote for the MSA Conference in the spring. The amount requested hos been adiusted to keep in line 'Mfh the 1997-98 actual expenses. MRC EX?ENQIIURB IConttnuedl 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 a.u..coo: ~ a.u..coo: CAPIT Al Olffi.AY 1,500 733.45 500 This category is used for any major expense for equipment for the MRC Office, such OS a copier, computer. or office furniture. with the approved 1998-99 budget in August, the MRC was planning not to make any major purchases for the office. The copy machine and the telephone system are over ten years old. Some expenses are anticipated for this category. TOT AL EXPENDITURES 81,972 96,437 .77 79,251 SALARIES ~ ZQ.7~9,00 7Q749 TOTALS 150,000 167. 186.77 150,000 NOTE: Salary increases will be determined later in the year. ofter final negotiations ore completed. and district salary increases ore established. At that time, it will be determined if. and how much. an increase can be incorporated into the budget. Page5 1998-99 ~ AMO!.!NI *3,700 114,251 70,749 185,000 ... IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STA TE RECEIVED MAY 1 2 1999 OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE DAMAGES For their motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) (the \"Districts\") state: 1. On February 18, 1997, this Court found that the state changed its method of funding the teacher retirement program to the detriment of the districts and in violation of the settlement agreement. This Court made the same finding with respect to the health insurance matching program on April 22, 1997. On July 1, 1998 the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's decisions with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance and directed this Court to decide what relief would be appropriate for the districts. 2. After a hearing, all of the other parties agreed to accept the state's proposed methodology for calculating damages. That methodology is set forth in Court's Exhibit 504. See - Exhibit A to \"Motion for an Order Directing the State to Distribut the Districts' Undisputed Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Damages,\" filed February 9, 1999. 3. On February 9, 1999 the districts asked the Court to order the state to pay the undisputed amount shown in Exhibit 504 for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years. On March 4, 1999, this Court entered the requested order. The districts' efforts to reach an agreement with the state for payment for the 1998-99 school year and future years have been unsuccessful. The districts must therefore seek an order from this Court requiring those payments. 4. Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the state should be ordered to reimburse the districts each year on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current state minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made in June of each year using current year actual participation numbers. - For the 1998-99 school year, the state should be ordered to immediately pay the districts the amount necessary to bring it into compliance with this paragraph. The districts have agreed that the total amount of damages calculated according to the methodology set forth in Court's Exhibit 504 should be distributed each year as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD and 10% to NLRSD. 5. There remain issues to be resolved by this Court, including the issue of prejudgment interest and the issue of whether the state should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by the other school districts in the state. It is not necessary for the Court to resolve those issues at this time in order to provide the relief the districts seek in this motion. 2 I , WHEREFORE, the districts pray that the state be ordered to immediately pay the districts' damages for the 1998-99 school year calculated in accordance with Court's Exhibit 504 subject to an adjustment in June, 1999; and, using the methodology in Court's Exhibit 504, to reimburse the districts in future years on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current year state minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made each June based on current year actual participation numbers; and that the districts be awarded interest, costs, attorneys' fees and all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501-371-0808 Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 3 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501-375-1122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 11 th day of May, 1999: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 4 1 Margie L. Powell Associate Monitor DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS IN THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT M.i\\Y l ::J 1999 May 19, 1999 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Coun Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor 'A ' ;:- ... I\\' ., ... .J 1v,~~ ; ; ,. -~c0c., _. , ,....,, c -- .  - .. ~J7,:1 \\\\,,.1(\\ . -.\" , By: I - -  1(\\ Polly Ramer Office Manager IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 2 7 1999 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 ADE'S RESPONSE TO THE DISTRICTS' \"MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE DAMAGES\" In this motion the Districts ask for immediate payment of their teacher - retirement and health insurance damages for the 1998-99 school year. To date those payments have not been made, and no \"immediate\" payment should be ordered, for two reasons. First, no calculations for FY 1999 payments can be made, even under the meH1.0dology set fort.'h in Court's Exl-dbit 504, because the information necessary to calculate the retirement and health insurance \"remedy'\" for FY 1999 is not yet available and will not be available until at least the end of FY 1999. The methodology set forth in Exhibit 504 requires, among other things, each District's and the total statewide health insurance costs for all school districts for the entire fiscal year. For FY 1999, this information will not be available until some time after the fiscal year has concluded. Further, the methodology set forth in Exhibit 504 also requires that retirement and 1 health insurance costs attributable to ODM employees for the entire fiscal year be excluded from the calculation. To date LRSD has not provided that information to ADE for FY 1999, and that information will not be available until after the fiscal year has ended. Second, this Court has before it issues concerning the calculation of the appropriate \"remedy'' that should be resolved before any further payments to the Districts are ordered. In addition to the Districts' baseless claims that they are entitled to prejudgment interest and to \"damages\" that would result in payments to them in excess of 100% of their retirement and health insurance costs, the Districts are apparently still not satisfied with the source data that forms the basis of the calculations set forth in Exhibit 504. See the Districts' \"Motion for an Order Directing the State to Distribute the Districts' Undisputed Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Damages,\" filed February 9, 1999, in which the Districts state that they believe Exhibit 504 \"should be revised a second time to reflect better information obtained by the Districts concerning their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs.\" In short, the Districts continue to dispute various issues concerning the appropriate \"remedy'' and no further payments should be ordered until those issues have been resolved by this Court 2 Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant A y General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on May 25, 1999, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by first class U.S. Mail on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M.SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN l 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG 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 May, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Att e General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED ST ATES 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 Arl\u003cansas 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 , 1999 Based on the information available at April 30, 1999, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 98/99, subject to periodic adjustments. 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. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1696","title":"Court filings: District Court, the districts' reply in support of motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion for extension of time","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1999-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School districts","School employees","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, the districts' reply in support of motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion for extension of time"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1696"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["47 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT \\ VS. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL l\\1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL THE DISTRICTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE MAR 3 1999 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORINS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' UNDISPUTED TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE DAMAGES I. ADE Not A Party to Settlement. ADE contends that this Court should not compel it to make any payment to the Districts until all remedy issues are resolved or until ADE becomes a party to a settlement. This contention is without merit. With PCS SD dropping its objection, all the parties are in agreement that the Districts are entitled to at least the amounts shown on Revised Exhibit 504. There is no reason why this amount should not be paid to the Districts as soon as practicable. The Districts need this money to fund obligations tied to the payment, in particular LRSD teachers' salaries. While resolution of the remaining remedy issues may increase the amount ADE owes the Districts, resolution of those issues will not decrease ADE's liability. Moreover, a separate order directing ADE to pay to the Districts the amounts it undisputedly owes them should avoid entangling these payments in an eventual appeal. The Court could then by separate order to resolve the questions of whether the Districts are entitled to receive the same percentage of their costs as other districts in the state and whether the Districts should receive prejudgment interest. Regardless of which way the Court rules on these issues, an appeal is likely. \"-, \\ However, no party could appeal an Order directing ADE to pay the Districts the amounts that all parties agree is the least that they are owed. Therefore, given the Districts' immediate need, the Court should order ADE to pay the Districts the amounts shown on Revised Exhibit 504 as soon as practicable. II. Section 11.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Section 11.F. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement should be considered by the Court in determining the Districts' remedy. ADE suggests that the Districts are making this contention for the first time. However, NLRSD raised Section 11.F. during the liability phase, and it was the subject - ofa footnote in the Eighth Circuit's decision in this case. See LRSD v. PCS SD, 148 F.3d 9556, 964 n.2 (8th Cir. 1998). While not the basis for liability, the Districts contend that the Court should not adopt a remedy which violates Section 11.F. The remedy proposed by ADE would violate Section 11.F. because it would result in the Districts being paid less for teacher retirement and health insurance than other school districts in the state. III. Prejudgment Interest. The Districts' claim for prejudgment interest does not rest entirely on 28 U.S.C.  1961 as suggested by ADE. The Districts have cited to the Court ample authority for an award of prejudgment interest in this case. Even so, ADE argues that prejudgment interest should be denied because ADE' s liability was not \"reasonably capable of assessment.\" This is not true. Tristan Green testified that the he \"borrowed\" the methodology now proposed by ADE from the methodology used 2 by ADE to determine the amount of Educational Equity Trust Funds received by school districts. See June 6, 1999 Transcript, p. 176 and Court's Exhibit 492. All of the numbers used to calculate the Districts' damages under ADE's methodology have been readily ascertainable. However, ADE '-, refused to pa~ the Districts until ordered to do so by the Eighth Circuit. As the Eighth Circuit stated, \"the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change.\" Id., 148 F.3d at 968. One adverse effect of the funding change has been an almost four year delay in payment, and the Districts should be held harmless for this delay through an award of prejudgment interest. WHEREFORE, the Districts pray that the State immediately be ordered to pay the Districts the amounts set forth on Revised Exhibit 504 within ten days of entry of the Court's Order or to show cause why payment cannot be made within ten days; that the Districts be awarded prejudgment - interest on said amounts pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1961; 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, NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Mr. M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol F:IHOMEIFENDLEY\\LRSD\\des-tea,rep-\u003clis.wpd 3 Little Rock, AR 72201 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Comm'ercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Ca~itol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: F:IHOME\\FENOLEY\\LRSD\\d\u003csterep-dis.wpd 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I cytify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. Mail on this31j,...day of March, 1999. Mr. John W: Walker \\ JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:IHOMEIFENDLEY\\LRSO\\dcslnrtp-dis.wpd (hand-delivery on 3-4) 5 - -  FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS Oi  vr tlQ WESTERN DMSION MARO 4 1999 DiS\u0026RtG~11ua tiAOt\\10il LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ~~~ES if :J~~;~.~~7~K OEP ClfRK - * Plaintiff, vs. * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL * RECEIVE DISTRICT No. 1, et al., * * Defendants. * \",.J, . R ~ i999 * * off\\CE Of \\~ MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * f\\H\u003et~Rffi~1\\0~ M0~\\'00\\1 .~  * Intervenors, * * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * * Intervenors, * ORDER On July 1, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit handed down an opinion on the issue of funding of retirement and health insurance for teachers and directed this Court to decide, in the first instance, exactly what relief is appropriate. See Little Rock School Dist. v. North Little Rock School Dist., 148 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 1998). The Court stated as follows: The three Pulaski County School Districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be a double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless again~t any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. The appellants suggest that this effort will necessarily involve speculation. Admittedly it cannot be exact, but we believe that the District Court can make a reasonable and informed estimate. 148 F.3d 956, 968. The Eighth Circuit's mandate was filed in this Court on August 17, 1998, and the parties subsequently submitted papers setting forth their respective views on the matter. A hearing on this issue was held on January 6, 1999, following which the parties filed posthearing briefs on the issues raised at the hearing. Before the Court is a motion by the three Pulaski County school districts - Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), and the North - Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") - for an Order directing the State of Arkansas to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages [doc.#3245]. On February 23, 1999, the State, by and through the Arkansas Department of Education (\" ADE\"), responded in opposition to the districts' motion, and the districts, on March 3, 1999, filed a reply to ADE's response. Having considered the matter, the Court hereby grants the districts' motion. There is no dispute to be resolved as to the appropriate methodology for determining the districts' damages with regard to teacher retirement and health insurance - all parties agreeing on the ADE's proposed methodology - and all parties are in agreement that the districts are entitled to at least the amounts shown on Revised Exhibit 504, which total $20,380,490.00. While it is true, as noted by the ADE, that there remain issues to be 2 resolved, including the issue of prejudgment interest and the issue of whether the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State, the Court agrees with the districts that there is no reason why the undisputed amount shown in Revised Exhibit 504 should not be paid to the districts as soon as possible. As noted by the districts, resolution of the remaining issues may increase the amount the State owes the districts (a question on which the Court expresses no opinion at this time), but resolution of these issues will not decrease the State's liability. Accordingly, the Court grants the districts' motion for an Order directing the State to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages [doc.#3245]. The Court will resolve the remaining issues. in due course. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this Order, the State of Arkansas make payment to the three Pulaski County school districts in the amount of $20,380,490.00, to be distributed as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD, and 10% to NLRSD. d~ Dated this ..:.J_ day of March 1999. UNITED STATF.S DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTEAEI) ON DOCKET SHEET IN CC1MPw.e-N ~T~ RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ~N 3~ ~1 BY_~~~---- 3 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1803- 1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1813-101) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN O. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HEH\"tY KIMBERLY WOOD T\".CKER RAY F. COX, JR. GORDON S. RATHER. JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWHL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS IUFORO, 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. CHARLESL. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 3769442 WEBSITE : www.wl j .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Writer's Di rect Dial No . 501  212  1273 mjonesQwlJ .com March 25, 1999 TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY. JR . KATHRYN A . PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON DON S. McKINNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KR I STI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVEO Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 MAR 2 4 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG Enclosed is a copy of PCSSD Petition for Release from Federal Court Supervision and Post-Unitary Commitments which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl.  93678-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP t-__ 'IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOLREcev8:n DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. ~M ~- ' ,. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MAR 2 4 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION AND POST-UNITARY COMMITMENTS INTRODUCTION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD believes that it has earned unitary status. It asks this Court to examine the record that has been made, to hold a hearing, if necessary, on those issues, if any, which might be legitimately in controversy, and to ultimately enter its decree declaring that the PCSSD has earned unitary status and release it from further court supervision. Upon the entry of this Court's decree, the PCSSD commits to do those things and to maintain those activities described in Exhibit A to this petition that being the Pulaski County Special School District Post Unitary Commitments. Exhibit A was distributed to the parties on or about March 5, 1999, and no comments of any kind have been received. In this petition, the PCSSD will briefly revisit the background of this case, will set - forth the controlling law, will examine the determinations of other courts from around the 91963 I - country which have declared other districts to be unitary, and will then apply the facts of this case to the controlling legal principles. BACKGROUND This action was filed on November 30, 1982 by the LRSD against the PCSSD and others.1 Liability was adjudicated against the PCSSD and others on April 10, 1984 and a consolidation of the three school districts in Pulaski County was ordered. Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (hereafter the Court of Appeals), en bane, affirmed most of the findings of liability of the district court, but reversed the court ordered consolidation and prescribed a different remedy. The Court of Appeals ordered that the boundaries of the LRSD would become those of the city of Little Rock as they then existed. The Court of Appeals also ordered - the transfer of the Granite Mountain community from the LRSD to the PCSSD. As a result of these transfers, the PCSSD lost 36% of its tax base, one-third of its schools, and 25% of its students. In the same opinion, the Court of Appeals ordered all three districts to develop desegregation plans that would distribute students in a way such that each school would have approximately the same racial balance as each district had as a whole. Significantly, the Court of Appeals specifically held that the remedy it then ordered was a complete remedy for the constitutional violations of which the PCSSD had been found guilty; specifically those violations relating to annexations and deannexations, segregated housing, school siting, student assignments, special education, 1 The LRSD supports the PCSSD in its petition for unitary status. 91963 2 - transportation, emplo~ment of faculty and administrators, and black participation in school affairs. Thereafter, other proceedings occurred, both before the district court and the Court of Appeals, culminating in 1989 in the Settlement Agreement and an agreed upon desegregation plan for each school district. While the present PCSSD Plan was not finalized in all of its particulars until April, 1992, the PCSSD has operated since 1989 under substantially the same plan. Thus, the PCSSD will highlight for the Court its efforts and activities since 1989 which it believes warrant a finding of unitary status. THE APPLICABLE LAW In 1992, the United States Supreme Court discussed the issue of unitary status in Freeman v. Pitts, 112 S. Ct. 1430 (1992), explaining that: [A]s we explained last term in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S._,_, 111 S. Ct. 630,636, 112 L. Ed. 2d 715 (1991 ), the term \"unitary\" is not a precise concept: \"[l]t is a mistake to treat words such as 'dual' and 'unitary' as if they were actually found in the Constitution .... Courts have used the term dual' to denote a school system which has engaged in intentional segregation of students by race, and 'unitary' to describe a school system which has been brought into compliance with the command of the Constitution. We are not sure how useful it is to define these terms more precisely, or to create subclasses within them.\" It follows that we must be cautious not to attribute to the term a utility it does not have. The term \"unitary\" does not confine the discretion and authority of the District Court in a way that departs from traditional equitable principles. 112 s. Ct. at 1443-44. The Freeman court further explained that: [1] Proper resolution of any desegregation case turns on a careful assessment of its facts. ~. ~. at 439, 88 S. Ct., at 1694. Here, as 91963 3 in most cases where the issue is the degree of compliance with a school desegregation decree, a critical beginning point is the degree of racial imbalance in the school district, that is to say a comparison of the proportion of majority to minority students in individual schools with the proportions of the races in the district as a whole. This inquiry is fundamental, for under the fonner de jure regimes racial exclusion was both the means and the end of a policy motivated by disparagement of or hostility towards the disfavored race. In accord with this principle, the District Court began its analysis with an assessment of the current racial mix in the schools throughout DCSS and the explanation for the racial imbalance it found. 112 S. Ct. at 1437. The PCSSD will comply with this requirement, as did the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1996 in the Wilmington case when it affinned the district court's declaration of unitary status in Coaljtion to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education of the State of Delaware, et al .. 90 F.3d 752 (3rd Cir. 1996): A critical starting point in identifying vestiges of discrimination is the degree of racial imbalance in the school districts. This inquiry is fundamental, because under the fonner de jure regime, a racial exclusion was both the means and the end of a policy motivated by disparagement of, and hostility towards, the disfavored race. The Court's 1968 opinion in Green squarely addressed this issue, noting that \"[t]he pattern of separate 'white' and 'Negro' schools ... established under compulsion of state laws is precisely the pattern of segregation to which Brown I and Brown 11 were particularly addressed.\" ~. 391 U.S. at 435, 88 S. Ct. at 1693. However, the ~ Court also made clear that in examining the problem of racial imbalance in our schools, we are to look \"not just to the composition of student bodies ... but to every facet of school operations - faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities.\" J.Q..; see also Swann. 402 U.S. at 18, 91 s. Ct. at 1277 (the Green factors are \"among the most important indicia of segregated system.\") Because compliance with~ factors is a condition precedent to unitary status, we will survey each of those factors here. 90 F.3d at 760. The PCSSD will likewise assess the Green factors especially as each of them is - addressed in its Desegregation Plan. The Wjlmjngton Court also commented upon 91963 4 ,. - federal court supervisien in general. Addressing the Supreme Court's decision in Jenkins. the WjJmjngton Court noted: Given the Court's recent assertion that federal supervision of local school districts \"'was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination,'\" Jenkins._ U.S. _115 S. Ct. at 2049 (quoting Dowell, 498 U.S. at 247, 111 S. Ct. at 637), we underscore that the phrase \"to the extent practicable\" implies a reasonable limit on the duration of that federal supervision. Indeed, to extend federal court supervision indefinitely is neither practicable, desirable, nor proper. 90 F.3d at 760. The Wilmington Court further explained that: This equitable remedy and, by definition, its jurisprudential legitimacy, were meant to have a limited lifespan. The remedy was designed to serve only as an implement for monitoring and guidance, not as a permanent substitute for state and local school boards, or r*84] indeed, for the state legislature. Thus in our zeal to insure maximum educational opportunities for all Delaware school students, the federal courts must bear in mind that the responsibility for administering the schools ultimately belongs to locally elected officials. Indeed, we must acknowledge that although it has been proper for us to supervise multiple generations of students in the service of unassailable ideals, in the process we have also denied multiple generations of elected officials the freedom to participate fully in representative government. 90 F.3d at 779. Additional legal principles and teachings from other cases will be set forth as appropriate infra as particular topics are addressed. THE LAW OF THIS CASE The Court of Appeals, in its 1990 decision, reaffirmed the 1985 en bane court's decision that the previously mandated territorial exchanges were the remedy for all of the interdistrict violations. It explained that: 91963 We also held, however, agreeing in this respect with the District Court, that interdistrict violations of the Constitution had occurred, and that an interdistrict remedy was accordingly required. We directed the District 5 Court, on remaRd, to adjust the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD in two respects: (1) by transferring the Granite Mountain area from LRSD to PCSS0; and (2) by expanding LRS0 so that the new boundary line between it and PCSSD would be the city limits of the City of Little Rock, as they then existed. We further held - addressing the question of student attendance within each of the districts - that \"each school district as reconstituted shall be required to revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district.\" Litt! Rock School District v, Pulaski County Special School District. m. 778 F .2d at 435. Our opinion included a number of other directions with respect to magnet schools, student-attendance arrangements, and other matters. The District Court held that LRSD would automatically expand whenever the city annexed new territory, so that LRSD would always be contiguous with the city as it existed from time to time. We reversed. We held that the remedy contemplated by our en bane opinion was intended to be a complete cure for all interdistrict violations that we had found. The en bane opinion, we said, prescribed \"a full and sufficient correction of wrongs done in the past,\" including all interdistrict violations. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921. F.2d 1371, 1377 (8th Cir. 1990) It is significant to note that many features of the PCSSD Plan, the lnterdistrict Plan, and the Plans of the other school districts were not specifically mandated as remedial devices by the Court of Appeals. For instance, the six interdistrict schools, while subsequently embraced by the Court of Appeals, were never mandated as part of any prescribed remedy. For that matter, the Court of Appeals never specifically mandated that the PCSSD pursue affirmative action in hiring and in staffing its schools and other operations. Indeed, it held in 1985 that the territorial transfer was the remedy for, among other things, violations in the areas of special education, transportation, and employment of faculty and administrators. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 434-435 (8th Cir. 1985). 91963 6 To be sure, these topics and others are prominently featured in the Plan. Some are among the ~ factors to be discussed later. However, because they were not specifically mandated as part of any remedy, issues arise such as burden of proof as to compliance and will be discussed fully infra. THE GREEN FACTORS I. RACIAL BALANCE AND STUDENT ASSIGNMENT The guidelines for racial balance in all three districts were initially addressed and laid down by the en bane Court in 1985. It explained then that: In constructing a desegregation remedy, a court may not rigidly require a particular racial balance. Pasadena Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 436-38, 96 S. Ct. 2697, 2704-06, 49 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1976); Milliken 1,418 U.S. at 739-40, 94 S. Ct. at 3124-25; Swann, 402 U.S. at 22-25, 91 S. Ct. at 1279-81 . Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the awareness of the racial composition of a school district or school districts is a useful starting point in developing an effective remedy, and thus the limited use of racial ratios is within the Court's equitable discretion. Swann, 402 U.S. at 25, 91 S. Ct. at 1280. Thus, the Supreme Court has approved a remedy imposed by the district court requiring that all schools in the school district be roughly within the same racial balance. Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449,455 n. 3, 99 S. Ct. 2941, 2945 n. 3, 61 L. Ed. 2d 666 (1979): Swann, 402 U.S. at 23-25, 91 S. Ct. at 1279-80. Our Court has consequently approved the use of flexible ratios in desegregation remedies on numerous occasions ... In any event, in this case, we have closely tailored the remedy to the violations and we are not requiring a particular racial balance in each district (Citations omitted.) LRSD V. pcssp, 778 F.2d at 433. 91963 The en bane Court then articulated the guideline applicable in this case: 4. After the boundaries between LRSD and PCSSD have been adjusted, each school district as reconstituted shall be required to revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district. Consistent with ear1ier district court orders with respect to these schools, school districts may, where necessary, be pennitted to depart from this remedial guideline in that school 7 enrollments niay over- or underrepresent blacks or whites by as much as one-fourth of the remedial guideline for either race. We see no reason why, on this record, the variance should exceed this level. [Emphasis added.] 778 F.2d at 435: Ultimately, of course, the current PCSSD Plan was examined by the Court of Appeals which approved the student assignment goals agreed to by all of the parties. The Court of Appeals explicitly approved the student assignment goals of the PCSSD and the other parties interpreting them as follows: So far as racial ratios were concerned, the Plan included the following goals:  13. With the exception of Bayou Meto, the goal of the plan shall be to achieve a minimum black student enrollment of 20% by the end of six years in all PCSSD schools .... 14. With the exception of Bayou Meto, it is hoped that the dynamics of the plan will result, by the end of the implementation period, in all PCSSD schools being within the range of plus or minus 25% of the then prevailing district-wide average of blacks by organizational level. However, at a minimum, at the end of the implementation period, no PCSSD school shall have a black enrollment which exceeds the then prevailing black ratio, by organizational level, in the Little Rock School District. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d at 1378-79. As will be explained further, the PCSSD believes it has satisfied, for a period of years, the racial balance and student assignment components of its Plan. Before specifically examining the racial balance outcomes in the PCSSD, it is useful to examine the racial balance outcomes that pertain in Freeman v. Pitts, in which a declaration of unitary status was affirmed even upon facts dramatically different than the outcomes found in the PCSSD. As the Supreme Court explained in Freeman: 91963 8 Racial balance is not to be achieved for its own sake. It is to be pursued when racial imbalance has been caused by a constitutional violation. once the racial imbalance due to the de jure violation has been remedied, the school district is under no duty to remedy imbalance that is caused by demographic factors. Swann, 402 U.S., at 31-32, 91 S. Ct., at 1283-84 (\"Neither school authorities nor district courts are constitutionally required to make year-by-year adjustments of the racial composition of student bodies once the affirmative duty to desegregate has been accomplished and racial discrimination through official action is eliminated from the system. This does not mean that federal courts are without power to deal with future problems; but in the absence of a showing that either the school authorities or some other agency of the State has deliberately attempted to fix or alter demographic patterns to affect the racial composition of the schools, further intervention by a district court should not be necessary\"). If the unlawful de jure policy of a school system has been the cause of the racial imbalance in student attendance, that condition must be remedied. The school district bears the burden of showing that any current imbalance is not traceable, in a proximate way, to the prior violation. 112 S. Ct. at 1447. It is instructive to set forth the outcomes of the DeKalb County schools as summarized by the United States Supreme Court. Concerned with racial imbalance in the various schools of the district, respondents presented evidence that during the 1986-1987 school year DCSS had the following features: (1) 47% of the students attending DCSS were black; (2) 50% of the black students attended schools that were over 90% black; (3) 62% of all black students attended schools that had more than 20% more blacks than the systemwide average; ( 4) 27% of white students attended schools that were more than 90% white; (5) 59% of the white students attended schools that had more than 20% more whites than the systemwide average; (06) of the 22 DCSS high schools, five had student populations that were more than 90% black, while five other schools had student populations that were more than 80% white; and (7) of the 7 4 elementary schools in DCSS, 18 are over 90% black, while 10 are over 90% white. !d..,, at 31 a. 112 S. Ct. at 1438. Despite these statistical outcomes, the United States Supreme Court found that the system was unitary with respect to student assignment and racial balance. As we 91963 9 - will examine below, the track record of the PCSSD is far superior to that of the schools in DeKalb County, Georgia, is in compliance with any and all tests which may be reasonably applied, and that the PCSSD has demonstrated its entitlement to unitary status. THE PCSSD OUTCOMES District-wide, the racial composition of the PCSSD since 1989 has been as follows: 89-90 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EIGHT YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 Total 21 .607 21 ,597 21 ,062 21 ,633 20.426 20,417 20,534 20,295 % Black 26 26 27 28 30 31 32 33 91963 10 . Since 1989, the composition of the District's elementary schools has been as follows: School Adkins Elem Arnold Drive Elem Baker Elem Bates Elem Bayou Meto Elem Cato Elem Clinton Elem College Station Elem Crystal Hill Elem Dupree Elem Fuller Elem Harris Elem Jacksonville Elem Landmark Elem Lawson Elem Oak Grove Elem Oakbrooke Elem Pine Forrest Elem Pinewood Elem Robinson Elem PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EIGHT YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON2 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 Total 371 360 352 420 411 397 % Black 40 36 39 36 37 39 Total 387 411 408 390 348 375 % Black 18 16 14 18 23 25 Total 294 291 268 283 294 304 % Black 27 30 25 27 25 24 Total 698 638 737 680 599 550 % Black 47 46 47 45 45 53 Total 602 596 6 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1690","title":"Court filings concerning teacher retirement and health insurance remedy","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":["1999-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning teacher retirement and health insurance remedy"],"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/1690"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["37 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, advisory letter from Joshua intervenors; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) prehearing brief on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) pre-trial brief re: teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) post-trial submission; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) post-hearing brief on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) post-hearing brief concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) supplemental response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motions for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. JQHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY Ar LAw 1723 BROAl)WAV l,JTTl.E ROCK, Alu\u003c..~NSAS 72206 , TEU:Pl!0:-IE (501) 374-3758   FA.\\ (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 324-6096 1 anuary 4, 1999 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge  United States District Court 600 West Capitol Llittle Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: 315 P02 '02 JAN OJ ' 99 17:02 This is to advise that the Joshua Intervenors hereby adopt by reference the Little Rock School Dsitrict's Prehearing Brief On The Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Remedy. JWW:js cc: Mrs. Ann Brown All Counsel of Record  IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LI'ITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS :MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PREHEARING BRIEF ON THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE REJMEDY I. Introduction. This hearing concerns the method for calculating the three Pulaski County school districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. On July 1, 1998, the Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court's finding of liability and remanded for a detennination of the districts' damages. LRSD v. PCSSD, 148 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 1998). In making that detennination, the Eighth Circuit offered the following guidance: On remand, it will be up to the District Court, in the first instance, to decide exactly what relief is appropriate. The three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held hannless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. The appellants suggest that this effort will necessarily involve speculation. Admittedly it cannot be exact, but we believe that the District Court can make a reasonable and informed estimate. LRSD v. PCSSD, 148 F.3d 956, 968 (8* Cir. 1998). As the State, LRSD, NLRSD md Joshua interpret the Eighth Circuit's opinion, the districts' damages should be calculated as follows: (1) determine the amount the districts would have received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the old Act 34 funding system; (2) determine the amount the districts actually received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the new Act 917 funding system; and (3) subtract (2) from (1). II. Discussion. A PCSSD's overall remedy argument. Although PCSSD originally agreed with the other parties' interpretation of the Eighth Circuit's decision, PCSSD now argues that the districts' damages should be based on an overall comparison between the old Act 34 funding system and the new Act 917 funding system. Compare Docket Nos. 3174 and 3187 to 3227. This argument ignores the previous findings of this Court and the opinion of the Eighth Circuit and should be rejected as a matter oflaw. First, the argument ignores the previous findings of this Court. This Court rejected this same argument when it was made by the State. The Court stated: While the state may contend that the settling districts will receive more formula money under the new funding scheme, the Court finds that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling districts to pay health insurance matching from equali1,lllion or local funds is not a \"fair and rational\" adjustment to the funding formula. 2 Docket No. 2968, Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 5 ( emphasis supplied). Assuming PCS SD' s calculations are correct, LRSD would recover nothing under an overall remedy. Docket No. 3227, Exhibit A Consequently, LRSD would be forced to use equalization funding or local funds to pay its teacher retirement and health insurance costs. As quoted above, that is exactly why this Court found that the Act 917 funding system violated the Settlement Agreement with regard to teacher retirement and health insurance. It would be absurd to now adopt a \"remedy'' that brings about the same result. Not surprisingly, an overall remedy results in a windfall to PCSSD. PCSSD claims that the overall change from Act 34 to Act 917 decreased PCSSD's total state funding by $3,794,039 in 1996-97 and $2,781,691 in 1997-98. Docket No. 3227, Exhibit A, p. 3. PCSSD seeks to recover these amounts as its remedy for the State's liability with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. However, according to PCSSD's own calculations, its loss for teacher retirement and health insurance totaled only $1,830,003 in 1996-97 and $1,679,881 in 1997-98. Docket No. 3186, Exhibit A and B. Thus, an overall remedy results in PCSSD being awarded damages more than three million dollars in excess of its actual loss in teacher retirement and health insurance funding. The difference between PCS SD' s teacher retirement and health insurance loss and its overall loss results, at least in part, from the adverse impact on PCS SD of the change in the funding formula for distributing general state aid, what was called MFP A under Act 34 and what is now called equalization funding under Act 917. PCSSD seeks to recover this amount despite the fact that no court has found that the Act 917 funding formula per se violates the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement permits the State to make \"[f]air and rational adjustments to the funding 3 formula which have general applicability blltwl,ich nd,,ce tire proportion of State aid to any of the Districts .... \" Settlement Agreement ,U.L (emphasis supplied). Therefore, even if PCSSD is correct in its assertion that it received less general state aid under the Act 917 funding system compared to what it would have received under the Act 34 funding system, this does not establish that Act 917 funding formula violates the Settlement Agreement. PCSSD bears the burden of proving that Act 917 was not a fair and rational adjustment to the funding formulcl. PCSSD moved for summary judgment on this issue on September 2, 1997, while the teacher retirement and health insurance appeals were pending before the Eighth Circuit. Docket No. 3042 and 3043. This Court denied that motion on January 12, 1998 \"[b ]ecause there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding the state funding formula.\" Docket No. 3104, p. 2. Those issues of material fact remain unresolved. Second, PCSSD's argument ignores the precise issue before the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit clearly limited its opinion to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. In the opening paragraph ofits opinion, the Eighth Circuit stated that \"[t]he question presented is whether changes made by the State of Arkansas in the funmng of retirement and health insurance for teachers violated [the Settlement Agreement].\" Id. at 963 ( emphasis supplied). The Eighth Circuit began its discussion stating, \"This case has to do with two important categories of school operating expenses: contributions for teacher retirement and employees' health insurance.\" Id. ( emphasis supplied). Nothing in the Eighth Circuit's discussion indicates that the court went beyond the question presented to find that the Act 917 funding formula violated the Settlement Agreement. Third, PCSSD's argument ignores the whole of the Eighth Circuit's opinion. Taken in the context of the question presented, the remedy contemplated by the Eighth Circuit was clearly limited 4 to the districts' loss in teacher retirement and health insurance funding. the Eighth Circuit began its description of the remedy by stating that \"[t]he three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed \" Id. at 968 ( emphasis supplied). The Eighth Circuit recognized, however, that the districts' equalization funding included some amount for teacher retirement and health insurance. lg. at 965. Accordingly, it directed this Court to reduce the districts' damages by this amount in order to prevent a double recovery. The Eighth Circuit stated: The three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding/or teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have  produced/or teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. Id. (emphasis supplied). Thus, the first step in determining the districts' damages is to calculate \"what the old system would have produced/or teacher retirement and health insurance.\" Id. What the old Act 34 system produced for teacher retirement and health insurance was the districts' actual costs for those programs. Summarizing its explanation of the remedy, the Eighth Circuit concluded: Id. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. 5 Reading these final two sentences in isolation, PCSSD contends that the Eighth Circuit's opinion calls for an overall remedy. However, the failure of the Eighth Circuit to repeat for the third time \"for teacher retirement and health insurance\" after the words \"produced\" and \"producing\" in no way indicates that the Eighth Circuit intended to completely depart from the rest of the opinion and the preceding sentences in the same paragraph. These final two sentences may properly be read as follows: This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance- would have produced [for teacher retirement and health insurance], and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing [for teacher retirement and health insurance]. The Eighth Circuit most certainly would have expressly stated and explained the basis for an overall remedy if such was its intention. This it did not do. Rather, it described the logical course this Court should follow in determining the districts' damages \"for teacher retirement and health insurance.\" The Eighth Circuit's use of the phrase ''MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance\" should not be construed as a mathematical equation, but rather as a general description of the old Act 34 funding system. Even if construed as a mathematical equation, however, the phrase in no way dictates an overall remedy. As discussed above, the preceding sentences make it clear that the Eighth Circuit was concerned with \"what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance.\" Id. Both this Court and the Eighth Circuit have recognized that, under the old Act 34 funding system, the State paid the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs outside of the funding formula used to distribute MFPA. See LRSD v. PCSSD,'148 F.3d at 963. 6 Thus, the tenn MFP A essentially means zero in this context. In accord with this understanding, all of the parties, including PCSSD, originally submitted a proposed remedy based on the districts' actual costs. Docket Nos. 317 4-77. Finally, the Eighth Circuit's rationale for finding that the Act 917 funding system violated the Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs cannot be extended to the entire Act 917 funding system or the entire Act 917 funding fonnula. Quoting this Court's teacher retirement opinion, the Eighth Circuit explained: [I]nstead of directly funding each district based on the number of employees, the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a per ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district. Just as the workers' compensation \"seed money'' fonnula worked to the detriment of the employee-heavy Pulaski County districts, so too does the distribution of teacher retirement contributions though the new funding formula give the districts less money to fund teacher retirement. While the three Pulaski County school districts may fare better under the new funding scheme from a state aid perspective, there is no question that the amount of their teacher retirement funding, previously directly funded by the State based upon the eligible salaries paid to their employees, will be reduced and result in unequal state funding. Id. at 967. The change from the Act 34 funding formula to the Act 917 funding fonnula does not suffer from this same defect. While teacher retirement and health insurance funding were based on the number of employees, the Act 34 funding formula was not. To summarize, the districts' remedy must, at a minimum, place them in a position which will not require them to use equalization funding or local funds to pay their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. An overall remedy would not achieve this because LRSD would be denied any recovery, notwithstanding an obvious loss of funding under Act 917 to pay these costs. Moreover, the Eighth Circuit's opinion cannot be fairly read as calling for an overall remedy. In discussing the issue and in outlining the remedy, the opinion clearly addresses only the districts' claims as to the 7 teacher retirement and health insurance programs. The Eighth Circuit's opinion should not be read to grant relief beyond the issues before the court. Bailey v. Henslee, 309 F.2d 840 (8* Cir. 1962) Therefore, an overall remedy should be rejected, and the districts' damages should be based on their loss of teacher retirement and health insurance funding. B. Damages based on the districts' loss of teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 1. Actual costs vs. equal funding. To award the districts damages based on their loss of teacher retirement and health insurance funding, this Court must resolve three additional issues. First, the State disagrees with the districts and Joshua on the starting point for calculating the districts' damages. The State argues that the districts' damages should be based on their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The districts and Joshua contend that the State should be required to pay the districts the same percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to all other school districts in Arkansas. In both the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school year, the State paid school districts outside Pulaski County 107% of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs.1 In order to provide equal funding to the three Pulaski County districts, the starting point for their damages should be 107% of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Docket No. 3187, Exhibit 1. 1Using Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tristan D. Greene (Docket No. 3176), this percentage may be calculated by first subtracting the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of the three Pulaski County districts from the statewide total to obtain the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of other districts in the state. The amount other districts received in excess of their actual costs is equal to the total desegregation adjustment shown in column 4. The total desegregation adjustment is then added to the actual teacher retirement costs of other districts. This equals the actual amount received by other districts in the state for their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The percentage of costs received by other districts in the state is determined by dividing the actual amount received by other districts in the state by the actual costs of other districts in the state. In both 1996-97 and 1997-98, this percentage is 107%. 8 In the Eighth Circuit's workers' compensation opinion, the court defined the workers' compensation \"program\" as \"equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts.\" LRSD v. PCS SD, 83 F.3d at 1018. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit found that this Court \"correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" Id. ( emphasis supplied). 2 Likewise, the State must disburse teacher retirement and health insurance funding to the districts \"in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" Therefore, the starting point for determining the districts' damages should be the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other districts in Arkansas rather than the three Pulaski County districts' actual costs. See Docket No. 3187, Districts' Brief, for a more complete discussion of this issue. 2. The amount of equalization funding received for teacher retirement and health insurance. The second issue concerns the amount of equalization funding received by the districts to pay their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The State, LRSD, NLRSD and Joshua disagree with PCSSD as to the appropriate method for calculating this amount. The State proposes a methodology which takes into account the equalizing effect of the Act 917 funding formula. On August 19, 1998, all three districts agreed that the State's method was appropriate. See Docket No. 2Specifically, this Court stated: [T]he Court does find that the State must assist the three Pulaski County school districts to the same degree that it is assisting the other districts in the state. Thus, the state must fund the same proportion of the cost of each of the three Pulaski County school district' workers' compensation insurance as it pays for all the other school districts in the state beginning with the 1994-95 school year. Docket No. 2337, Memorandum Opinion and Order filed Jan. 13, 1995, p. 6-7. 9 3187. However, it appears PCSSD now intends to pursue its alternative methodology, which assumes that the Act 917 funding formula distributed equalization funding based only on a district's Average Daily Membership (''ADM''). PCS SD' s methodology should be rejected because it conflicts with the findings of this Court which were affirmed by the Eighth Circuit and because it fails to take into account the equalization effect of the Act 917 funding formula. (a) The State's methodology. The State proposes that the amount of equalization funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance be determined by a simple two-step calculation. First, the total teacher retirement and health insurance costs for all school districts in the state is divided by the total amount of state aid distributed through the Act 917 funding formula to get a percentage. Next, this percentage is multiplied by the total amount of Act 917 funding received by a district, with the  result being the amount of Act 917 funding the district received for teacher retirement and health insurance. The State's methodology recognizes that there is no way to trace funding for teacher retirement and health insurance through the Act 917 funding formula. As this Eighth Circuit noted, teacher retirement and health insurance funding \"has been folded into the over-all Equalization Funding system .... \" Id. at 965. Because money is fungible, the only reasonable assumption that can be made is that the funding for teacher retirement and health insurance was equally distributed among school districts. Therefore, the State's methodology assumes that, if 15% of equalization funding for all districts was for teacher retirement and health insurance, then 15% of LRSD's equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance. 10 The present case is similar to trust cases involving the commingling of trust assets with other assets. In effect, the State has commingled the teacher retirement and health insurance funding with equalization funding. Where a trustee commingles trust assets with other assets, the trust maintains a right to the trust assets based on their proportion to the whole. See, e.:\u0026., Restatement (Second) of Trusts,  202, comment n. Similarly, the amount of teacher retirement and health insurance funding the districts received should be based on the proportion of teacher retirement and health insurance funding to the whole of equalization funding. This is the result achieved by the State's methodology. The State currently uses this proposed methodology to detennine the amount of equalization funding school districts receive from the Education Excellence Trust Fund (\"Trust Fund\"). Ark. Code. Ann.  6-5-307 (Michie Supp. 1997) requires school districts to spend funding from the Trust  Fund on teachers' salaries. Ark . . Code. Ann.  6-5-307 (Michie Supp. 1997). Like the teacher retirement and health insurance programs, funding from the Trust Fund was once distributed outside the funding formula. When the State began distributing the Trust Fund as a part of equalization funding, school districts still needed to know the amount of funding they received from the Trust Fund in order to determine their compliance with Ark. Code Ann.  6-5-307. The State developed the methodology it now proposes in the present case to detennine the amount of equalization funding a district received from the Trust Fund. This methodology has already been subjected to public comment and adopted by the State Board of Education. The State's regulations setting forth this methodology are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Most importantly, the State's methodology provides the greatest benefit to desegregation in that it results in the greatest monetary award for each school district, including PCS SD. See Docket 11 No. 3187, Districts' Response, Exhibit 1. Under PCSSD's own methodology (which assumes the districts recover more than their actual costs), PCS SD damages total $3,509,884 for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school year. Docket No. 3186, Exhibit A and B. However, using the State's methodology ( and also assuming the districts recover more than their actual costs), PCS SD' s damages total $4,142, 571. See Docket No. 3187, Districts' Response, Exhibit 1. PCSSD's method had a much more significant impact on LRSD. Under PCSSD's methodology, LRSD's damages total $10,726,693. ill Exhibit 2 attached. The State's methodology results in a damage award to LRSD of Sl 7,819,759. See Docket No. 3187, Districts' Response, Exhibit 1. (b) PCSSD Methodology. PCS SD proposes calculating the amount of equalization funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance based on the assumption that each school district received the same amount per ADM. PCS SD takes the total teacher retirement and health insurance costs for all districts and the State and divides that amount by the total state ADM. The resulting per ADM amount is then multiplied by a district's ADM to determine the amount of equalization funding received by the district for teacher retirement and health insurance. PCSSD's methodology should be rejected for several reasons. First, it assumes that all districts received the same amount per ADM and thereby fails to take into account the equalizing effect of the Act 917 funding formula. As this Court has found, \"the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a perADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district.\" Docket No. 2930, Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 9 (emphasis supplied). The equalizing effect of the Act 917 funding formula means that districts with greater local resources receive less equalization funding. For example, due to 12 differences in local resources, LRSD received $1,858.73 per ADM in equalization funding in 1997-98 and PCS SD received $2,815.47 per ADM in equaliz.ationfunding in 1997-98. See Exhibit 3 attached. PCS SD contends, however, that both districts received $428.18 per ADM for teacher retirement and health insurance. ~ Exhibit 2 attached. Thus, according to PCS SD, 23% ofLRSD' s equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance while only 15% ofPCSSD's equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance. No rational basis supports the assumption that a greater proportion of LRSD' s equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance. PCS SD' s method would result in LRSD being forced to use equaliz.ation funding or local funds to pay its teacher retirement and health insurance costs, but this is why the change to Act 917 violated the Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs in the first place. As this Court stated, \"requiring the settling districts to pay health - insurance matching from equaliz.ation or local funds is not a 'fair and rational' adjustment to the funding formula.\" Docket No. 2968, Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 5. PCS SD attempts to justify the use of a pure ADM calculation by making the assumption that the money for teacher retirement and health insurance was removed from the Act 917 funding formula after equalization and distributed separately. However, there is no factual basis for making this assumption. Teacher retirement and health insurance funding was not removed from equalization funding, and it was not distributed separately after distribution of equaliz.ation funding. Rather, teacher retirement and health insurance funding was commingled with equalization funding. Therefore, the State's methodology provides the only reasonable means for determining the amount of equalization funding the districts received for teacher retirement and health insurance. 13 3. PCSSD's cap argument. Finally, PCS SD argues that the Eighth Circuit's opinion requires a comparison of the overall impact of the change from Act 34 to Act 917 for the purpose of establishing a limit or cap on the districts' damages. While this would not affect PCSSD, calculations submitted by PCS SD indicate that it would bar any recovery by LRSD. Docket No. 3227. PCSSD's motive in making this argument results from a concern about the disparity in teachers' salaries betweenPCSSD and LRSD. PCSSD apparently hopes to prevent LRSD from following through on a promised pay increase contingent upon its recovery in this case. The best indicator of the lack of merit in this argument is the fact that the State itself does not make it, despite the fact that the State would be the real beneficiary if the argument prevailed. As the State concedes, however, a cap on the districts' damages in the manner suggested by PCSSD would violate the Settlement Agreement. - First, capping the districts' damages based on an overall comparison between Act 34 and Act 917 would violate Paragraphs II.E. and II.L. of the Settlement Agreement by depriving the districts of the benefit of the change in the funding formula. The final sentence of Paragraph II.E. prevents the State from using general state aid (now equalization funding) to supplant its funding obligations under the Settlement Agreement. It provides, \"The funds paid by the State under this agreement are not intended to supplant any existing or future funding which is ordinarily the responsibility of the State of Arkansas.\" Settlement Agreement, ,i II.E. Therefore, assuming for the purpose of argument that LRSD benefitted overall from the change to the Act 917 funding system, the fact remains that the State failed to pay the same percentage ofLRSD's teacher retirement and health insurance costs as it paid to other school districts in the state, and this violates the Settlement Agreement. 14 A cap on the districts' damages as suggested by PCSSD would also violate Paragraph II.L. of the Settlement Agreement. The Eighth Circuit described this paragraph as an \"anti-retaliation clause.\" Id. at 966, quoting LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1018 (8* Cir. 1996). Discussing Paragraph II.L. in the workers' compensation decision, the Eighth Circuit explained: Id. Its purpose, by its very words, is to prevent the State from cutting other programs in order to pay for its desegregation commitments. U: for example, the State had passed a statute decreasing or eliminating workers' compensation payments for the settling districts only, while maintaining its system of paying the costs to other school districts, this portion of the Settlement Agreement would have clearly been offended. The flaw in PCSSD's cap argument can also be demonstrated by consideration of a hypothetical statute. Assume the State passed a statute adopting the Act 917 funding system but continuing to directly pay school districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Assume e next that the statute provided that the State would not pay the three Pulaski County districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs to the extent they benefitted from the overall change in the funding formula. Such a statute would clearly violate the Settlement Agreement. In this hypothetical, numerous school districts in the state would receive increased state aid as a result of the change in the funding formula, but only the three Pulaski County districts would be required to use any increase in state aid to pay their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. PCS SD' s cap argument brings about the same result as the hypothetical statute. Therefore, a cap on the districts' damages would, in and of itself, violate the Settlement Agreement and should be rejected. The Eighth Circuit stated in its teacher retirement and health insurance opinion that its decision in the workers' compensation case \"points the way towards a proper solution of the present appeal.\" The Eighth Circuit's opinion in the workers' compensation case in no way indicates that the 15 districts may only recover damages to the extent that they lost money overall due to the change in the funding system. The court simply held that \"the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d at 1018. The court imposed no requirement that the districts must lost out overall as a result of the overall funding changes, and this Court should not interpret "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1677","title":"Court filings concerning judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy and ODM report, ''Specialty Programs in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''","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":["1998-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School employees","Student assistance programs","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy and ODM report, ''Specialty Programs in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''"],"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/1677"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["154 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion in Limine; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) joinder in LRSD's motion in Limine; District Court, joint motion for summary judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, memorandum brief in support of joint motion for summary judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion in Limine; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Specialty Programs in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, two orders; District Court, Joshua intervenors' prehearing submission on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION IN LIMINE 1-, ,ue.,,,~ . RECEIVED - DfC 4 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its motion the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This court's decision in favor of the three Pulaski County school districts on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance was affirmed by th~ ' Eight_?,. C,j,rcuit Court of Appeals on July 1, 1998. The Eighth Circuit remanded the case to this court \"to decide exactly what relief is appropriate.\" 2. Noting that the Eighth Circuit \"directed it to decide what relief is appropriate for the distric~s, this court scheduled a hearing \"on this issue\" for January 5, 1999. Order, November -3, 1998. 3. On July 20, 1998 the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and the districts filed simultaneous briefs concerning the r emedy issue. ADE submitted one method for calculating the remedy, '... -:' f' the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) submitted ,. another method ; the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and ,,.. ..:. \\ ' LRSD agreed that 11AnE,~.s submission seems to present an acceptable - method of calculating the remedy which is consistent with the decisions of this court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.\" 3. The parties filed simultaneous reply briefs on August 19, 1998. The three districts agreed \"that ADE's [July 20] submission provides (1) acceptable method for calculating the amount of Act 917 Equalization Funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance. The districts argued, however, that because districts outside Pulaski County received one hundred seven percent (107%) of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs, the districts should be paid that same percentage of their actual costs in order to meet the requirements of the Eighth Circuit's order. PCSSD filed a II supplemental submission\" in which it reserved the right to argue its proposed methodology and outcomes \"if the court ultimately determines not to accept the proposal being made by the LRSD. 11 ADE filed a response to PCSSD's July 20 submission arguing that the method for calculating the remedy proposed by PCSSD is flawed. 4. The only issue separating ADE from LRSD and NLRSD is whether ADE should be required to pay one hundred percent (100%) or one hundred seven (107%) of the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Aside from that issue, LRSD and NLRSD have expressed their willingness to accept ADE's proposed method for calculating the remedy. The question of whether the award should be calculated on the basis of one hundred percent (100%) or one hundred seven (107%) of actual costs is a legal one, the resolution of which would not require the court to decide any disputed factual 2 issues. ADE, NLRSD and LRSD are willing to present this sole remaining issue to the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The reason that this simple and expeditious method of resolving the remedy issue among these three parties has not been presented to the court is that PCSSD suggests a different method for calculating the remedy and ADE desires a single method of calculation for all three districts. 5. On September 8, 1998, PCSSD filed a motion and brief to enforce the Settlement Agreement as regards MFPA. PCSSD's motion is based partly upon the Eighth Circuit's July 1, 1998 decision regarding teacher retirement and health insurance but, unlike those issues, PCSSD's 11 MFPA11 claim has not been litigated and there has been no determination of ADE' s liability with respect to the 11 MFPA11 claim. PCSSD' s motion seeks to recover the entire difference between the funding it now receives under Act 917 and the funding it claims it would have received under Act 34. PCSSD's motion is not limited to the damages caused by ~he State's change in its method for distributing funds for teacher retirement and health insurance. 6. LRSD understood that the hearing scheduled for January 5, 1999 was to be for the purpose of resolving the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues remanded by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. As outlined above, there are relatively few issues separating the parties with respect to the remedy. The resolution of PCSSD's 11 MFPA11 issue requires a liability hearing, not a remedy hearing. The 11 MFPA11 issue would be more properly 3 - combined with the outstanding special education, loss funding and other issues which have yet to be tried on the merits. 7. In order to avoid unnecessarily prolonging the remedy hearing by the litigation of liability issues only marginally related to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issue, LRSD seeks an order expressly limiting the January 5 hearing to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issue and excluding the issues presented by PCSSD's \"MFPA\" claim. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order limiting the January 5, 1999 hearing to the question of the appropriate remedy for ADE's adjudicated violation of the Settlement Agreement with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance and excluding other issues, particularly those related to PCSSD' s \"MFPA\" claim. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, EDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. ----- By::-: i==h~~..I,J.'t~~LJ~~#::.( C Bar No. 81083 4 --- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion In Limine has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 3rd day of December 1998. JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 5 RECEIVED DEC 8 1998 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OffiCE(f DESEGREGATION MONm1iJE ,,,. EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS   '. ' WESTERN DIVISION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT N0.1, ei al. PLAINTIFF .DEFENDANTS ADE'S TOINDER IN LRSD's \"MOTION IN LIMINE\" Like the LRSD, ADE understands that the hearing currently scheduled for January 5, 1999, is for the purpose of presenting evidence and argument concerning the appropriate \"remedy\" for the teacher retirement and health insurance issues discussed in the Eighth Circuit's July 1, 1998 opinion. For the reasons discussed below, ADE joins in LRSD's motion to exclude from the January 5 hearing any evidence or testimony concerning PCSSD' s purported \"MFP A claim.\" Following the Eighth Circuit's decision, this Court set a briefing schedule for the ' parties to submit their arguments concerning the remedy on the teacher retirement and health insurance issues. Pursuant to the Court's briefing schedule, as amended, the parties filed briefs on Jly 20 and August 19, 1998. None of those briefs submitted by PCS.SD on those dates argued or even suggested that the appropriate remedy on the retirement/health insurance issues ~ould require a comparison of total state aid - outcomes between what the Act 917 system produced and what the Act 34 system 1 -- ---  \"would have produced\" if it would not have been eliminated in the 1995 legislative session. However, on September 8, 1998, well outside the established briefing schedule for the teacher retirement/health insurance \"remedy\" issue, PCS5D filed a pleading it styled as a \"Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as Regards MFPA.\" In that motion PCSSD purports to compare the total amount of state funding it received under the Act 917 system and the total an\\ount of sta!e fonding it claims it would have - received if the Act 34 system would not have been changed. PCS5D' s motion does not -i~entify any provision of the Settlement Agreement it contends has been breached. Rather, PCSSD's motion is based exclusively upon the \"remedy\" language in the Eighth Circuit's July 1, 1998 decision regarding teacher retirement and health insurance.1 Like the LRSD, ADE believes that PCSSD may attempt to introduce evidence at the January 5 hearing regarding purported total state aid outcomes under the Act 917 system and what PCSSD and the other Districts allegedly \"would have received\" if the Act 34 system had not been repealed. Such evidence and argument should be excluded from the January 5, 1999 hearing for two reasons. First, evidence and argument concerning an alleged Act 34/917 comparison should be excluded because this method of calculating a remedy was not presented to this \u003c;~urt in any of the briefs PCSSD submitted pursuant to this Court's briefing 1 In its motion in limine, LRSD states that PCSSD's motion .. is based partly on\" the remedy language in the Eighth Circuit's July I, 1998 opinion. ADE disagrees with LRSD_on this point. An examination of PCSSD's motion  makes cJear that PCSSD's bases its claims exclusWe(y upon the remedy language of the Eighth Circuit's opinion. PCSSD's motion does not cite_t9 ariy .provision of the Settlement Agreement  2  - schedule on the remedy issue. Had PCSSD wished for this Court to consider such a comparison as the appropriate rei:nedy on the retirement .and health insurance issues, PCS.SD should have advanced this theory in its opening remedy brief on July 20, or in its reply brief on August 19. Second~ PCSSD's proposed Act 34/917 comparison is not an appropriate \"remedy\" on the retirement and health insurance issues as a matter of law, and any ' evidence or argument concerning such a compa.Iison would therefore be L.-;:elevant. The appeal which resulted in the Eighth Circuit's July 1 opinion dealt only with the changes in the manner in which teacher retirement and health insurance matching obligations of school districts were paid by the State. Neither this Court nor the Eighth Circuit has found that the State is in violation of the Settlement Agreement in any other respect, yet PCSSD's Act 34/917 comparison plainly seeks relief beyond those damages  that might have been caused by the State's change in its method of distributing funds for teacher retirement and health insurance. Nothing in the Eighth Circuit's opinion authorizes such a comparison as an appropriate method for calculating the damages on the narrow retirement and health insurance issues. Permitting  PCSSD to. present clearly irrelevant evidence and argument concerning its . purported Act 34/917 comparison. at the January 5 hearing would unnecessarily prolong and complicate the resolution of the remedy issue. Accordingly, ADE joins in LRSD's request for an order excluding from the January 5 hearing any evidence or argument concerning PCSSD's purported Act 34/917 comparison. 3 Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General  Assistant Attorn y General ; . ~23 Center Street, Suite 200  Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, T~othy Gauger, certify that _on D~ember 7, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing qocument to 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 \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell . 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller . i'.riday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark . 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol  Little Rock, AR72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH REGARD TO THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE REMEDY PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") for their Joint Motion for Summary - Judgment With Regard to the Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Remedy state: 1. No material fact remains to be resolved with regard to the appropriate methodology for determining the three Pulaski County districts' (the \"districts\") damages with regard to teacher retirement and heal th insurance. All parties agree that ADE's proposed methodology is acceptable. 2. The only dispute concerning ADE's methodology is whether the districts damages' should be based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. The parties have already submitted br.iefs on this issue. This dispute presents a legal question which can be resolved as a matter of law. 3. LRSD and ADE's memorandum brief submitted in support of this motion is hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, LRSD and ADE pray that the Court adopt ADE Is proposed methodology and decide as a matter of law whether the ---- -- districts' damages should be calculated based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. Respectfully Submitted, Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. John c. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for LRSD and, Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Attorneys for ADE By: John c. Fendley, Jr,. I V I. 2 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 this 9th day of December, 1998. Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 - --- -- 3   , RECEIVE,:, //411..f-/\"l./1 I Y'GflJ, f!ye_ ~ DEC 1 0 1998 \" ' t. 2. .., ...,, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/Nr, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL I. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH REGARD TO THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE REMEDY Introduction. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS This Court has scheduled a hearing for January 5, 1999 on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy. Two issues stand to be resolved. 1 First, this Court must determine the appropriate methodology to be used in determining the amount of teacher retirement and health insurance funding received by the three Pulaski ~ounty districts under Act 917. Second, this Court must determine whether the three Pulaski County districts' damages should be based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. No material fact remains to be resolved with regard to either of the above issues. Accordingly, the moving 1 See Joint Motion in Limine filed December 3, 1998. Docket No. 3223. parties pray that this Court resolve these issues as a matter of law. II. The Methodology. On August 19, 1998, the three Pulaski County school districts -- --- . (the \"districts\") agreed that the Arkansas Department of Education's (\"ADE\") Submission Concerning Remedies on the Issues of Teacher Retirement and Heal th Insurance provided an acceptable method for calculating the amount of Act 917 equalization funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance. Docket No. 3187. Only the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") proposed an alternative to ADE's methodology. Docket No. 3186. However, PCSSD's pleading simply reserved the right to argue for its methodology should the Court reject ADE's methodology. Docket No. 3186. 2 Under ADE's proposed methodology, all three Pulaski County districts recover more damages than under PCS SD' s methodology. Districts' Brief filed August 19, 1998. See Exhibit 1 to the Therefore, since all parties agree that ADE's proposed methodology is acceptable and since that methodology provides the greatest benefit for the students of each district, LRSD and ADE respectfully request that the Court adopt ADE's proposed methodology as a matter of law. 2The three Pulaski County districts do not agree at this time that ADE's methodology would be applicable to possible future pending claims regarding MFPA, special education and loss funding. F: \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD\\des-bri-sju .tea 2 or III. Actual Costs Versus Percentage of Costs. While the three Pulaski County school districts agree that ADE's methodology is acceptable, the districts contend that ADE has stopped short of granting the districts complete relief. ADE's proposed remedy provides the districts with 100% of their actual costs for teacher retirement and health insurance. The districts contend that this remedy falls short of complete relief because other districts in the state received more than 100% of their actual costs for teacher retirement and heal th insurance. The districts seek to recover the same percentage of their teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. ADE denies that the districts should receive more than their actual costs. Whether the districts should receive their actual costs or the same percentage of their costs as other districts in the state presents a legal issue which can be resolved by this Court on summary judgment. No material fact needs to be resolved for the Court to decide this issue. Resolution of this issue simply requires an interpretation of Eighth Circuit's decisions in this case. The districts and ADE have already submitted briefs stating their respective positions on the issue. Accordingly, LRSD and ADE respectfully request that the Court decide the issue as a matter of law. IV. Conclusion. LRSD and ADE respectfully request that the Court adopt ADE's proposed methodology and decide whether the districts' damages F: \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\ LRSD\\de 3-bri -3 ju. t ea 3 should be calculated based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. If the Court resolves these two issues, LRSD and ADE are confident that the remaining details can be settled and that the January 5, 1999 hearing will be unnecessary. f : \\HOME\\fENDLEY\\LRSD\\des-bri-sju.tea Respectfully Submitted, Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for LRSD and, Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Attorneys for ADE 4 . ' 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 this 9th day of December, 1998. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 J F: \\HOME\\FENOLEY\\LRSO\\des-bri-sju. tea 5 ', ~ECEIVED DEC 15 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEC 14 1998 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.JAMES ','i ;\\ :cCOR,'lir\\CK, Cl..ErK WESTERN DIVISION By: 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GcP. CLEi,K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO LRSD'S MOTION IN LIMINE INTRODUCTION The PCSSD understands that the hearings scheduled for next January are for the purpose of resolving the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues. However, the PCSSD disagrees with LRSD's analysis concerning the MFPA issue. For reasons which will be fully explained below, the PCSSD submits that the MFPA analysis it has submitted to the Court is, on the one hand, an independent claim being pursued by the PCSSO. However, and most importantly, on the other hand, the PCSSD MFPA analysis resides at the heart of the remedial tasks directed by the Court of Appeals as regards teacher retirement and health insurance. INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS As an initial matter,' the Court of Appeals has directed the District Court: \"On  remand, it will be up to the District Court, in the first instance, to decide exactly what . ' . . ' : . . . . ' . . , . .  relief is appropriate.\" 97-1794 EA, Slip Opinion at p. 30 72098 1 t This the parties have done by their submitted calculations regarding their claimed teacher retirement and _health insurance shortfalls. In this respect, the submissions of the PCS SD differ from those submitted by the State_ and embraced by the LRSD.1 However, the submissions of the other parties ignore the remain.der of the Court of Appeals instructions. The Court of Appeals went on to direct that: The three Pulaski County Districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be a double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFPA plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. 97-1794 EA, Slip Opinion at pp. 30-31 This directive of the Court of Appeals cannot be ignored. While the other parties have paid lip service to this requirement, only the PCSSD has submitted an analysis comparing the effects of the old system to the new as required by the Court of Appeals. Whether this be currently characterized as an independent claim by the PCSSD or as simply its effort to assist the Court in complying with the instructions of the Court of Appeals is of no practicable 1 To the extent it ever agreed, the PCSSD can no longer support the calculations of the State. This will be more fully explained in PCSSD's Response to the Joint Motion for Summary Judgment served upon the PCSSD on December 11, 1998. 72098 2 moment for hearing purposes, since whatever description is given the analysis, it is the same for either purpose.2 THE RULES AND CASE LAW REQUIRE THE PARTIES AND THIS COURT TO FULLY COMPLY WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS' INSTRUCTIONS Twenty-eight USC 2106 requires in pertinent part that: The Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm ... any judgment...and may remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment...or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances. The case law from this Circuit supports this proposition. In Bethea v. Levi Strauss \u0026 Co., 916 F.2d 453 (8th Cir. 1990) the court of appeals had occasion to explain what is required of a district court after remand. On remand, a district court is bound to obey strictly an appellate mandate. (citation omitted) If the district court fails to comply with an appellate mandate, the appellate court has authority to review the district court's actions and order it to comply with the original mandate. llL at 456 See also Chambers v. Armantrout, 16 F .3rd 257 (8 th Cir. 1994) and West v. United States of America, 1995 US Appellate Lexis 5294 (8th Cir. 1995). CONCLUSION As its resubmitted analysis will demonstrate, the PCSSD is entitled to a full recovery for its teacher retirement and health insurance shortfalls since its losses under the new funding system far exceed its claims for teacher retirement and health insurance. A full award of its current claim will thus neither result in a 2 Because the labeling issues obviously concern the LRSD and the State, the PCSSD is separately submitting its own funding analysis which it believes complies with that required by the Court of Appeals. (Please see attached Exhibit A, three pages) 72098 3 r .I , - double recovery nor a windfall and, as explained above, this analysis must be performed by this Court whether or not any other party assists by submissions to this Court. 72098 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By-~::;__---:+------=~-:-:-:----- y Special School \\ 4 1' ,. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December /J , 1998 a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following.  Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 72098 M. ( Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger .A.ssistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ones, Ill / I 5 NA I c ... r :.. I NOS\u0026v !MFPA CA1.C. ESTIMATES: ACT 3\"' FOR H-97. 97-91 \u0026 91-N ACT J.4171. ww.. I OISTIUCT L.RSD UWJ LRSO LASO I UHE SCHOOL YEA11 199 .. 11111-el 11117-M 19a.. NO. CHNIGIMTa 0.0271 0.0315 0.031M 0.1131M 1 WAOIIOATA 2 REG. 3 QNJM 22.JM.as 22.231.54 22,439.31 23,133.39 l SPEDWNJM' 1,700.72 1,7'00.72 1,700.72 1,700.72 , VOCWNJM' 825.81 529.61 8.28.61 !21l.61 5 VOCCWN)M  TT.9/5 TT.9/5 n,ge n .9tJ 6 GITWAOM 2.53.7S 253.75 253.75 253.75 71 LOSS FD WAOII 533.51 311..20 0.00 0.00 I TOT. WAOII am ... 25.401.M K ..... 29.H2A ----OUT 10 s1EJ1- ,.,. \"TION8 11 ST ATE l'\\JN0S $Q63.200.2,41 $983,.200,24' $1,\"8.684.101 S1, 111,111,171 12Nit0..M'(AOJEJ SQ ... g....,,;: . ... ' iiiiii 13 TOTAL ST. SSIII.U00.241 $1,!Ma, .. , 101 $1,111,717,171 S1, 147.290,11111 14 AVNIT. $11,015.9118.ffl $11.371.121. s1u1e. 1M.511 $20,alXJ.232,515 150iMGERATI: 0.0271 OJXl15 0.03111 0.0319 19 TOTAL AV OiO $473,044,7 S571.-.m SG2.929.253 $M4,455.2,47 17 TOTAL MISC. FOS. S!.215..3311 15.171 70Z '-A 739, 1111 S7 209247 11 TOTAi. Rl!SOURSU $1441-~ s1.a:n..1112.m s1m~ $1 11 ut25.355 11 TOT. WADII 171112'  SZ1 7l1 11,~ 1:111..a1 !lX.1IO 20 saa tt7S4.IO tt 14\u0026..21 '3.331.ff S3,\"5UI 21 DIFfUEHC2 U91.II $1- SUUI 22 AV!. LOC. RES. SN7 11111 Sf.:21111 $1..:za:I 2l IIIIFIIA CAL.CtJLAT10N 24 TOTAL AV. $1 ,So\u0026e,039.71'1 S1 ,712,311.Z20 $1,947,375,174 S1 ,9\u0026l,n7,1547 25 XCHG. 145.7~.101 SSJ. 837. 803 SG.1111,1115 sa2,753,401 291 MISC. REV. 75\" $102. 158 S1-47,11M S132.386 27/LOCAL RES. $,45,834,284 $53,i:37,803 $82.3'4.37'9 $62,M5,7S7 28 NO. M. D. 29 M.O. CR. 30 NET LOC. RES. $45,834.26' $53,937,803 $82.l4e.379 SS2,885,787 31 LOC. RES. RATE s1.ns.oe $2.123.37 $2.42:ll.07 $2,419.38 32 SaeR $2.75U0 $3, 1-4e.2S $3,331.97 $3,456.e.5 JJiTABlE RATE $978.54 S1 022.90 $905.90 $1 037.47 341 TOT. MFPA 'l:ll 172..1%1 ~11\u00261.74 $23 2IO 152 $:21 9M.3TT 3SiMfPACHAHGe $110121 (ll.701.!M $3 SN.22.S 31/ADDmOHAL. FUNDING 37 TEACHER RET. \u0026 HEAL.TH INS. COST $11 ,511.5111.00 S 13,802,731.00 $1-4,481 ,9'2.00 $15,933,618.50 38 AT RISK S 1,228.252. OIi $1.229~00 S 1.2:Ze.252.00 $1.229.252.00 39 TRANS $1 ,653 753.00 S1 . 653. 753.00 $1553753.00 $1 653 753.00 40 TOT. ADO. STAn FUNDI 114.lU.. ... $11.112.741 $17 341.M7 $1111312.4 41 TOT. STATE fUfjDI $31571 417 $G ll\u0026L.tlllll $40.122.0N $45 710.000 42 TOT Al. CHAHGI $3.~ , .. ., ..... - S! 157.101 431 S.EQA/GWTHIGWT. FCJD.SJINC. $4350,510 $43.233.011 t.\u00265.941~ 44/TOTAL MOR OR (LESS) THAH ACT 34 I u.u.0211 12110 NZ $161,313 EXHIBIT I A ; ... ~c - , 2 ,,. ' MFPA CAL.C. ESTIMATES: ACT 34 FOR N-e7 97-81 \u0026 91-81 A.CT3,q71.-. OISTlaCT NUt\"2 NUSD NLASD ~ LINE ............. Y!AII 1~ 199M1 1917-tl 1 ..... NO. CHNtG! IIATI!   0.0271 0.0315 IJ.Ol1M 0.03114 1 WADMDATA 2 REG. 3QAOM 9,079.25 ll.9C.111 9,094.2' 9,231 .07 3 SPEDWNJM  1,111l.78 1,11ua 1,119.78 1,1111.78 4 VOCWNJM' 310.71 310.71 310.71  310.71 5 VOCCWN)M 8.15 8.15 6.15 8.15 S GATWMlM 0 107.75 107.75 107.75 107.75 7 LOSS FU W.ADII 140.13 11~ 0.00 4.00 I TOT.WAOII 10 7M.l5 10.131.71 10,131.G 10.nSM ,....,..our 10 ~ CM.CULAnoNa 11 ST A Tl! l'U.\"C\u003eS S983..200.241 S883,200.241 St,048.1594,101 St .111 ,717,171 12AMOlMTADOED so) , . .,,..,!I,:,!: 13 TOTA\u0026. ST. $803..200.241 11 ,IMl,e\u0026M, 101 11,111,717,171 11,1-47.280,8111 14AVMr. S17,015,ll11U75 S11.l71.721. 119,111. 194,517 120 1113 232 515 15 CHARGE RATE 0.0271 0.0315 0.0318 0.0319 111 TOTM.AVCHG $-473,044,7N $571,a\u0026l,953 $832,i29,l5J SilM,465,247 17 TOTAL MISC. FDS. S5.215 335 $5 171 702 U739111 S72011-.247 11 TOTAL RESCIUltlEI 11 ~1.--.:i\u0026.I S1 ICD. 7n.n1 $1751..-..- SU11~ 11 TOT. WAOII m- 521731 518.2.111 ~a1 521,1 saa S2.7S\u0026.IO Sl.1\"\"-21 S2.331.ff H ,,.  .,. 21 DIFFRENC2 mi.II S1ISJI 112'.II Z2 AW. L0C. IIU. SI01' 11111 11.2111 $1-2EI 2l IIFPA CALCUUTION 24 TOT M.A. V. $-41,,333.275 $-4:ZS,'11.491 $-471 ,402.- $-475.a:!4.,220 25 XCHG. $11 ,511,485 $13,400,C s1s,cee.111 $15.201 ,020 215 MISC. R\u0026. 75\" S12.8511 12.m $0 27 LOCM.RES. $11,531,120 $13,400,462 S15.0S.311D $15..201,020 2S NO.M.O. 211 M.D.CR. 30 NET LOC. RES. $11,531 ,120 $13,400,462 115.09,390 $15.201,020 31 LOC.. RES. RA TE $1,071.24 $1.2~.47 $1,415.54 $1,410.71 32 S8ER $2,754.80 SJ,1-44.28 S3,l31.J7 $3,456.85 33 TASLS RATE $1 613.38 $1 588.11 $1918.'3 S2 048.t, 3' TOT.WPA S1L120 Ga ~079.2117 S203U14'1 !22 !ML 071 35 IIIFPAatAHGe $1H.l..124 $312-.lla $159.nt 3' .ADOfflONAL FUNDING 37 TEAC\u003eER RET. 6 HEM.TH INS. COST \"' 107,741.00 $4.'53,571 .00 $-4,681, 1 !M.00 $4,937,917.00 JI AT RISK $-478. 197.00 $478,197.00 $478,197.00 $478.197.00 39 TR.AHS S5 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1687","title":"Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, joint motion to relieve Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) from its obligation to file a February 1999 semiannual monitoring report; District Court, opposition of Joshua intervenors to join motion; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project 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":["1998-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School facilities","School employees","School integration","Students","Student assistance programs","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, joint motion to relieve Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) from its obligation to file a February 1999 semiannual monitoring report; District Court, opposition of Joshua intervenors to join motion; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project 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/1687"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["37 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  RECEIVED NOV C 1998 Orf!CE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 * * * * * * * Defendants. * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * * * * * ORDER FILED U.S. OISTR1crcouRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS NOVO l 1998 - JAMES W/ McGO~MACK, CLERK By: \\ , C::hl (\\ MUC\\ ' DEP Cl.ERK . On July 1, 1998, the Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit handed down an opinion on the issue of funding of retirement and health insurance for teachers and directed this Court to decide, in the first instance, exactly what relief is appropriate. The Eighth Circuit's mandate was filed in this Court on August 17, 1998, and the parties have now submitted papers setting forth their respective views on the matter. Accordingly, a hearing on this issue is hereby scheduled for Tuesday, January 5, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED this J ~ay of November 1998. rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP ON l/-.!1;98 BY :n:: _ 1 The Court contacted a majority of the counsel in this case in an attempt to set an earlier hearing date but was infonned that counsels' schedules prevented such an earlier hearing. The Eighth Circuit has previously indicated that it expects some kind of hearing to be held on many of the issues in this case. See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Spec. School Dist., 60 F.3d 435, 436-67 (80, Cir. 1995). 2 - HERSCHEL H . FRIDAY 11922 - 199-41 WILLIAM H . SUTTON , P. A . JAMES W . MOORE BYRON M . EISEMAN , JR .. P.A . JOE O. \u0026Ell , P. A . .. C. ECHOLS, P. A . SA . BUTTRY , P. A . ERICK$ . URSERY , P. A . RE . DAVIS , JR ., P. A . JAMES C. CLARK , JR ., P. A . THOMAS P. LEGGETT , P. A . J OHN DEWEY WATSON , P. A . PAUL B, BENHAM Ill , P. A . LARRY W . BURKS , P. A . A . WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR ., P. A . JAMES EDWARD HARRIS , P. A . J . PHILLIP MALCOM, P. A . JAMES M . SIMPSON , P. A . JAMES M . SA X TON , P. A . J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, P. A . DONALD H. BACON , P. A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P . A . BARRY E. COPLIN , P. A . RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR, P. A . JOSEPH 8 . HURST , JR ., P. A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY , P. A . CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P. A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH , P. A . ROBERTS . SHAFER, P.A . WILLIAM M . GRIFFIN Ill , P. A . MICHAELS. MOORE, P. A . DIANE S. MACKEY, P. A . WALTER M . EBEL Ill , P.A . KEVIN, A . CRASS , P. A. Wlllf:A.M A . WADDELL, JR ., P. A . FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3493 TELEPHONE 501 - 376 -2011 FAX NO . 501 - 376 -2147 November 12, 1998 NO\\J 13 1998 Qff\\CEOf o~sa;RtGA1\\0N MOtt\\lOR11'G Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Amended Fee Petition Dear Tim: SCOTT J. LANCASTER , P. A . M . GAYLE CORLEY , P. A . ROBERT 8 . BEACH , JR ., P. A . J . LEE BROWN , P. A . JAMES C . BAKER, JR .. P.A . HARRY A. LIGHT , P. A . SCOTT H . TUCKER , P. A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH , P. A . GUY ALTON WADE , P. A . PRICE C . GARONER , P. A . TONIA P. JONES , P. A . DAVID 0 . WILSON , P. A . JEFFREY H . MOORE, P. A . DAVID M . GRAF , P. A . CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A JOHN C . FENDLEY , JR ., P. A . R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0 . TAYLOR TON Y L. WILCOX FRANC . HICKMAN BETTY J . DEMORY BARBARA J . RAND LYNDA M . JOHNSON JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIELL. HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, J R. ALLISON J . CORNWELL TODD A . GREER ELLEN M . OWENS HELENE N . RA YDER JASON B. HENDREN SUSANN . CHILDERS BRUCE 8 . TIDWELL CHRIS A . AVERITT Of COUNSH WILLIAM J . SMITH 8 . S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON , JR . H. T . LARZELERE , P. A . WRITER 'S OIRl!CT NO. (501) 370-1506 I have enclosed our amended fee petition concerning the teacher retirement and health insurance issues . Much of my time was mistakenly left out of the original petition. The problem became apparent to me as I reviewed Sam's and Steve's fee petitions. It took some time for me to retrieve the time records from a general billing number. I apologize for the delay. CJH/k cc: All Counsel Ann Brown - ---- - --- - - Heller IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL l\\1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED NOV 1 3 1998 OfflCEOf DESEGREGATION MONffORINS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS For its amended motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS 1. LRSD is the prevailing party with respect to the teacher retirement and health insurance issues and is therefore entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs. LRSD, together with the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District, moved for summary judgment because the State of Arkansas changed its method of funding teacher retirement and health insurance to their detriment and in violation of the settlement agreement in this case. This court granted summary judgment. On July 1, 1998, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this court's order. 2. LRSD now seeks its attorneys' fees and costs expended presenting these issues. LRSD respectfully requests that this court award it reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 3. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has previously held in this case that fees should be awarded to LRSD for successful litigation enforcing the terms of its settle~ent agreement with the State of Arkansas. Little Rock School Dist. v. State of Ark., 127 F.3d 693 (8th Cir. 1997). 4. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark has historically billed the Little Rock School District at significantly discounted rates. LRSD is nevertheless entitled to an award of reasonable fees at the rates normally charged by the attorneys who work on behalf of the district. Little Rock School Dist. v. State of Ark., 127 F.3d 693, 697-98 (8th Cir. 1997); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 959 F.2d 716 (8th Cir. 1992). 5. LRSD should be awarded the following fees in accordance with the accompanying Affidavit: Christopher Heller - 114.75 hours x $170.00 = $19,507.50. 6. The district court has previously awarded fees to counsel for LRSD at the rate of $160 per hour for work done in 1994 and 1995. Order, December 31, 1997, Docket No. 3101. The fees sought in this petition are calculated at the regular rates for LRSD's lawyer for 1997 and 1998. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has awarded fees to LRSD's lawyer at the rates requested in this petition. 7. LRSD's previous motion for attorneys' fees and costs related to these issues contained significant omissions which were brought to counsel's attention upon the filing of the North Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District fee Affidavits. Counsel for ADE was promptly notified that the previous fee petition was incomplete and that an amended fee petition would be filed. F:IHOME\\KATHY\\APPEAL\\1794USDCFccsAmdMot 2 WHEREFORE, LRSD prays for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees of $19,507.50 as set forth in the accompanying Affidavit. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Little Rock School District's Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs has been served on the following on this 12th day of November, 1998: Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 F:IHOMEIKATHYIAPPEAL\\179-IUSDCFeesAmdMot 3 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 F:IHOMEIKATHYIAPPEAL\\1794USDCFecsAmdMo\u003c 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCTNO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL AFFIDAVIT I, Christopher Heller, after being duly sworn, state under oath: REC IVED NOV 1 3 1998 OFFICE OF l\u0026GREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS 1. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark's billing statements attached as Exhibit A to this Affidavit reflect the hours worked on the teacher retirement and health insurance issues as recorded in contemporaneous time records. All of the time shown on these billing statements has been billed to the Little Rock School District and those bills have been paid. 2. I have been engaged in the private practice oflaw at Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark for seventeen years. My normal hourly billing rate for the period oftime covered by these issues was $170. 00. That rate is in line with the rates typically charged by lawyers of similar experience and ability in Pulaski County, Arkansas. I was recently awarded fees at this rate for work on these issues in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark-has historically billed the Little Rock School District at significantly discounted rates. For the period of time covered by these issues, the highest hourly rate charged by any partner in the firm for any work on behalf of the Little Rock School District was $125.00, regardless of the partner's experience, ability or regular billing rate. 4. Based on the hours devoted to these appeals multiplied by the regular hourly rates of the participating lawyers, LRSD is entitled to the following fees: Christopher Heller - 114.75 hours x $170.00 = $19,507.50. By: - County of Pulaski) )ss. State of Arkansas) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me a Notary Public in and for the County of Pulaski, State of Arkansas on this ;.;,... ti- day of November, 1998. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT F:IHOME\\KA THY\\APPEAL11794USDCFeesAmdAlf 2 - - FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Little Rock School District's Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs has been served on the following on this 12th day of November, 1998: Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 F:IHOMEIKATHY\\APPEAL\\1794USDCFccsAmdAff 3 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 F:IHOME\\KA THY\\APPEALll 794USDCFecsA111Aff 4 LETTER TO DR. ROSSELL ENCLOSING DATA TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH AUDRY LEE RE: HISTORICAL STUDENT ASSIGNMENT DATA 4/29/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS RE: TEST SCORE DISPARITY/LOAN ISSUE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STACEY PITTMAN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS VARIOUS MATTERS RE: UNITARY STATUS 4/29/96 JCF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DAVID BESON RE: MEETING 4/29/96 JLM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MS. LEWIS RE: MGMT TOOL TRAVELED TO LRSD; CONFERRED WITH DR. JACKSON AND MS. LEWIS RE: MGMT TOOL; RETURNED TO OFFICE 4/30/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS (2 CALLS) TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH RUSS MAYO RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED INFORMATION RE: SCALE TEST SCODES; ADE LOAN AGR MEMO FROM DR. MAYO RE: HEARINGS ON COMPLIANCE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED REVISED BUSINESS CASES REVIEWED TRANSCRIPTS AND OLD FILES RE: 6 YEAR PLAN ARGUMENT CONFERENCE WITH JCF RE: MEETINGS AND MOTION RE: PLAN TERM (2) 4/30/96 JCF FAX FROM DR. MAYO RE: INTERNAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. ROSSELL RE: RESEARCH ON ORFIELD AND WALBERG 4/30/96 JLM PREPARATION OF NOTICE OF FILING; CORRESPONDENCE; REVIEWE AND FINALIZED; VARIOUS MATTERS RE: PROJECT MGMT TOOL 5/01/96 CJH LETTER FROM ELIZ TURNER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE PROJECT MGMT TOOL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: ADE MEETING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 1.00 .25 .25 .25 .25 .75 .25 .25 1.00 .50 .25 .50 .25 .75 1. 25 .50 .25 .50 1.00 .25 .so 27 -128658 6/30/96 .000090-CJH Gi) (Continued on page 28) 5/15/96 CJH 5/15/96 JCF 5/16/96 CJH 5/16/96 JCF 5/17/96 CJH 5/17/96 JCF 5/17/96 RSS WILLIAMS RE: INTERVENTION IN DESEG. CASE REVIEWED ARMOR ARTICLES AND CASES IN WHICH TESTIFIED; PREPARATION FOR TESTIMONY OF DR. ARMOR PREPARATION AND COURT HEARING EXPERT WITNESS DAVID ARMER; CONFERENCE WITH CO-COUNSEL; PREPARATION BRIEF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH PAT GEE CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: ARMOR TESTIMONY PREPARATION OF MOTION TO END JURISDICTION ATTENDED HEARING RE: TESTIMONY OF DR. ARMOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. MAYO TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY WALKER; THEN WALKER AND J. WRIGHT; CALLS TO SAM AND STEVE; CALL TO WILLIAMS AND MAYO TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STACY PITTMAN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEANNA RE: BEACH REQUEST TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. MAYO RE: DOCUMENTATION OF SPECIFIC COMPLIANCE AREAS RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF BRIEF RE: COMPLIANCE; JURISDICTION REVIEWED TRANSCRIPTS RE: SIX YEAR ARGUMENT PREPARATION OF MOTION FOR END OF JURISDICTION MEETING WITH ADE, PCSSD, NULRSD AND LRSD RE: NEW STATE FUNDING FORMULA: THEN CONFERENCE WITH DISTRICT COUNSEL RESEARCHED AND FINAL PREPARATION AND REVISION OF MOTION AND BRIEF RE: FED. CT. JURISDICTION; REPORTED TO CLIENTS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SCOTT TROTTER'S OFFICE PREPARATION OF MOTION TO END JURISDICTION REVIEWED DRAFT BRIEF Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 2.00 2.50 9.50 .so .so 4.75 3.00 .25 1.00 .25 .25 .so 8.75 1.50 8.00 6.25 .25 7.50 .75 34 -128658 6/30/96 .000090-CJH (Continued on page 35) 5/29/96 JCF 5/29/96 JLM 5/30/96 CJH 5/30/96 JCF 5/31/96 CJH FEES LETTER FROM SAM JONES RE: COMM-CASE PREPARATION FOR ORFIELD TESTIMONY; REVIEWED ARTICLES AND CASES; CONFERENCE WITH CO-COUNSEL; AND TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES CONFERENCE WITH KRIS BABER LETTER FROM JOINT WALKER RE: DEPOSITIONS LETTER FROM JOINT WALKER RE: DEPOSITIONS CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: HEARING PREPARATION REVIEWED ARTICLE BY ORFIELD RE: PREPARATION FOR HEARING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARDI WATTS RE: ORFIELD TRANSCRIPT CONFERENCE CALL WITH DR. ROSSELL, CJH AND ATTY. SAM JONES RE: HEARING PREPARATION REVIEWED HISTORICAL STUDENT ASSIGNMENT NUMBERS; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH AUDREY LEE RE: DATA ENTRY TRAVELED TO LRSD; ATTENDED MEETING RE: PROJECT MGMT TOOL: RETURNED TO OFFICE PREPARATION AND APPEARED AT TRIAL - EXPERT TESTIMONY OF GARY ORFIELD; THEN HEARING RE: DISCOVERY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS LETTER FROM SAM JONES RE: PCSSD CLAIM LETTER FROM SAM JONES RE: M TOM ISSUE CONFERENCE WITH JUDGE WRIGHT RE: DEPOS. OF DR . WILLIAMS AND DR. MAYO ATTENDED HEARING; TESTIMONY OF DR. ORFIELD; LUNCH MEETING WITH CJH; ATTY. JONES REVIEWED MILLIKEN OPINIONS; CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: PREPARATION FOR TESTIMONY Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .25 .25 8.50 .25 .25 .25 1.50 4.50 .25 1.25 1.25 1.00 9.75 .25 .25 .25 .75 7.00 OF ORFIELD 1.75 38 -128658 6/30/96 .000090-CJH PREPARATION AND APPEARED FOR HEARING G) RE: ADE FUNDING ISSUE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD FOIA REQUEST 5 (Continued on page 39) RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: JOSHUA RESPONSE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH J. WRIGHTS DOCKET CLERK RESEARCHED POSSIBLE CLAIMS VS ADE ER BREACH OF SETTLEMENT; CALL TO MARK MILHOLLEN 5/31/96 JCF ATTENDED HEARING RE: SCHEDULE ON FUNDING ISSUES ORGANIZED MATERIALS FOR EXPERT FILES USE DURING HEARINGS CONFERENCE WITH ATTY. STEVE JONES RE: FILING JOINT MOTION ON FUNDING ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BOB CONNOLLY RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT DATA TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARINGS 5/31/96 JLM PREPARATION OF PLEADING AND CORRESPONDENCE; VARIOUS MATERS RE: Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 39 -128658 6/30/96 .000090-CJH ~~ ~ .25 .25 .25 PROJECT MGMT TOOL Total Services 1.00 897.75 $86053.75 ANDREW T. TURNER CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER DEBORAH K. MOORE JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY JERRY LEE MALONE JANE MARIE WEISENFELS ROBERTS. SHAFER WALTER A. PAULSON WILLIAM H. SUTTON BINDING EXPENSE COURT REPORTER DISBURSEMENT RE: DEPOSITION EXPENSE EXPRESS MAIL COPY CHARGES FILE PREPARATION - - 1. 75 494.00 26.00 321.75 26.75 3.00 21.50 .50 2.50 X 85.00 = 148.75 X 105.01 = 51874.94 X 45.00 = 1170.00 X 85.00 = 27348.75 X 105.00 = 2808.75 X 45.00 = 135.00 X 105.00 = 2257.50 X 105.01 = 52.51 X 105.01 = 262.53 108.25 1371.00 17.00 2528.40 16.80 2335.20 126.00 {Continued on page 40) - - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MARKHAM \u0026 IZARD STREETS LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PULASKI CTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DIST NO. 1 5/28/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD MOTION AND BRIEF 6/02/96 JCF REVIEWED BUSINESS CASES AND TENTATIVE 96-97 BUDGET 6/03/96 CJH LETTER FROM ELIZ BOYTER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE PROJECT MGMT TOOL PREPARATION AND MEETING WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: CLAIM AGAINST STATE: CONFERENCE WITH JCF RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: FEES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED DOCUMENTS FROM MILHOLLEN; RESEARCH AND PREPARATION OF CLAIM AGAINST STATE 6/03/96 JCF FAX FROM DR. ROSSELL RE: SERVICES CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: NEW FUNDING FORMULA ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BOB CONNOLLY RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH AUDREY LEE RE: HISTORICAL STUDENT ASSIGNMENT DATA PREPARED FORMAT FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT DATA; FAXED TO BOB CONNOLLY 6/04/96 CJH LETTER TO DR. JOEL ANDERSON LETTER TO BILL BEAVEN CONFERENCE WITH STEVE ENGSTROM RE: WALKER FEES; REVIEWED FILE; EXCHANGED INFORJATION; RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED FEE DOCUMENTS RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF MOTION AND BRIEF OF ADE Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .so 2.50 .25 .so e 65 2.50 .25 . 25 .so .25 .25 1.50 8 1 -129263 7/30/96 . 000090-CJH (Continued on page 2) 6/04/96 JCF 6/05/96 CJH 6/05/96 JCF 6/06/96 JCF 6/07/96 JCF 6/10/96 CJH 6/10/96 JCF PREPARATION AND MEETING WITH BIRACIAL COMM. PREPARATION OF MOTION TO EXCUSE RIGGS FROM BUDGET HEARING REVIEWED TRANSCRIPT OF LAST BUDGET HEARING; PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARING RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF LRSD MOTION AND BRIEF; CALL TO SAM JONES; DON STEWART; MARK MILHOLLEN, REVIEWED AND REIVSED; FILED RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED JOSHUA MOTION TO EXTEND RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED JOSHUA MOTION AND BRIEF RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS CONFERENCE WITH WITNESSES RE: PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARING REVIEWED BUDGET AND BUSINESS CASES; PREPARATION OF OUTLINE FOR BUDGET HEARING REVIEWED ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS AND RECRUITMENT MATERIALS; PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARING ATTENDED BUDGET HEARING REVIEWED BUSINESS CASES; CONFERENCE WITH MR. MILHOLLEN RE: PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARING REVIEWED JOSHUA'S MOTION RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS LETTER FROM SAM JONES WITH REVISED BRIEF RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED NLRSD MOTION AND BRIEF LETTER FROM MR. GANS RE: ADE APPEAL RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND INTERROGATORY RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION FOR HEARING ON JOSHUA FEE ISSUE REVIEWED ODM AND JOSHUA REPORTS CITED IN JOSHUA MOTION - PREPARATION OF RESPONSE CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: BUDGET HEARING PRINTED NEW 8TH CIR. OPINION RE: BURDEN Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 1.25 .25 3.75 G .25 .75 6.00 1. 50 6.75 .50  .25 @) 2.25 3.00 .25 2 -129263 7/30/96 .000090-CJH (Continued on page 3) INCENTIVE SCHOOL OBLIGATIONS 6/26/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ED JACKSON; CLAY FENDLEY; REVIEWED DESEG. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF FEE PETITION VARIOUS MATTERS RE: UNITARY STATUS DATA; MONITORING REPORTS: RESPONSE TO WALKER; REVIEWED NEW CASES 6/26/96 JCF CONFERENCE WITH DEANA RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL RESPONSE CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET TOOL REVIEWED PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET TOOL FOR FY 97 AND FY 98 REVIEWD SUMMARY OF INCENTIVE SCHOOL OBLIGATIONS PREPARED BY DEANA TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MS. LEWIS RE : PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET TOOL CONFERENCE WITH DR. JACKSON AND MS. LEWIS RE: PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGET TOOL 6/27/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED FAX FROM TIM GAUGER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR. GAUGER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED FAX FROM BOB MORGAN CONFERENCE WITH FENDLEY RE: SERVICEMASTER BRIEF PREPARATION OF MOTION RE: ATTORNEY FEES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH TERESA CALDWELL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY KOWLER'S OFFICE 6/27/96 JCF PREPARATION OF NOTICE OF FILING PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING TOOL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JOY SPRINGER RE: JOSHUA MONITORING REPORTS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH FRETA ROGERS RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT DATA 6/28/96 CJH LETTER FROM ANGEL JONES WITH NOTICE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE MOTION 6/28/96 DKMP REVIEWED SUMMARY OF MONITORING REPORT Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .25 .75 2.25 1. 75 1.50 .50 1.00 3.50 .25 6 -129263 7/30/96 .000090-CJH db .25 .25 .50 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 0 (Continued on page 7) - - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MARKHAM \u0026 IZARD STREETS LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PULASKI CTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DIST NO. 1 7/01/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STEVE JONES 7/01/96 DKMP PREPARATION OF SUMMARY OF REPORTS 7/01/96 JCF RECEIVED AND REVIEWED ACHIEVEMENT DATA FROM FRETA ROGERS RECEIVED AND REVIEWED HISTORICAL STUDENT ASSIGNMENT DATA FROM AUDREY LEE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH FRETA ROGERS RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT REPORTS 7/02/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: ADE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: FEE PETITION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES REVIEWED EXPERT TRANSCRIPTS 7/03/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED JOSHUA MOTION AND BRIEF RE: ODM RECOMENDATIONS VARIOUS MATTERS RE: PLAN MODIFICATIONS; CONFERENCE WITH JCF; RESEARCHED APPEAL ISSUES R:E MOTION TO DISMISS/ SERVICEMASTER 7/03/96 JCF CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: KANSAS CITY AGREEMENT; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MO. AG'S OFFICE 7/05/96 CJH REVIEWED TRANSCRIPTS RE: PLAN MODIFICATION 7/08/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JIM HATHAWAY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DIXON FLAKE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: HEARING REVIEWED INCENTIVE SCHOOL 4 YR OLD AND KINDERGARTEN INFORMATION; CALL TO Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .so 6.00 .25 . 25 ci95 d!, I 5 1.00 3.25 .25 1.00 .25 .25 .25 (Continued on 1 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH page 2) CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: MEETING TO DISCUSS MODIFYING STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN CONFERENCE WITH CJH AND JULIE WIEDOWER RE: MODIFYING STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. ARMOR RE: PREPARING NEW STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN REVIEWED STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN; PREPARED DRAFT MODIFICATIONS BASED ON EXPERT HEARINGS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JULIE WIEDOWER RE: MEETING TO DISCUSS MODIFYING STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN REVIEWED MONITORING REPORTS; PREPARATION OF OUTLINE OF OBLIGATIONS RE: SCHOOL THEMES, MULITCULTURAL EDUC., FOREIGN LANG., SCIENCE LABS AND FIELD TRIPS 7/18/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER VARIOUS MATTERS RE: CREATION OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF UNITARY STATUS; PLAN MODICIATIONS  TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RESEARCHED AMEND 59, AMEN. 1 AND OTHER SCHOOL FINANCE ISSUES; CONFERENCE WITH SCHOOL DISTRICUT COUNSEL AND FINANCE OFFICIALS CONFERENCE WITH JCF RE: MOTIONS AND SCHEDULING 7/18/96 JCF REVIEWED AND REVISED OUTLINE OF OBLIGATIONS PREPARED BY DEANA RESEARCHED IMPACT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON TERMINATION OF CONSENT DECREE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEANA RE: PRINTING AUDIT RESULTS BY DOCUMENT PAGE NUMBER 7/19/96 JCF REVIEWED JOSHUA MOTION AND BRIEF RE: ODM RECOMMENDATIONS RESEARCHED POWER OF FEDERAL COURT TO Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .25 .75 1.00 1.25 .25 3.25 .25 1. so .25 .25 4 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH @ .25 4.25 2.75 .25 .75 (Continued on page 5) SUA SPONTE MODIFY CONSENT DECREE REVIEWED ODM REQUIREMENTS RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS AND CORROLATED WITH LRSD OBLIGATION ID NUMBERS REVIEWED ORDER RE: JOSHUA MOTION RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS; PREPARATION OF MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO JOSHUA MOTION RE: ODM RECOMMENDATIONS 7/22/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES (2) TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAMS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. ANDERSON 7/23/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES (2) RESEARCHED INTERVENTION ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH PAT GEE REVIEWED FURTHER REVIEW OF ADE DISCOVERY RESPONSES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD DRAFT INTERROGATORIES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE MOTIN TO DISMISS/ABSTAIN WITH BRIEF 7/23/96 JCF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH PATTY KOHLER RE: RESCHLEY REPORT AND LRSD DATA 7/24/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JULIE WEIDOMIER RE: S/A INFORMATION; LAIDLAW SOFTWARE FOR MANIP. S/A DATA TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES (2) RESEARCHED AND CONFERENCE WITH CO-COUNSEL RE: INTERVENTION; ROSS. DISCOVERY; RESPONSE LETTER FROM SAM JONES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS 7/24/96 JCF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. JACKSON RE: BUDGETING TOOL 7/25/96 CJH LETTER FROM ANN BROWN RE: LRSD BUDGET LETTER FROM STEVE JONES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED NLRSD MOTION AND BRIEF 7/26/96 CJH RESEARCHED WHITE FLIGHT ISSUES; NEW Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 1. 75 4.00 .50 GJ .25 0 .25 ~ .so 1.25 .25 .25 .75 ey .75 .25 .25 .25 .so 5 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH (Continued on page 6) 8TH CIR. CASE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: ENDING ISSUES; INTERVENTION RESEARCHED ADE REGS AND STATUTES RE: SCHOOL FUNDING CONFERENCE WITH JCF (2) RE: RESEARCH ISSUES 7/28/96 CJH LETTER TO DR. ANDERSON RE: NLR MOTION REVIEWED DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY ADE CONTINUED REVIEWED STATE PLEADINGS AND FILES RE: ADE FINANCIAL ISSUES 7/29/96 CJH RESEARCHED AND REVIEWED DOCUMENTS AND ADE PLEADINGS RE:O FUNDING AND INTERVENTION ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES MEMO FROM SAM JONES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ANALYSIS OF ARK. SCHOOL FUNDING PLAN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH PAT GEE 7/29/96 JCF REVIEWED GREY BOOK; REVIEWED FY 97 AND FY 98 BUDGET TOOL 7/30/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES VARIOUS MATTERS RE: ADE FUNDING ISSUES; COMPLIANCE; ODM REPORTS; GOOMED REPORT 7/31/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. ANDERSON LETTER FROM SAM JONES LETTER FROM GUS TAYLOR RE: MEDIATION PREPARATION OF MOTION TO RELEASE SEATS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: LAKE VIEW BUDGET 7/31/96 JCF PREPARATION OF NOTICE OF FILING OF BUDGET TOOL CONFERENCE WITH DR. JACKSON AND MS. LEWIS RE: BUDGET TOOL REVIEWED INCENTIVE SCHOOL PROGRAM; REVIEWED AUDIT OF OBLIGATIONS RE: PREPARATION OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUA MOTION RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 8/01/96 CJH REVIEWED AND FINALIZED MOTION LETTER FROM ELIZ TURNER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE PROD MGMT TOOL Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 1.00 G \u003c9 .50 .25 G;; ~ ~ .25 ~--2~0 1. 75 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 1.25 2.75 .50 .25 .50 6 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH (Continued on page 7) RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD DRAFT RESPONSE 8/01/96 JCF RESEARCHED APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH CONSENT DECREE REVIEWED AUDIT OF DESEG. OBLIGATIONS RE: PREPARATION OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUA MOTION RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 8/02/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH GRAM JONES; RECEIVED REVISED DRAFT BRIEF; REVIEWED AND CORRECTION; CALL TO SAM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BARRY WARD RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED JOSHUA MEM. BRIEF OPPOSIVE END . OF FED JONES; CONFERENCE WITH JCF 8/02/96 JCF REVIEWED JOSHUA RESPONSE TO MOTION TO END JURISDICTION PREPARATION OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUA MOTION RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS PREPARATION OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO JOSHUA RESPONSE TO MOTION TO END JURISDICTION 8/05/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD MOTION TO CLARIFY 1993 ORDER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MOTION, BRIEF IN SUPPORT; ANS RESPONSE TO ANSWER FILED BY POTENTIAL INTERVENTOR CONFERENCE WITH JCF RE: RESPONSE TO JOSHUA RE: COMPLIANCE (2) TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DENT GITCHER LETTER TO DENT GITCHER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STEVE JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER RE: ORFIELD TRANSCRIPTS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED BIRACIAL, COMM. MONITORING INST. VARIOUS MATTERS RE: RESPONSE TO JOSHUA OTIONS; RESEARCHED; PREPARATION OF RESPONSE 8/05/96 JCF CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOL RESPONSE Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS Q 2.25 2.50 G 1.50 1.00 6.50 .25 .50 .25 .25 .25 .50 3 . 25 .50 7 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH (Continued on page 8) 8/06/96 CAAC 8/06/96 CJH 8/06/96 JCF 8/07/96 CJH 8/07 /96 JCF 8/08/96 CJH RESEARCHED STANDARD AND REMEDIES FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT COPIED CASES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED NLRSD MOTION RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD MOTION AND BRIEF RE: CLASS BRIEFS PREPARATION OF RESPONSE TO WALKER PLEADINGS; REVIEWED DRAFTS; CONFERENCE WITH FENDLEY RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD RESPONSE TO ADE; BRIEF REVIEWED TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING RE: JUNE 5, 1992 ODM REPORT PREPARATION OF DRAFT RESPONSE TO JOSHUA MOTION RE: ODM RECOMMENDATIONS PREPARATION OF BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO JOSHUA MOTIONS RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS RESEARCHED WHETHER FINDING OF CONTEMPT REQUIRED FOR COURT TAKE ENFORCMENT ACTION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STERLING INGRAM LETTER FROM TIM GAUGER RE: PRIVILEGE DOCUMENTS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BEVERLY (2 CALLS) TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BARRY WARD TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES (2) RESEARCH CLASS ACTION ISSUES REVIEWED FY 96 BUDGET HEARING TRANSCRIPT RE: SPANISH PROGRAM PREPARATION OF BRIEF RE: JOSHUA MOTION ON ODM RECOMMENDATIONS RESEARCHED BURDEN OF PROOF ISSUE RE: JOSHUA MOTIONS RE: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS TELEPHONE CONFERNECE WITH STERLING INGRAM RE: MEETING ON JOSHUA MOTIONS AND SPANISH PROGRAM PREPARATION OF RESPONSES TO WALKER PLEADINGS RE : INCENTIVE SCHOOLS AND ODM, CONFERENCE WITH JCF AND REVIEWED AND REVISED DRAFTS Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS 4.75 .75 .25 .so 1.00 GP 1.50 1.50 2.50 4.00 .25 .25 .so .25 1.00 .75 4.25 3.50 .25 1.00 8 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH {Continued on page 9) RECONSTRUCTING SOFTWARE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED JOSHUA OPPOSITION TO PCSSD MOTION RE: CLASS STILES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE RESPONSE. - INTERVENTION RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: VARIOUS MOTIONS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED KNIGHT MOTION RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD FEE MOTION; BRIEF; AFFIDAVIT RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD SUPPLEMENTAL TO PLAN MOD. MOTION EXHIBITS 8/20/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM DAVIS RE: STATE HEARING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH KENT GITENER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ED JACKSON RE: BIRACIAL ADK, REVIEWED FILE RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORFIELD TRANSCRIPT AND SENT COPY TO DENT GITCHELL, LARRY BARWAY 8/21/96 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE RESPONSE TO PCSSD WITH BRIEF REVIEWED FOR AND PREPARATION FOR LAKEVIEW HEARING RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD MANUAL FOR FEES AND COSTS 8/22/96 CJH ATTENDED CLASS CERT HEARING IN LAKE VIEW CASE; CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES (2); REVIEWED TRANSCRIPTS 8/22/96 JCF CONFERENCE WITH LARRY BURKLEY RE: STATUS PREPARATION OF NOTICE OF FILING 4TH QUARTER PBD TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SHIRLEY LEWIS RE: 4TH QUARTER PBD REVIEWED AND SUMMARIZED VOLUME I OF TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID ARMOR 8/23/96 CJH CONFERENCE WITH LR ADVANCE RE: VARIOUS DESEG AND STUDENT ASSIGNMENT ISSUES; Page Inv# Date LI230 HOURS .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .50 .50 .50 .25 .50 .75 10 -131096 10/22/96 .000090-CJH (35 .75 .50 1. 75 .25 .50 .25 .25 2.50 (Continued on page 11) 8/23/96 JCF 8/25/96 CJH 8/26/96 CJH 8/26/96 JCF 8/27 /96 CJH CONFERENCE WITH JCF CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED 1996-1997 FINAL BUDGET RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED TRANSCRIPT OF BUDGET HEARING RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED LRSD STATUS AND PROGRAM PLANNING DOCUMENTS PREPARATION OF RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INTERVENE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN RE: BUDGET TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH AUDREY LEE RE: ZONE BLOCK MAPS REVIEWED AND SUMMARIZED VOLUME II OF TESTIMONY OF DR. ARMOR CONFERENCE WITH CJH, STACEY PITTMAN AND BAKER KURRUS RE: IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATION OF ALLIANCE VARIOUS MATTERS RE: CLAIMS VS ADE; RESPONSES TO INTERVENORS; LAKE VIEW AND BUDGET ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES; REVIEWED DRAFTS LETTER TO STERLING  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1681","title":"Court filings concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance and ADE's interrogatories to LRSD and NLRSD","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":["1998-08"],"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--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance and ADE's interrogatories to LRSD and NLRSD"],"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/1681"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["45 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, the districts' brief in response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) submission concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, supplemental submission by the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) interrogatories to Little Rock School District (LRSD) re: teacher retirement/health insurance remedies; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) interrogatories to North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) re: teacher retirement/health insurance remedies; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT,  Plaintiff,  FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARt\u003cANSAS AUG t O 1998 JAMES o/ ~MACK. CLERK By: LI U.,(\\,1\\/\\j 1\\, OEP CLERK vs.  No. LR-C-82-866  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.,  Defendants,   MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.,  lntervenors,   KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al.,  Intervenors.  ORDER Before the Court is a motion filed by the Arkansas Department of Education ( ADEj requesting a second extension of time to and including August 19, 1998 in which to file reply briefs to the opening briefs previously submitted regarding the health insurance and teacher retirement remedy issues. 'The ADE states in its motion that counsel for the Llttle Rock School District (LRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCssn), and the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) do not object to and join the ADE in this motion. As this Court noted for the record in its prior Order granting the parties' first request for an extension of time to file reply briefs, although the F.ighth Circuit Court of Appeals has released its opinion regarding the health insurance and teacher retirement remedy issues, the mandate from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding this opinion has not issued. Therefore, it is not clear that this Court has jurisdiction to require the parties to brief these issues at this time. Because the parties are in agreement regarding the briefing schedule and the proposed extension, - this Court will grant the ADE's request. The parties have to and including August 19, 1998 in which to file their reply briefs. .,,.. . . }3 i1 8 2 ~ IT IS SO ORDERED TillS /0 day of August 1998. QL.\u0026~ UNITED STATES Dis JUDGE 2  . , .JN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 2 o 1998 OFFICE Ot DESE6REGATION MON1TOR1N6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S BRIEF CONCERNING REMEDIES-ON THE ISSUES OF TEACHER RETIREMENT '  AND HEAL TH INSURANCE On July 20, 1998, the Districts and ADE submitted briefs outlining their positions - 6~ -the appropriate way to calculate a remedy for the Court's finding that the State breached the Settlement Agreement when it changed the manner in which school .district employee retirement and health insurance obligations were funded. After having reviewed ADE' s submission, LRSD and NLRSD advised this Court that they believe \"ADE' s -submission seems to present an acceptable method of calculating the remedy which is consistent with the decisions of this court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.\" Neither LRSD nor NLRSD submitted a proposed remedy of their own. This Court is now presented with two proposals concerning the calculation of a remedy: The method proposed by ADE (and endorsed by LRSD and NLRSDf and the 'Iriethod proposed by,.PCSSD.:,: Asr'discussed beio'w; PCS5D's proposai is flawed and - should'itbt be adoptea'by this C~urt.because (a) it assumes that Equalization Funds are 1  distributed on a pure per-ADM basis, and therefore is inconsistent with the findings of -this Court and the Eighth Circuit that such funds are distributed on an \"equalized\" basis; (b) it includes in the calculation PCSSD's health insurance matching obligations attributable to federally-funded school district employees, costs which were not paid by the State under the Act 34 funding system; and (c) it would produce an unwarranted windfall to PCSSD and the other Districts and would give the Districts compensation beyond that which is necessary to hold the Districts harmless from the effects of the funding changes. A. PCSSD'S J:\u003eROPOSAL IGNORES THE FACT THAT EQUALIZATION FUNDING IS NOT DISTRIBUTED ON A PURE PER-ADM BASIS The first flaw in PCSSD' s proposed remedy calculation is that it is based upon - the assumption that funds distributed for school district retirement and health insurance obligations ( distributed as \"Equalization Funding\") are distributed on a pure per-ADM basis. In the worksheet attached to its brief PCSSD calculates the amount of retirement and health insurance funding it received in 1996-97 and 1997-98 by taking the total statewide teacher retirement and health insurance obligations for all school districts for each year and dividing it by the total ADM count for all districts to arrive at an \"amt. distributed per ADM.\" PCSSD then multiplies that number by its previous year's ADM to arrive at the figure that is supposed to represent the amount of State retirement or health insurance funding it received. 2  C. PCSSD'S PROPOSED REMEDY WOULD PRODUCE DIVERGENT  RECOVERiES BETWEEN THE THREE DISTRICTS AND WILL RESULT IN UNW ARRAN'fED WINDFALL RECOVERIES The third and most significant flaw in PCSSD' s proposed remedy is that it would give the Districts more funds than the previous retirement and health insurance \"program\" would have given them had it not been changed in the 1995 legislative session, and therefore PCs.SD' s proposal violates the Eighth Circuit's command that no remedy be fashioned that produces a \"windfall\" recovery to the Districts. Moreover, PCSSD' s proposed calculation would produce an anomalous result under which each Pulaski County school district would be entitled to State funds sufficient to satisfy a different \"percentage\" of each District's actual retirement and health insurance obligations. 1. PC~SD's Proposal That The Districts Receive More Than 100% Of Their. Retirement And Insurance Obligations Violates The Eighth Circuit's Directive That The Districts Not Receive A Windfall In its instructions to this Cqurt on remand the Eighth Circuit directed that a remedy be fashioned that places the Districts \"in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed.\" At the same time, however, the Eighth Circuit recognized that the remedy should not produce a \"windfall\" recovery that would place the Districts in a better position than that which they enjoyed under the prior method of retirement and health insurance funding. PCSSD' s proposed remedy must be rejected because it would result in an unwarranted windfall to the Districts. 4  Prior to 1996-97 the funding \"program\" ensured that approximately 100% of the Districts' required retirement and health insurance contributions be paid by the State. Yet under PCSSD's proposed remedy, PCS.SD would be entitled to receive state funds equal to 101.2% of its 1996-97 retirement obligation, 101.02% of its 1997-98 retirement obligation, and 103.79% of its 1997-98 health insurance obligation. Moreover, PCSSD would be entitled to keep all of the state funds it received to satisfy its health insurance obligation for 1996-97, even though PCS.SD' s own analysis indicates that PCSSD received state funds sufficient to satisfy 107.62% of its actual health insurance obligation for that year.3 PCSSD's proposed analysis - and any similar analysis that would give any District more than 100% of its retirement and insurance obligation - would run afoul of the Eighth Circuit's direction that a \"hold harmless\" remedy be fashioned that results in no \"windfall\" recovery to the Districts. 2. PCSSD's Proposal Would Result In Divergent Levels Of Funding Between The Three Districts Moreover, PCSSD's proposed remedy calculation makes little sense and should be rejected because, under PCS.SD' s method, each District will receive State funds sufficient to satisfy a different \"percentage\" of its health insurance and retirement obligations. Under PC5.5D's proposal, its appropriate \"percentage level\" of funding should be determined by calculating the total retirement and health insurance obligation of all other school districts (including LRSD and NLRSD), calculating the 3 The inequity of this result is further illustrated by the fact that, under PCSSD's own analysis, the other 310 school districts in the state received from the State, on average, funds sufficient to satisfy 99.67% of their health insurance obligation. 5 - total amount of State funds distributed for those purposes to all other school districts (including LRSD and NLRSD), and calculating what \"percentage\" of this total obligation of these districts is covered by state funds. Under PCSSD' s proposal, PCSSD would then be entitled to funds sufficient to pay for this same \"percentage\" of its obligations. If this same methodology is adopted for each Pulaski County District,4 it would undoubtedly result in each District being entitled to funding sufficient to constitute a different \"percentage\" of their respective obligations. Because Equalization Funds are distributed in a manner that takes into account the wealth of the district, and given the differences in the relative \"wealth\" of each Pulaski County district, using PCSSD's method might result in PCSSD receiving, say, 103% of its health insurance obligation, while NLRSD and LRSD would be entitled to some different percentage of their respective obligations. There is no reason in law or logic to adopt such a remedy. For the foregoing reasons, ADE submits that PCSSD's proposed remedy, and any remedy that would result in any District receiving more than 100% of its retirement and health insurance obligations, must be rejected. 4 Under PCSSD's proposal, presumably LRSD would calculate its own \"percentage\" entitlement by looking at the state funding and ob'iigations of all other districts (inciuding PCSSD and NLRSD), and NLRSD would calculate its own \"percentage\" entitlement by looking at the state funding and obligations of all other districts (including LRSD andPCSSD). 6 Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _ I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on August 19, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to 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 \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82 - 866RECEllfED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AUG 2 o 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING THE DISTRICTS' BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO ADE'S SUBMISSION CONCERNING REMEDIES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS : INTERVENERS ,'  INTERVENERS ON THE ISSUES OF TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE I. Introduction. The three Pulaski County school districts (the \"districts\") agree that ADE' s submission provides one acceptable method for calculating the amount of Act 917 equalization funding received by the districts' for teacher retirement and health insurance. 1 However, ADE stopped short of granting the districts complete relief. The Eighth Circuit's order requires \"equal state funding ... for all school districts.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1018 ( 8t h cir. 1996) . See LRSD v. PCS SD, slip op. at 27, 1998 WL 352245, *6 (8 th Cir. July 1, 1998). Under Act 917, districts outside Pulaski County received 107% of their teacher retirement and health 1The districts cannot agree at this time that ADE's methodology should be used for future claims to be made by the districts with regard to special education and loss funding. insurance costs. 2 Therefore, the three Pulaski County districts should also receive 107% of their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. See Exhibit 1 attached. II. Discussion. In remanding the issue of damages to this Court, the Eighth Circuit offered the following guidance: The three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts a~e entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFPA plus teacher retirement plus heal th insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. LRSD v. PCSSD, slip op. at 27; 1998 WL 352245 at *6 (emphasis supplied). 2Using Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tristan D. Green, this percentage may be calculated by first subtracting the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of the three Pulaski County districts from the statewide total to obtain the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of other districts in the state. The amount other districts received in excess of their actual costs is equal to the total desegregation adjustment shown in column 4. The total desegregation adjustment is then added to the actual teacher retirement costs of other district. This equals the actual amount received by other districts in the state for their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The percentage of costs received by other districts in the state is determined by dividing the actual amount received by other districts in the state by the actual costs of other districts in the state. In both 1996-97 and 1997-98, this percentage is 107%. 2 To determine the districts ' damages as prescribed by the - Eighth Circuit, this Court must know two numbers: (1) the amount the districts would have received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the old Act 34 funding system; and, (2) the amount the districts actually received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the new Act 917 funding system. Using these two numbers, the districts' damages can easily be calculated by subtracting what the district's actually received under Act 917 from what the districts would have received under Act 34. See Exhibit 1 attached. The amount the districts received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the new Act 917 funding system is no longer in dispute. The districts accept for the purpose of calculating their damages in these cases the amounts set forth in Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tristan D. Green. The parties dispute, however, the amount the districts would have received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the old Act 34 funding system. ADE contends that this amount is equal to 100% of the districts' actual costs. The districts contend that this amount is equal to the percentage of actual costs received by districts statewide (which is 107%). Resolution of this dispute should be guided by the Eighth Circuit's opinion in the workers' compensation case. In that case, the Eighth Circuit defined the workers' compensation \"program\" as \"equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d at 1018. Thus, the 3 Eighth Circuit found that this Court \"correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" l,g ( emphasis supplied) . 3 Likewise, the State must disburse teacher retirement and health insurance funding to the districts \"in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" The nature of the State's violation of the Settlement Agreement dictates a remedy which ensures no disparate impact on the three Pulaski County districts. As the Eighth Circuit explained in the workers' compensation case, disparate funding violates the anti-retaliation clause of the Settlement Agreement. The court stated: The program in effect at the time of the Settlement Agreement, as we see it, was equal state funding of workers' compensation for all school districts. Thus, the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, so long as the change is, in the words of the Settlement Agreement, \"fair and rational\" and of \"general applicability.\" We see this portion of the Settlement Agreement as an anti-retaliation clause. Its purpose, by its very words, is to prevent the State from cutting other programs in order to pay for its desegregation commitments. If, for example, the State had passed a statute decreasing or eliminating workers' compensation 3Specifically, this Court stated: (T]he Court does find that the state must assist the three Pulaski County school districts to the same degree that it is assisting the other districts in the state. Thus, the state must fund the same proportion of the cost of each of the three Pulaski County school district' workers' compensation insurance as it pays for all the other school districts in the state beginning with the 1994-95 school year. Memorandum Opinion and Order filed Jan. 13, 1995, Docket No. 2337. 4 payments for the settling districts only, while maintaining its system of paying the costs to other districts, this portion of the Settlement Agreement would clearly have been offended. The state did not do that, however. Rather, it changed the funding formula for all districts in the State. So long as that change effects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement. That, however, does not end our inquiry. When the State disbursed \"seed money\" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation costs, it paid about one-half of the expense statewide. In the Pulaski County districts, it paid only about one-third of the expense. This disparity arose because the State's formula used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive. The Pulaski County districts are employee heavy compared to other districts, increasing their workers' compensation costs. This result is precisely what the anti-retaliation clause was meant to prevent. It funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state. It is of no moment that the State reached this result in a mathematically consistent manner. The District Court correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide. LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d at 1018 (emphasis supplied). By defining the \"program\" as \"equal state funding,\" the Eighth Circuit's opinion prohibits the State from funding the districts \"to a lesser degree\" than other districts in the state. Using the Eighth Circuit's analogy, the Settlement Agreement would clearly be offended if the State passed a statute funding 100% of the three Pulaski County districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs and 107% of these costs for other districts in the state. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d at 1018. This is exactly what the State did in passing Act 917. As the Eighth Circuit stated in the workers' compensation case, \"It is of no moment that the State reached this result in a mathematically consistent manner.\" Ig. 5 Act 917 violates the anti-retaliation clause of the Settlement Agreement because \"[i]t funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state.\" Id. Therefore, as in the workers' compensation case, the proper remedy is to direct the State to provide the districts funding for their teacher retirement and heal th insurance costs \"in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" Id. ADE may argue that funding 107% of the districts' costs will provide the districts the windfall described by the Eighth Circuit. This argument fails for two reasons. First, the windfall described by Eighth Circuit arises only if the State is not given credit for the amount of teacher retirement and heal th insurance funding provided under Act 917. See LRSD v. PCSSD, slip op. at 27; 1998 WL 352245 at *6. The districts agree with ADE's proposed methodology for calculating the this credit, and both ADE's and the district's damage calculations deduct this amount to avoid a windfall. Second, funding the three Pulaski County districts at 100% would deprive them of additional funding being provided to other districts in the state. Because education funds are finite, funds used to pay teacher retirement arid health insurance costs decrease the amount of funds which can be spent on direct educational programs. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F. 3d at 1018 ( \"Assuming finite funds, workers' compensation payments will decrease funds available for more direct educational programs.\") . Thus, if the average Arkansas school district's teacher retirement and health insurance costs total $1,000,000.00, Act 917 provides the district 6 $1,070,000.00 -- an excess of $70,000.00 over its costs. This excess can be used to fund direct educational programs in addition to other funding received by the district under Act 917. There is no reason why the three Pulaski County districts should be deprived of these additional funds provided to other districts in the state. To the contrary, the districts' desegregation obligations place the districts in a position of greater need than most other districts. III. Conclusion. Act 917 funds 107% of the teacher retirement and health insurance costs of districts in the state outside Pulaski County. In order to fund the three Pulaski County districts in the same percentage, the State must pay the Little Rock School District an additional $8,740,083 for 1996-97 and $9,079,676 for 1997-98; the North Little Rock School District an additional $1,303,417 for 1996-97 and $1,328,590 for 1997-98; and, the Pulaski County Special School District an additional $1,920,359 for 1996-97 and $2,222,213 for 1997-98. See Exhibit 1 attached. 4 Accordingly, the districts pray that the State be ordered to pay these amounts to the districts. 4Exhibit 1 incorporates the total teacher retirement and health insurance costs of the districts as calculated by ADE with the exception of PCSSD. See Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tristan D. Green. ADE's calculations exclude federal employees only for PCSSD. In order to be consistent and fair to PCSSD, Exhibit 1 is based on a total cost for teacher retirement and health insurance calculated by Dr. Don Stewart which includes federal employees. 7 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 8 ------ ristopher He John C. Fendley, 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 this 19th day of August, 1998. Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ John c. Fendley, Jr. 9 Exhibit 1 Summary of Proposed Remedy on Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Issues - Fiscal Years 1997 \u0026 1998 1996-97 1 2 3 4 Total 107% State Districts Actual of Actual Funding Damages District Cost Cost Received !l.:...fil LRSD $13,832,481 $14,800,755 $6,060,672 $8,740,083 NLRSD $4,458,912 $4,771,036 $3,467,619 $1,303,417 PCSSD $9,564,451 $10,233,963 $8,313,604 $1,920,359 TOTAL $11,963,858 1997-98 1 2 3 4 Total 107% State Districts Total Actual of Actual Funding Damages 1996-97 \u0026 District Cost Cost Received !l.:...fil 1997-98 LRSD $14,337,742 $15,341,383.94 $6,261,708 $9,079,676 $17,819,759 - NLRSD $4,606,297 $4,928,738 $3,600,148 $1,328,590 $2,632,007 PCSSD $9,753,866 $10,436,637 $8,214,424 $2,222,213 $4,142,571 TOTAL $12,630,478 $24,594,336 NOTE: Dr. Don Stewart's calculations were used for PCSSD's actual costs. t . ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL.  KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECE1,,eo AUG 2 o 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION BY THE PCSSD PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On this day, the LRSD is submitting a proposal which accepts the State's methodology but urges that the districts receive 107% of their costs as compared to the State's proposed 100%. The LRSD submission also supplies the correct cost numbers for the PCSSD making them consistent with how costs were calculated by the State for LRSD and NLRSD. If the Court ultimately determines not to accept the proposal being made by the LRSD today, then the PCSSD reserves the right to argue the adoption of the methodology and outcomes reflected on the attached Exhibits \"A\" and \"B\". Further, the PCSSD does not currently agree that the methodology proposed by the State should be applicable to any other remaining issues or claims that may be advanced in this matter. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Special School Di CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August / 7 , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 STATE TEACHE'.R RETIREMENT CALCULATION 1996-97  DISTRIB. @ ACTUAL COST pcssd only TOT. OTHER STATE TOT. STATE 1995-1996 SOURCE INFORMATION $136,389,292 96-97 ACTUAL STATEWIDE TEA. RET. COST $136,389,292 96-97 STATEWIDE TEA. RET. DISTRIBUTION 447,838.95 TOTAL ADM $304.55 AMT. DISTRIBUTED PER ADM 1996-1997 ACT. COST 1996-1997 STATE HEALTH INSURANCE CALCULATION 1996-97 SOURCE INFORMATION $46,206,825 96-97 ACTUAL STATEWIDE HEALTH INS. COST TR\u0026HIEXP.WK4 1996-1997 DISTRIB. @ ACTUAL COST $46,206,825 96-97 STATEWIDE HEALTH INS. DISTRIBUTION - INCLUDING FEDERAL 447,838.95 TOTAL ADM $103.18 AMT. DISTRIBUTED PER ADM 1995-1996 1996-1997 ACT. COST 1996-1997 1996-1997 TOT. OTHER STATE 396,797.72 $39 020,310 $98.34 $40 940 527 TOT. STATE 447 838.95 $46 206 825 $103.18 $48 480 696 NOTE: HEAL TH INSURANCE ACTUAL COST INCLUDES COSTS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FOR ALL DISTRICTS. 08/18/98 1996-1997 1996-1997 1996-1997 TOT. EXHIBIT I 8 ,. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ., WESTERN DIVISION AUG 2 4 1998 Of-FIGE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO~ 1, ct al. ADE'S INTERROGATORIES TO LRSD DEP\"r.NDANTS RE: TEACHER RETIREMENT/HEAL TH INSURANCE REMEDIES The Arkansas Department of Education requests that plaintiff Little Rock School District respond to the following interrogatories within the time and in the manner specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. INTERROGATORY No. 1: State whether LRSD reported ODM employees as LRSD employees to the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System for the purpose of ATRS' calculation of LRSD's 1996-97 teacher retirement matching obligation. INTERROGATORY No. 2:  If the answer to Interrogatory No. 1 is in the affirmative, state: (a) The name of each ODM employee so reported; and (b) for each such ODM employee, . the amount (in dollars) said employee generated towards LRSD' s total 1996-97 teacher retirement matching obligation. ' . '   '  ' : : ---- - ---  INTERROGATORY No. 8: For the period beginning July 1, 1996 to the present state, for each month, the total number of federally-funded LRSD employees participating in the public school employee health insurance program. For purposes of this interrogatory, the phrase \"federally funded LRSD employee\" means an employee for whom LRSD was required to pay the health insurance contribution rate under Ark. Code Ann.  6-17-1117 and whose salary was paid in whole or in part with federal funds. INTERROGATORY No. 9: State the name, title, employer, business address and telephone number of each and every person who prepared, provided information, or otherwise assisted in the preparation of the response to Interrogatory No. 9. (You need not identify anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses.) Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant ~ ey General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on August 21, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to 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 \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones  Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 4 I  IN TH~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AUG 2 4 199B OfflCE0f ~TlON MONITORING PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. ADE'S INTERROGATORIES TO NLRSD . - . . . . . DEFENDANTS RE: TEACHER RETIREMENT/HEALTH INSURANCE REMEDIES The Arkansas Department of Education requests that the North Little Rock School District respond to the following interrogatories within the time and in the manner specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. INTERROGATORY No. 1: For the period beginning July 1, 1996 to the present state, for each month, the total number of federally-funded NLRSD employees participating in the public school employee health insurance program. For purposes of this interrogatory, the phrase \"federally funded NLRSD employee\" means an employee for whom NLRSD was required to pay the health insura "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1684","title":"Court filings concerning attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants and remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1998-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants and remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance"],"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/1684"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["45 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Court of Appeals, ruling; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants; Court of Appeals, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) submission concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, joint submission of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) on teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief on teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues; District Court, joint motion to extend time; District Court, order; District Court, motion for further extension of time to file reply briefs concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  , -y 06 / :I0 / 98 14 : 42 '5'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS Member of the Pulaski County Board * of Education, a Public Corporate; and * Thomas Broughton, Individually and * in His Official Capacity as a Member * of the Pulaski County Board of * Education, a Public Corporate; * * Defendants, * * Arkansas Department of Education, * * Respondent, * * Martin Zoldessy, Dr., Individually and * in His Official Capacity as a Member of * the Pulaski County Board of Education, * a Public Corporate, * Defendants. * * Submitted: February 24, 1998 Filed: July 1, 1998 Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, 1 Chief Judge, HEANEY and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge. 1TI1e Hon. Richard S. Arnold stepped down as Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at the close of business on April 17, 1998. He has been succeeded by the Hon. Pasco M. Bowman II. -20- . 023 06 / 30 / 98 14 : 43 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS ~024 In these appeals we are asked once again to interpret certain provisions of the agreement by which the parties to the Pulaski County, Arkansas, school-desegregation case settled their dispute. The question presented is whether changes made by the State of Arkansas in the funding of retirement and health insurance for teachers violated that agreement. The Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, and the North Little Rock School District (which we shall collectively call \"the districts\") claim that by making the changes in question the State violated undertakings it made in the settlement agreement. The District Court, Susan Webber Wright, J., held for the districts on summary judgment. We affirm. I. This case has to do with two important categories of school operating expenses: contributions for teacher retirement and employees' health insurance. When the parties agreed to settle this case, in 1989, the extant system of school funding by the State of Arkansas provided for direct payment by the State of both of these categories of costs. The General Assembly appropriated funds eannarked for these purposes. These funds were separate from another, larger, appropriation for general State aid to public school districts, generally known as Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). We shall call this system of funding, under which the State separately paid for teacher retirement and health insurance, the Act 34 system, after Act 34 of 1983 (Ex. Sess.), codified as Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-301 et seq. (Michie Repl. 1993) (repealed in large part 1995). In 1995, the General Assembly enacted a new system of school funding. Separate appropriations for teacher retirement and health insurance were no longer made. Each local school district, including the districts involved in this case, was required to pay its own contributions for teacher retirement, Act 1194 of 1995,  13, codified as Ark. Code Ann.  24-7-103 (Michie Repl. 1996), and health insurance, Act 1194 of 1995,  14, codified as Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-1117 (Michie Supp. 1997). -21- I _, 06 / :10 / 98 1 4 : 4:1 '5'3 14 539 3945 Districts began to receive their State aid in one large pot, so to speak, combining what had been called :MFP A with funds that under the previous system had been earmarked for teacher retirement and health insurance. (There were refinements and exceptions to this system, but our general description is sufficient for present purposes.) Under Act 917 of 1995, codified as Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-301 et seq. (Michie Supp. 1997) -- the Equitable School Finance System Act of 1995, this new general fund was apportioned among the several districts in accordance with two main criteria: the number of pupils, called Average Daily Membership (ADM), and the wealth of the districts, with poorer districts getting relatively more money, in order to reduce the disparity in per-pupil expenditures between the poorer and the wealthier districts across the State. This change was made in response to a decision of the Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, which had held the disparity in funding violative of the State Constitution. Lake View Sch. Dist. v. Tucker, No. 92-5318 (Pulaski Co., Ark., Ch. Ct., Nov. 9, 1994). The difficulty with this change, from the point of view of the three Pulaski County districts, was that it affected, to their disadvantage, the basis on which funds from the State would be available to them for teacher-retirement and health-insurance purposes. These districts, as we shall explain further later in this opinion, are \"employee heavy.\" They have proportionally more employees, including teachers, than they have pupils, when compared with school districts generally throughout the State. This is so at least partly because of special desegregation obligations imposed on the districts by the settlement agreement. Funds distributed according to a formula heavily influenced by ADM, therefore, are not so great as they would be if the earlier system, which simply funded retirement and health insurance for all employees, generally speaking, had been continued. During fiscal year 1995-96, the sum total of State aid received by the districts was more, in absolute dollar terms, than it had been in 1994-9 5 under the Act 34 system, but it was less than it would have been had the Act 34 system, including earmarked fimding for retiremerit and health insurance, been retained. -22- 06 / 30 / 98 14:44 '6'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS . 026 It is now time to describe the provisions of the settlement agreement that, according to the districts, were violated by these changes. Two sections of the agreement are principally at issue,2 Sections ILE and ILL. The relevant part of Section ILE reads as follows: In addition to any payment described elsewhere in this agreement, the State will continue to pay the following costs: * * * .. (6) The State's share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funrung. Section ILL reads as follows : The State shall take no action (including the enactment of legislation) for the purpose of retaliating against the Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of 2NLRSD argues that the State's actions also violate Section ILF, NLRSD Br. at 1 7-18. This section reads as follows, in pertinent part: The State will not exclude the Districts from any compensatory education, early childhood development, or other funding programs or discriminate against them in the development of such programs or distribution of funds under any funding programs. This provision may actually fit the present case better than Sections II.E and II.L, which are the focus of the District Court's opinion and most of the parties' arguments. We are affinning largely on the basis of the District Court's reasoning, however, so we need not pursue the applicability of Section II.F. -23- l ., ... 06 / 30 / 98 14:45 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS this Litigation or this settlement. The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. Fair and rational adjustments to the funding fonnula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts. . -~027 The District Court held, in brief, that teacher-retirement and health-insurance funding, as they existed under the former system of public school financing, were ''programs\" within the meaning of Section II.E. The funding formula for such programs, the Court said, citing our opinion in Little Rock Sch Dist. v Pulaski County Special Sch Dist, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996), could be adjusted in a way that is generally applicable to all districts, but only if the adjustment is \"fair and rational,\" in the words of Section ILL. The changes at issue are not \"fair and rational\" in the present context because they work to the disadvantage of the three districts. The new funding scheme does not take into account the number of employees, but only ADM and the districts' wealth. The three districts are \"employee heavy,\" as we said in Little Rock Sch. Dist , supra, 83 F.3d at 1018. The changes in funding for teacher retirement and health insurance therefore violate the settlement agreement, the Court held. II. The State, acting through the Arkansas Department of Education, appeals. The Alma School District and 110 other districts from all parts of the State, also appeal, having been allowed by the District Court to .intervene for this purpose. The intervenors are apprehensive that if the three Pulaski County districts win, securing additional fimding for themselves, the State money going to the intervenor districts will be reduced. (This is not necessarily true, but we understand why the intervenors feel they have an interest to protect.) -24- 06 / 30 / 98 t4 : 46 '5'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS ll]028 .... , , AppeUants' first argument is that it was error to grant summary judgment because - there were genuine issues of material fact that needed to be tried. The first such fact, the State says, is whether funds specifically eannarked for teacher retirement and health insurance are now being distributed as part of the new system of Equalization Funding. We cannot see why this \"fact\" - if it really is a fact, instead of just a description of a legislative change in how the State distributes aid to local school districts - is important or material. The essential nature of the change is undeniable. The State used to pay separately for teacher retirement and health insurance, and it did so on a basis that necessarily took into account the number of each district's employees. Money still goes to the districts that may be used for these pUiposes, but the amount has been folded into the over-all Equalization Funding system, and it no longer has anything to do with numbers of employees. As the District Court phrased it, \"items like teacher retirement and health insurance, which were previously paid directly by the State, were put into one large pool.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch Dist, No. LR-C- 82-866, slip op. 9 (E.D. Ark., memorandlllil opinion and order filed Feb. 18, 1997). Whether this change is characterized as a complete abandonment of State aid for teacher retirement and health insurance, or simply as a change in the way the State - chooses to fund these programs ( a description which seems more realistic to us) is not important to the result in this case. The second fact the State claims was in genuine dispute was whether the new funding system distiibutes funds on a \"pure\" per-student, or ADM, basis. The State says the districts took that position in the District Court, whereas in fact the new . funding system is based not only on ADM but also the wealth of each individual district. In our view, it does not matter what position the districts took below. The important question is on what basis the District Court acted, and that Court clearly did not think or say that the new system was based only on ADM. \"[T]he new funding scheme,\" the Court said! \"is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch Dist., No. LR-C-82-866, slip op. 5 (E.D. Ark., memorandmn opinion and order filed Apr. 22, 1997) ( emphasis supplied). -25- 06 / :IU / 98 14 : 47 'tl'314 5;19 3945 !JS COIJRT APPEALS The key point is not whether the new system is based only on ADM, but that it gives no weight at all to numbers of employees. So we agree with the District Court that there were no genuine issues of material fact. That being so, was it right to enter judgment for the districts as a matter of law? We think the answer is yes. To begin with, there is no doubt that the teacher-retirement and health-insurance funding systems in effect at the time the settlement agreement was signed, in 1989, are \"programs\" within the meaning of Section Il.E. In Little Rocle Sch, llisL, ~' 83 F.3d at 1017-18, we held that the State's payment of workers' compensation costs was such a \"program,\" and we see no way to distinguish the present case, Our opinion in that case points the way towards the proper solution Ofthe present appeal. There, we had before us two distinct actions of the State: first, a decision to discontinue entirely State payments for workers' compensation for employees of school districts, and, second, the State's decision to distribute, as an interim measure, certain sums as \"seed money\" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation costs. We held that the first decision did not violate the settlement agreement, but that the second one did. Explaining this result, we said: [W]e do not believe that the State's action regarding the \"program\" necessarily violates the Settlement Agreement. The program in effect at the time of the Settlement Agreement, as we see it, was equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts. Thus, the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, so long as the change is, in the words of the Settlement Agreement, \"fair and rational\" and of \"general applicability.\" We see this portion of the Settlement Agreement as an anti-retaliation clause. Its purpose, by its very words, is to prevent the State from cutting other programs in order to pay for its desegregation c01mnitments. If, for example, the -26- State had passed a statute decreasing or eliminating workers' compensation payments for the settling districts only, while maintaining its system of paying the costs to other school districts, this portion of the Settlement Agreement would clearly have been offended. The State did not do that, however. Rather, it changed the funding fonnula for all districts in the State. So long as that change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement. That, however, does not end our inquiry. When the State disbursed \"seed money\" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation costs, it paid about one-half oftheexpense statewide:- m. the -- ---- Pulaski County districts, it paid only about one-third of the expense. This disparity arose because the State's formula used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive. The Pulaski County districts are employee heavy compared to other districts, increasing their workers' compensation costs. Tiris result is precisely what the anti-retaliation clause was meant to prevent. It funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state. It is of no moment that the State reached tlris result in a mathematically consistent manner. The District Court correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County distiicts in the same percentage as it does statewide. 83 F.3d at 1018. - H 1 : _ ;, Thus, we read Sections II.E and II.L together, in an attempt to make sense out of them as a unified whole. The State's discontinuance of payment for workers' compensation, because it was made on an even-handed basis and applicable generally to all school districts, was, in om judgment, not a violation of paragraph ll.E. Reading E and L together, we took the view that the State could discontinue a funding program -27- 06 / 30 / 98 1 4 : 48 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS if it did so in a generally applicable manner and on a fair and rational basis .3 The State's reason for changing its full, no-questions-asked funding of workers' compensation was to give the individual school districts a financial incentive to reduce workers' compensation premiums, by paying more attention to safety in the workplace, for example. nus purpose, combined with the fact that the change affected all school districts equally, convinced us that the change did not violate Section II.E. In effect, we read the last part of Section ILL, referring to \"[flair and rational adjustments to [a] ... funding fonnula which have general applicability . . . , \" as modifying not only the specific prohibitions of Section II.L, but also the provisions of Section II.E(6). . 031 With this previous opinion in mind, we agree with the District Court that theactions taken by the State in the present case closely resemble the \"seed money\" issue in the previous case. \"Seed money\" disbursed by the State covered about one-half of workers' compensation costs statewide, while paying only about one-third of this expense for the three Pulaski County districts. The new funding system for teacherretirement and health-insurance costs produces the same sort of disparity, though the exact amount of the disparity is open to debate. Because the three Pulaski County districts are \"employee heavy,\" as noted above, when compared to school districts in Arkansas generally, the State funds they are now receiving cover proportionally less of their teacher-retirement and health-insurance costs. The District Court explained the 3On the present appeal, NLRSD argues that we were wrong in so interpreting Section II .E. NLRSD brief at 22-23 . In NLRSD's view, Section ILE is a free-standing, independent requirement. The State must continue to pay its share of any and all programs in existence at the time of the settlement agreement, whatever its reasons for desiring to change them, and whatever the effect of such changes. Certainly this is one way to read the agreement, and a plausible way, at that. We did not so interpret Sections ILE and Il.L in our previous decision, however, and that decision has become the law of this case. We do not choose to reexamine it. We have power to do so, but the arguments now advanced against our prior interpretation do not seem to us sufficiently compelling to enable us to describe our prior opinion as egregiously wrong or unjust, and some such description would be necessary to avoid the law-of-the-case doctrine. -28- 06 / 30 / 98 14 : 49 '6'3 14 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS 032 matter in tenns we find persuasive. We quote from the Court's order on teacher - retirement, but the language applies equally to health insurance: The Court thus finds that there is no genuine factual dispute that instead of directly funding each district based upon the number of employees, the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a per ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district. Just as the workers' compensation \"seed money\" fonnula worked to the detriment of the employee-heavy Pulaski County school districts, so too does the distribution of teacher retirement contributions through the new funding fonnula give the districts less money to fund teacher retirement. While the three Pulaski County school districts may fare better under the new funding scheme from a state aid perspective, there is no question that the amount of their teacher retirement funding, previously directly funded by the State based upon the eligible salaries paid to their employees, will be reduced and result in unequal state funding. There is a difference between the State's decision not to fund workers' compensation and to end direct state funding of teacher retirement. The rationale concerning workers' compensation was that the shift of responsibility to the school districts would prompt them to take measures to reduce their workers' compensation costs. Although the State argues the same rationale applies concerning teacher retirement, there are factors, including desegregation obligations, beyond the control of school districts which dictate the number of employees and salaries of teachers. For example, the LRSD desegregation plan obligates the district to implement a four-year-old program, to staff incentive schools with instructional aides, theme specialists, computer aides, art teachers; physical education teachers, social workers, counselors, auxiliary teachers, media specialists, and supervision aides, among many others. The -29- 06 / 30/ 98 14 : 50 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS magnet and interdistrict schools require additional staff such as theme and curriculum specialists. In the PCSSD, numerous positions are required to fulfill desegregation plan obligations, such as home school counselors, curriculum coordinators, theme specialists, and staffing for its desegregation division, such as an assistant superintendent and director of desegregation. Likewise, the NLRSD incurs expenditures as a direct result of the requirements of the desegregation plan, such as an assistant superintendent for desegregation, reading tutors and support personnel, HIPPY staffing and support, computer technicians, junior and senior high remedial reading, and homebound teachers. Thus, it is clear that the districts are not in a position to control their teacher retirement costs in the sense that the districts might control workers' compensation costs. ~033 Little Rock Sch. Dist. SJJPia, slip op. at 9-11 (memorandum opinion and order filed February 18, 1997) (footnote omitted). For these reasons, we agree with the District Court that the changes in state funding at issue in this case did violate the settlement agreement. In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that Judge Wright has been responsible for administering and interpreting the settlement agreement for some time now, ever since 1990, when she took over this case. Our review of the District Court's interpretation of the settlement agreement is, as a fonnal matter, de novo. But we still think it appropriate to pay some heed to the reasoned determinations of the experienced District Judge, who faces decisions in this case every month, if not every week. The orders granting summary judgment on the teacher-retirement and health-insurance issues will be affinned. On remand, it will be up to the District Court, in the first instance, to decide exactly what relief is appropriate. The tluee Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding -30- for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. Tilis means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system -- MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance -- would have produced, and what the new system -- Equalization Funding in one Jump sum -- is producing. The appellants suggest that this effort will necessarily involve speculation . . Admittedly it cannot be .. exact, but we believe that the District, .. . . . .. Court can make a reasonable and informed estimate. The orders appealed from are affirmed, and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHIB CIRCUIT. -31- IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * F1LE6 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL O 9 1998 JAMES r M~c ORMACK, CLERK By: \\ .. _ u /\\ M o [\\ .- OEP CLERK\u003c- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEIVED Defendants, * * 1 3 1998 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * ,JI II Intervenors, * OfFICErn: * DESEGREGATION MOKITORlNG KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee for the approval of the Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1).1 The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court in a letter from the Magnet Review Committee dated June 20, 1998. The proposed budget includes the second year of funding for the five-year proposed program improvement plan for the six original magnet schools. The total amount budgeted, $18, 159, 205, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $4,654 per student, calculated from an actual third-quarter enrollment of 3,901.89 students. The budget shows an increase of $84.00 per student over the 1996-97 budget, with the second year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. 2 1 Attached hereto as Exhibit L 2 The Magnet Review Committee acknowledged in its letter to this Court that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had before it an appeal regardi~g teacher retirement and health insurance which may The Court hereby approves the Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for 1997-98 school year (Draft 1). IT IS SO ORDERED THIS cfA-day of July 1998. =Mk UDS'f ATES DISTRI TDGE fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN CC,MPLIANCE WM RULE 58 AND/OR 79(~ FRCP ON 1ll0~ BY r_;r:_ ___ impact the proposed Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1). The Eighth Circuit has now decided the case regarding teacher retirement and health insurance, and this Court anticipates making additional rulings regarding those issues in the future based upon the Eighth Circuit's decision. The Court expects; as the Magnet Review Committee has stated, that any revisions to the proposed Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1) required to be made in light of these decisions will be submitted to this Court for approval. 2 ~f15~:~~g;;;faJe'i~~~~~1il~il::~:::t;:::fr::,: 96-97  F.T.E.- .. CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 03 Specialists 39.2 04 Counselors 12.4 05 Media Spec. 6.5 06 Art-Pert/Prod. 1.0 07 Music 0.0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 09 Vocational 12.6 10 Special Education 8.2 11 Gifted 5.4 12 Classroom 177.9 13 Substitutes 0.0 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 293.2 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 20.0 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 17 Custodians 29.0 18 Information Services 0.0 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 20 Other-Aides 37.0 21 Fringe Benefits(20) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 TOTAL ( 10-20) PURCHASED 22 Utilities SERVICES 23 Travel (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other TOTAL (30) MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom (40) 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL /40) CAPITAL 30 Eouipment OUTLAY 31 Buildino Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) OTHER 33 Dues and Fees (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) TOTAL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) 390.6 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ,_,.:.'::..:\\,%:\u003c'.: GRAN0';TOTAL'.f ,':\u003c\":'\"'''' . XXX\u003eOtX  96-97 96-97 Budget Actual $369,070 $369,069 $463,584 $463,585 $1 ,327,018 $1 ,362,980 $476,963 S476,836 S248,736 $248,693 $23.723 $23,723 $0 so $0 so $347,888 $378,577 $264,005 $265,751 $197,633 $197 .633 $5,877 ,608 $5,843,911 $154,990 $166,607 $486.252 $486,572 $10,237,470 $10,283,936 $373,625 $373,570 $163,071 $163,569 $369,006 $365,788 $0 so $156,854 $130,143 $312,743 $317 ,095 $3,115,089 $3,080,923 $4 ,490,388 $4,431,089 $14,727,858 $14,715,D24 $591 ,944 $574,528 $33,600 $13,472 $8,750 so $82,878 $123,953 $717,172 $711,953 $3.600 so $425,485 $450,479 $41 ,523 $35,436 $28,771 $20,114 $499,379 $506,030 $376,785 $316,694 $5,500 $0 $350 $106 $382,635 $316,800 $27,402 $30,648 $0 $0 $27,402 $30,648 $1 ,626,587 $1 ,565,431 $16,354,446 $16,280,455 $890,896 $929,702  $17,245,342 $17,210,157 97-98 F.T.E. 6.0 10.0 39.2 12 4 6 5 1 0 00 00 12 6 8.7 5.4 177.9 0.0 13 0 292 7 20 0 5.4 29 0 1.0 60 37.0 XXXlOOOO( 98.4 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx.x XXXlOOOO( xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx 391 .1 xxxxxxxx \u003eOtXXXX Exhibit 1 97-98 Prooosed $376.587 $488,462 $1 ,343 .119 $505.887 S253.085 S26 ,065 so so S343.81 7 S289, 709 $199.275 $6.147,115 $165.000 S425, 964 $10,564 .086 S407. 495 S163,262 S356,470 S22 .415 $133.806 $285,101 $3,090,046 $4 .458,595 $15,022,681 S617 ,80.3 S27 .000 so S 156.919 $801.722 S2 .500 S5 74 ,289 $35 .450 $17 .632 $629,871 $281 .692 so so $281 ,692 $11 ,213 $0 $11 .213 $1,724 ,498 $16,747 ,179 $1 ,412,026 $18,159,205 I I I I I I I I I Line lteni Costs  Budget Actual Proposed ...... . .. .. 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 ;  Stipends $69.094 $19,983 S33,837 Other Objects $0 $0 so Indirect Costs $736,303 $824,092 $1 ,284 .189 Vocational $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $32,000 $31 ,964 S40.500 Gifted Programs $500 $502 S500 Plant Services $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $500 $500 S500 Science $0 $0 $0 English $1,500 $1 ,660 $1 .500 Special Education $4,000 $4 ,000 $4 ,000 $0 $0 so xx:xxxx $0 $0 $0 xx:xxxx $0 $0 so Total Line Items $890,896 $929,702 S 1,412,026  ,/:_' 1996-97 . _: . 1996-97 1997-98 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 3,765.61 3.765 61 3,901 89 Total Costs $17,245,342 $17,210,157 $18,159,205 $4;580 $4,570 $4,654 1~7,:-98 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT1) 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-98 97-98 Booker Ma,i:i'net School ... F.T.E. Budget Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $59,663 $59,663 1 0 561 ,582 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $40.672 $40,672 1 0 S4 3. 757 03 Specialists 7.0 $261 ,827 $262.257 7 0 S268.408 04 Counselors 2.0 $73,553 $73,468 2.0 S76, 155 05 Media Spec. 1 0 $41 ,963 $41 ,963 1 0 S42 ,653 06 Art-Per1./Prod. 1.0 $23. 723 $23,723 1 0 S26,065 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 00 so 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 so 00 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 00 so 10 Special Education 1.3 $50,243 $50,243 1 3 $55,624 11 Gifted 1.0 $38,946 $38,946 1.0 $39,594 12 Classroom 30.2 $998,938 $1,001,579 30 2 S1 042,379 13 Substitutes 0.0 $20,000 $47. 118 00 $30,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $126,243 $126.243 4.0 S 105. 300 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 49.5 $1 ,7 35,772 $1,765.876 49 5 $1,791 ,516 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $34,706 $35,046 20 $39,821 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31 ,825 $32,145 1 0 $33.050 17 Custodians 4.0 $55,019 $54 ,958 4 0 $53 ,033 18 Information Services 0.0 $0 $0 0.2 $3,736 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 so 0.0 so 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $59,679 $60,277 7.0 $56,973 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $520,352 $520,341 S519,779 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.0 $701 ,580 $702:767 14.2 S706 ,392 TOTAL (10-20)   ;,_., .. $2,437,352 $2,468,642 $2,497,909 PURCHASED 22 Utilities , , .   $78,070 $66,703 $81 ,480 SERVICES 23 Travel   ... ,   $5,000 $2,355 $2,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $8,493 $12,711 S13,350 TOTAL (30) $91 ,563 $81, 769 S96,830 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $42,079 $40,397 S105.498 (40) 28 Media $6,150 $6,105 SS.250 29 Other $4 ,205 $3,475 $3 ,372 TOTAL (40) $52.434 $49,977 $114 ,120 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $60,059 $50,840 $65. 760 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. - $2,500 so - so (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $62,559 $50,840 S65. 760 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $259 $259 S250 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $259 $259 S250 TOTAL (30-60) $206,816 $182.845 xxxxxxxx S276. 960 TOTAL (10-60) 63.5 $2,644,167 $2,651,488 63. 7 S2.774 .869 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $145,777 $138,793 x:x:xxxxx,. S217,370 i\\:,u:;.,:;-:.GRAND .. TOTAlr :-.: XXXXXX' .. ... ,,, $2,789,944 $2,790,280 xxxxxx $2 ,992,238 Line Item Costs  Budget Actual Proposed Booker ' 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Stipends S20, 733 S3. 789 S8.357 Other Objects Indirect Costs S121 ,381 S131 .479 $205,499 Vocational $0 $0 so Athletics $0 so so Gifted Programs $155 $149 $15 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1678","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and appendix","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","Pulaski County Special School District"],"dc_date":["1997-09-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and appendix"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1678"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["38 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  EOWARO L WRIGHT ( 19031977) ROBERTS LINDSEY 1191 3-1991 I ISAAC A SCOTT JR JOHN G LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW GORDON S RATHER .JR TERRY L MATr-lEWS DAVID M POWELL ROGER A GLASGOW C DOUGLAS BUFORD . ..;R 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 EDGAR .J . TYLER CHARLES C PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L LOWTHER .R CHARLES L SCHLUMBEq;GER SAMMYE L . TAYLOR WALTER E . MAY ANNA HIRAI GIBS0'.\"11 GREGORY T. JONES H KEITH MORRISON Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building Suite 510 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX t501) 376-9442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A MAY M TODD WOOD September 11, 1997 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas RE: LRSD v. PCSSD (State Funding) Dear Ms. Brown: 72201 SETTINA E BROWNSTEIN WALTER MCSP4.0DEN ~OGER O ROWE \"IIANCY BELLHCUSE \"\"'~y JOHN O DAVIS .UOY SIMMONS HE\"IIRY ... IMBERLY WOOC n,;c~EQ ~AY F CO'\u003c JR \"'IARRY S HURST .R TROY A PRICE PA.TRICIA A SIEVERS .. AMES M MOOCY ..;R \"'(ATHRYN A PRYOR .J_ '-1ARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCCC -.... \"EVIN W KENNEDY .:EARY J SALL,NGS C-RED M PERKINS Ill W ILLIAM STUART JAC~SC'.\"11 \\.tlCHAEL O BARNES STEPHEN R :..ANCAS7ER .. UOY \\1 ROBINSON 9E:'SY MEACHAM .\\ INSLEY H :..ANG i\u003cYLE R W ILSOS ::ON S McKINNEY \\.tlCHELE SIMMONS AL-G::.::: -\u003cR IS TI M \\.tOOOY .J CH ARLES OOU GHEE=l:Tv \\.t SEAN HATC!-i We enclose a copy of the brief and appendix we sent to the 8th Circuit on Monday, September 8, 1997. ALJ:MM Enclosures Very truly yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS (-'- C I --- Angell Jones Legal Assistant   -   IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 97-1794EALR NO. 97-1855EALR NO. 97-2394EALR NO. 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. SEP 1 2 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING APPELLANT APPELLEES APPELLANTS APPELLEES Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright BRIEF OF APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones, III (76060) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 97-1794EALR NO. 97-185SEALR NO. 97-2394EALR NO. 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. Appeals from the United States District Court APPELLANT APPELLEES APPELLANTS APPELLEES for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright BRIEF OF APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones, III (76060) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The State and Intervenors maintain that summary judgment was inappropriate both as a matter of law and because there were contested factual matters among the parties. For there to be a legally disputed fact, the disputed fact must be both material and the dispute genuine. The State disputed the fact that sums previously appropriated by the legislature as line items for teacher retirement and health insurance are now part of the overall appropriation for equalization funding. Because the proof left no room for reasonable minds to differ, the so called dispute cannot be characterized as \"genuine\". The State also contended there was a disputed issue of fact concerning the mechanism for distribution of equalization funding claiming that it interpreted the distribution in one fashion and the districts another. Because the District Court accepted the State's explanation, this dispute, if it was ever legally cognizable, played no role in the District Courts' decision. Further, in the final analysis the District Court's interpretation of these two matters amounts to an interpretation of new state law and is therefore a legal conclusion properly reached by the District Court. As this is a matter of significant financial impact upon the PCSSD, and implicates the continued proper functioning and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, it respectfully requests fifteen minutes for oral argument. i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Summary judgment was appropriate because the \"facts\" alleged by the State and the Intervenors could not be genuinely disputed. In addition, the analysis conducted by the district court, and the essential conclusion she made, amount to conclusions of law since she was required to interpret new state legislation. The PCSSD was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the change from the old to the new funding system cost it over $5.5 million this past school year. The State's decision to change its manner of funding for health insurance premiums and teacher retirement matching was not a fair and rational change in the funding system because, as was the case in the workers' compensation appeal, the State changed from a cost-based system of distribution to one in which a district's student population drives the distribution. Just as in the case of workers' compensation, a change to a system in which student populations largely dictate the distribution of State funding ignores costs, is not fair and rational and is not in accord with the Settlement Agreement. ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT TABLE OF AUTHORITIES COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE ARGUMENT I. II. III. IV. CONCLUSION STANDARD OF REVIEW THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DISTRICTS BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GENUINELY DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACT MATERIAL TO THE DISTRICTS' CLAIMS AND BECAUSE THE ISSUES WERE, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, QUESTIONS OF LAW. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE DISTRICTS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW .............. . THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE PCSSD IS A WINNER UNDER THE NEW SCHEME IS PLAINLY WRONG CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE iii Page i ii iv 1 5 5 5 12 20 29 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996) LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (1985) STATUTES AND RULES: 14 12 Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)2 ............... 6 OTHER AUTHORITY: U.S. CONST. Art. VI., cl. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 iv I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COUNTERSTATEMENT OP THB CASE Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) does not quarrel with the State's and Intervenors' history of the case and their description of the outcomes. A couple of minor clarifications are in order, and will be set forth below. There is, however, a major matter set forth in both Statements which is wrong and this will be addressed first. In the concluding paragraphs of the State's brief, as well as elsewhere throughout, the State contends that: .... [t]he fact that these three Districts in the aggregate and individually are \"winners\" under the new formula should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them. 1 State Br. at p. 24, [Emphasis supplied.] Contrary to the State's assertion that the PCSSD was a \"winner\", and as it will demonstrate in Section IV, the PCSSD lost over $5,500,000 this past school year because of the new funding system. The State also argues: ADE submits that in this context it was particularly inappropriate to isolate and rule on the changes in teacher retirement and health insurance funding without giving any legal weight or effect to the undisputed beneficial effect the new funding system had on the Districts. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement authorizes or even suggests that such a piecemeal dissection and comparison of certain discrete aspects of the old and new funding systems is appropriate, and nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires or permits the Districts to be insulated from having to make the 1It should be noted that the Settlement Agreement speaks in terms of \"impact\" and requires no showing of \"intent\". State App. at p.98. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I sometimes difficult choices and deal with changes in the law that all other school districts in the State must grapple with. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or in any notion or [sic] equity or common sense permits the Districts to be relieved of aspects of a new funding system that they do not like without taking into account those aspects of the new funding system that operate to their benefit. The Intervenors contend that: The Districts received more State aid under the new formula than under the old formula. Int. Br. at p. 10. The PCSSD has now examined the effects of the new funding system as a whole upon the PCSSD and will demonstrate, relying upon data obtained from the State, that the new funding system as a whole cost the PCSSD at least $5,500,000 this past school year. At this rate of loss, the State will recoup within approximately five years all of the desegregation case settlement money it ever paid the PCSSD. Other Matters The three Pulaski Districts did not move to intervene as plaintiffs in the Lake View case. They simply intervened as parties to protect and represent, in state court, the rights, protections and safeguards they possessed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement over which the District Court has I jurisdiction. PC App. at p. 58. I I I I Also, the State paid the districts $130,000,000 to settle the state's legal liability to these three Districts and secured 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a Release and Dismissal. They did not pay these sums simply to help the Districts pay for some of their desegregation costs. The sums specified by the State that would result in increased M-to-M payments to the Districts are not supported by any citation to the record. However, even if these amounts are accurate, the increases are accounted for by annual increases in overall State appropriations and by the fact that instead of being paid directly by the State, teacher retirement and health insurance are now paid through the new formula and, as the district court explained in her orders, this method of payment short-changes the three Pulaski Districts as compared to most other districts in the state. State Ad. p. 5. Thus, while this manner of payment does operate to increase M-to-M payments, it comes at the expense of reduced State aid overall to the PCSSD. The Intervenors contend that the declaration of Winston Simpson, Superintendent of the Bryant School District, is uncontradicted on the issue of employee costs. In fact, an examination of this declaration reveals that Mr. Simpson examined only certified salary costs (such as teacher salaries) and not the overall employee costs for the PCSSD which includes non certified staff. However, the record developed in this case from previous hearings is uncontradicted that employee costs in the PCSSD consume more than 80% of its annual budget, PC App. at p. 87 1 4, and that its average teacher salary ranks as the 5th or 6th highest in the State. PC App. at p.2-3. What Mr. Simpson's analysis really shows is that the PCSSD spends 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I substantial money on items other than certified salaries, such as desegregation. The Intervenors contend that the Districts are seeking to take funds from the public school fund that would otherwise go, they claim, to the students of other school districts in Arkansas. Int. Br. at p. 17. The three Districts neither contend for nor do they expect such a result. Rather, they presume, and indeed recommend, continuation of that which has pertained in the past. In the past, the State has transferred the amounts necessary to make desegregation payments from the state general revenue fund and placed those sums in the public school fund for distribution to these three Districts. Thus, monies appropriated for education are not simply taken from the public school fund. State App. at p. 360 1 B. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ARGUMENT I. STANDARD OP' REVIEW. The PCSSD addresses the Appellant's points here only as necessary, in Point II below. II. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN P'AVOR OF THE DISTRICTS BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GENUINELY DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACT MATERIAL TO THE DISTRICTS' CLAIMS AND BECAUSE THE ISSUES WERE, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, QUESTIONS OF LAW. The Intervenors correctly point out that the standard in the Eighth Circuit is that a genuine issue of material fact must exist and if there is a disputed fact, the disputed fact must be material and the dispute genuine. Int. Br. at p. 7. [emphasis supplied] It is the latter point upon which the District focuses, i.e, the purported dispute is not, at bottom, genuine. The State contends there were two \"core factual matters\" disputed by the State, and that because they were disputed summary judgment should have been denied. State Br. at p. 17. The first \"dispute\" was whether or not the money the state previously paid outside the formula as teacher retirement and health insurance matching is now being distributed within the new formula. Because it was so obvious that this is the case, it was unreasonable for the State to dispute this fact. First, simple mathematics prove the point. As the district court observed, the public school fund was forecast to rise by more than $200,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 above the levels which existed at the time of the Lake View decision. State Ad. at p. 7. When the 1995-96 appropriations for teacher retirement 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ($130,000,000) and health insurance ($42,815,000) are combined, the sum equals $172,815,000. Subtracting this sum from the $200,000,000 increase still leaves $27,185,000. Combining this with the forecasted increase leaves $227,185,000 over and above the last appropriation that included teacher retirement and health insurance as line item appropriations. Thus, clearly the money represented by the prior line item appropriations is still being appropriated, just in a different fashion. If simple mathematics do not suffice, then the admission of Dr. Bobbie Davis, Assistant Director for Finance and Administration at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) should. She testified that dollars that were previously part of identified funds were consolidated into the new equalization funding scheme. State Ad. at p. 8. This admission by the top financial official at the State Department of Education is binding upon the State pursuant to Fed. Rules of Evidence 80l(d)2. Further, as noted by the District Court, the State's own budget documents demonstrate the same treatment. (\"Transportation Aid ... eliminated as a separate line item and incorporated into the new school funding formula\"; \"[e]liminated at-risk funding as a separate line item and combined approximately $30,000,000 into State equalization formula\"; [e]liminated all at-risk funding ... and shifted approximately $30,000,000 into State equalization aid\"). State Ad. at p. 8. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In addition, the District Court correctly credited the uncontradicted testimony of Dr. Benny Gooden for the same proposition. Dr. Gooden heads the Fort Smith School District, a lead intervenor in this appeal. State Ad. at p. 8. The district court also properly relied upon the testimony of Dr. Charles Dyer, Superintendent of the Alma School District, the lead school district in the original State funding formula litigation, Alma v. Dupree. Finally, the State's funding expert in the Lake View case, Dr. Robert Rossmiller, likewise stated his belief that the money previously appropriated for teacher retirement and health insurance was put into the pool of money that would flow through the new equalization formula. State Ad. at p. 9. In the face of this, it is readily apparent that the money that previously was paid outside the formula by the State for teacher retirement matching and health insurance simply became part of the new overall appropriation to be distributed on an equalized per student basis under the new formula. For the State to claim otherwise in the face of such evidence is to simply elevate form over substance. In the final analysis, the issue of whether these sums continued to be appropriated or not is really not a \"factual\" matter at all. One of the tasks of the District Court was to interpret Act 917 and the accompanying appropriation legislation, Act 1194. She did so and her interpretation, that the appropriation continues, is a legal conclusion. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This is consistent with the position the State took during the Workers Compensation hearing. In the midst of continuing questioning of Dr. Shaver concerning his opinion as to whether or not Worker's Compensation was a program under the Settlement Agreement, the State finally objected as follows: MR. HUMPHRIES: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this continued line of questioning. The -- the argument is a legal one that the Settlement Agreement says that the State share that the State shall continue to pay its share of any programs which -- for -- for which the districts now receive state funding. And that's a legal argument. THE COURT: Well, I will certainly sustain that objection ... PC App. p. 16. Clearly, the phrasing of the objection was not limited to Worker's Compensation but to \"any programs\". Distribution Per ADM The other core \"fact\" identified by the State concerns the manner of distribution of funds under the new act. The State contends now that the Districts contended below that the new formula distributes funds on a pure per student basis. State Br. at p. 17. The State argues that because funds are distributed pursuant to an equalizing formula, the amount of equalization funding each district will receive depends in part, among other things, upon the district's local wealth. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I While the State may misapprehend the argument of the Districts below, suffice it to say that the district court did not. Indeed, in her February 18, 1997 order, the district court quoted from Arkansas budget documents for the proposition that: Act 917 now requires State Equalization Funding to be distributed to districts based on the number of students, Average Daily Membership (ADM), equalized by the wealth of the district. The purpose of this funding is to equalize the disparities of property wealth throughout Arkansas. State Ad. at p. 8. [emphasis supplied] that: Later in the same order, the district court plainly stated The Court thus finds that there is no genuine factual dispute that instead of directly funding each district based upon the number of employees, the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a per ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district. State Ad. at p. 9. [emphasis supplied] The Districts do not contend that the distribution is a pure per student distribution as contended by the State. Rather, it is the contention of the Districts that distributing such funds through a formula which is driven by ADM (Average Daily Membership) discriminates against them because it ignores actual costs for teacher retirement and health insurance. Further, the State is correct when it states at page 18 of its brief that: Because it is distributed pursuant to an equalizing formula, the amount of equalization funding each district will receive depends, among other things, upon the district's local wealth. State Br. at p. 18. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Indeed, this aspect of the new funding formula exacerbates the problem even more for these Districts since they vote high millage which further reduces their State aid under the new scheme. PC App. p. 52. What really matters, however, is that the District Court understood the state's point. However the State may now mischaracterize the position of the Districts below, the fact remains that the District Court understood and articulated the distribution distinctions now being made by the State. Stated another way, that which the State contends was a matter of fact in dispute between it and the Districts below was not a factor in the District Courts' decision. The record made in the Worker Compensation's hearing is instructive here. The state's witness in that proceeding, Dr. Robert Shaver2 , testified that prior to the change in the law requiring school districts to fund their own Worker's Compensation program, the state simply received a bill from the Worker's Compensation Commission and paid it on behalf of the school districts by withdrawing money from the public school fund. PC App. p. 11. He further testified that in 1993-94, the last year the state paid these costs directly, the claims I experience was $5,200,000. PC App. p. 12. The previous year the experience was $8,200,000. PC App. p. 13. While the record for I that proceeding contains only \"rounded off\" numbers, the average I I I I of those two years is still $6,700,000. Thus, it would 2Dr. Shaver was the top financial official at the Arkansas Department of Education. PC App. p. 17 and 18. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I reasonably appear that the State's appropriation of 6.6 million dollars that has been characterized by the State as \"seed money\" in its brief (State Br. p. 19) was in actuality an average of the two years immediately preceding the change in the law. Thus it would appear the appropriation that the State made several years ago, and continues to make, for Worker's compensation assistance is virtually identical to how it has handled Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance. It is still distributing the same respective sums of money but because the distribution is now driven primarily by ADM's rather than cost, the three districts in Pulaski County are shortchanged. The State's persistence in seeking to shift from a cost basis, which was fair and rational as respects these three districts, to an essentially ADM driven basis, makes the legal analysis for the present appeal not logically different from the analysis that pertained in the Worker's Compensation appeal. This new manner of distribution results in these three districts receiving proportionally less money for these state mandated costs than most other districts in the state of Arkansas. Once again, the District Court's ruling on this matter necessarily represented her interpretation of the distribution mechanism outlined in Act 917 resulting in her legal conclusion concerning the operation of State law. Thus, in the final analysis, the State cannot in reality present a case of disputed facts since the District Court was essentially making reasoned interpretations of State statutes. 11 I I I I I I I III. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OP SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AP'PIRMED BECAUSE THE DISTRICTS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. At page 10 of their brief, the Intervenors assert that: By petitioning the District Court for orders directing the state to divert millions of dollars from students outside of Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County Districts, they would have the Court ignore the clear Arkansas Constitutional mandate of \"equal treatment\" to which all students are entitled. (Citing Dupree v. Alma, 651 S.W.2d 90, 279 Ark. 340 (1983). Continuing, they contend that: However, equal treatment to all students must be the concern of the Court, because it is right, it is fair and rational and it is the rule of general applicability in Arkansas. (Citing Dupree and Lake View.) Int. Br. at p. 10. I I This argument was advanced in this case by the State in the I Court of Appeals years ago. The en bane court in 1985 disposed I I I I I I I I I of that argument in the following language: [Fn.l] The State argues that we cannot require it to spend more money in one school district than another, because to do so would conflict with a recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas requiring, under the State Constitution, substantially equal per-pupil funding throughout the State, DuPree v. Alma School Dist. No. 30, 279 Ark. 340, 651 S.W.2d 90 (1983), and with a statute implementing this opinion, Ark. Stat. Ann.  80-850.10 - 80-850.22. This argument is insubstantial. Under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. CONST. Art. VI., cl. 2, the Fourteenth Amendment overrides any inconsistent state statute or constitutional provision. (Arnold, J. concurring.) 778 F.2d at 437. What also appears to be lost upon the intervenors is the fact that the PCSSD is not on a par with the intervening school districts. The Intervenors have not been required to 12 I I I I I I I I I I 1- 1 I I I I I I I desegregate. The PCSSD desegregation budget alone is $12,500,000, representing 11.07% of its total budget. PC App. p. 88. It no longer receives the stream of payments from the State that the Settlement Agreement provided. That has ended. What the State should not be permitted to end is it's commitment to continue to make the payments for programs as promised in the Settlement Agreement. While the State pretends that its funding for Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance has ended, the programs most surely have not. All that has changed is that the PCSSD must now pay the bills and that the State no longer provides a method of distribution for those monies that comports with the Settlement Agreement. The distribution of what used to be funds paid directly for teacher retirement and health insurance is, in operation, identical to the seed money analysis previously made by this Court and the district court as regards workers' compensation. In the latter instance, the distribution was simply made to the school districts based on enrollment. Here, the distribution, while made through the new formula, is still done in a way in which students (ADM) drive the distribution rather than cost. While it is true that certain features of the formula operate to raise or lower the amounts districts now receive for teacher retirement or health insurance, the fact remains that the distribution is student driven. The legal infirmities and violations of the settlement argument are further addressed beginning at page 21. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Intervenors' Employee Cost Argument The intervenors, in particular, persist in challenging what has become the law of the case. They continue to attack the previous findings of the District Court, as accepted by this Court (Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 83 F.3d 1013 at 1018 (8th Cir. 1996)) that the three Pulaski Districts are employee heavy and have high employee cost. While the Intervenors rely only upon an affidavit that the PCSSD has had no opportunity to contest or explore, (as we discuss further beginning at page 15) the fact remains that the District Court had direct testimony from the State's witness in the Worker's Compensation hearing to this effect. In an exchange that is part of the record on appeal from the Worker's Compensation appeal, the District Court heard the following from Dr. Shaver: Q. And you would agree that of the districts in the state, Pulaski and Little Rock are singled out, if you will, by operation of this statute and this premium structure to pay the two highest premiums? A. I -- by by virtue of its number of employees and salaries that would seem to be the case. THE COURT: Yes. By virtue of the number of employees and the salary, but you're giving them money based on the number of students. THE WITNESS: That's true. THE COURT: Yes, that's their problem. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PC App. p. 14. At the same hearing, the State acknowledged that the record in this case is a continuing one. PC App. p. 15. Dr. Simpson need not have gone to the trouble of going to the Arkansas Department of Education for his information since it was already a part of this case by October 1, 1993. At a hearing held on the PCSSD budget that date, counsel for the teacher's union tried the same tact attempted by Dr. Simpson in his affidavit. After first positing to Dr. Stewart3 the percentage of the total budget committed to teacher compensation, which percentages ranged from 54% to 56%, the following exchange occurred in open court between counsel and Dr. Stewart of the PCSSD: Q. Now, those figures pretty dramatically illustrate that the teachers in this district are not getting these big pay increases as far as a percentage of the total budget of Pulaski County, are they? A. I don't think that's what those figures represent at all, Mr. Roachell. Q. What do you -- what do you think they represent? A. Well, they represent exactly what you said they represent. Those numbers that you just read represent the total amount of the district budget, the total percentage amount of the district budget that has been spent on teacher salaries, and to turn that into what 3Dr. Stewart is the chief financial officer of the PCSSD. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I you said it meant is totally ridiculous because that's not what it meant at all. PC App. at pp. 4 and 5. In the same hearing, it was established that the PCSSD then ranked #6 in the State out of 311 districts in average teacher's salaries as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education. PC App. at p. 2. Accordingly, all that can be divined from Dr. Simpson's analysis is that because the PCSSD has one of the highest average teacher salary payments in the State, it must be spending an extraordinary amount of money on other things, such as desegregation. The point was driven home by Dr. Stewart at the same hearing: Q. For instance, in looking at this -- and I'm just going to do a couple of these, your Honor -- the Rogers School District in the what some people refer to as the growing -- located in the growing affluence of northwest Arkansas ranks behind the Pulaski District at position No. 8? A. You got the list. Q. All right. To the best of your knowledge, is there any desegregation going on in Rogers, Arkansas? A. No. In fact, having worked in that county for seven years, definitely no. 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q. We rank just -- we rank just behind Springdale, although perhaps with these recent adjustment, we're ahead of them. To the best of your knowledge, is there any desegregation going on in Springdale? A. No. Q. Perhaps to state the obvious, would that translate into meaning they're not spending any money on desegregation? A. Yes. PC App. p. 3. It is clear that the District Court understood the significance of all this. When the District Court was questioning the Union's witness at the October, 1993 hearing, the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: The cost of living and the comparable wage patterns. Do you ascribe any weight at all to the fact that PACT is a signatory to this very expensive Settlement Agreement? THE WITNESS: I don't disagree with that. Help me out. I'm -- I'm not sure -- THE COURT: Should that be -- I mean, should I consider that or should the district consider that? When you say you consider three things in determining the pay raise, one is ability to pay, two are comparable wage patterns, and three is cost of living. THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE COURT: And I imagine that these comparable wage patterns in many districts are -- the districts aren't facing what this district is facing. THE WITNESS: I -- I -- THE COURT: They don't have to come to Susan Webber Wright's court -- THE WITNESS: Yeah. You -- THE COURT: -- and be dressed down -' THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE COURT: and they don't have to go along with this burdensome Desegregation Plan. THE WITNESS: I understand. THE COURT: And PACT was part of this. THE WITNESS: I understand that. THE COURT: Well, should I consider that? I think I should -- THE WITNESS: Well -- THE COURT: -- quite frankly. PC App. pp. 6 and 7. The Intervenors' Lake View Argument The Intervenors spend much of their brief analyzing the State court decision in Lake View apparently under the assumption that the Districts contended in federal court in the present proc "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1673","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief for appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD)","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1997-09-08"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief for appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1673"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["135 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FRIDAY , ELDREDGE\u0026: CLARK H(IUCH(L H FRIDAY ( 1117 - tlI WllLIAW H tUTTON . r A JAM(I W WOO\"[ IYIIIIOH M (ll(MAN. JIii . ,. A JO( 0 IILL. ,. A . A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIV IOUAL5 ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOC ' A TIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN C . (CHOlt , ,. A J 4M(I A IUTT,.Y , ,. A . FIIUQ(IIIIIClt  . Ullll(IIIY , f' A . H f L.41UL\" ,. A  All  DAVIS, JIii . f' A (8 C CLAfllt. Jl4 , f' A MAI,. LEOOETT. ,. A H Q[W(Y WATIION , f' A . it4Ul I . l(NHAM Ill. f' A l Al'lftY W 8Ul41C8 , r A. 4 WYCS:L!FF Hl81T J l4 .. ,. A J AM(! 0 WAl40 H411111!1, r A J l\"tHlL l r MALCOM , I\" A J ,t,M(!I M SIMrSOH,,. A . J A.M(!I M S AXTON , r A .J 5H(,.H(l4 O jlfUSS(lL Ill. f' A OQ H,t,LO M IACON , f' A . WILL IAM THOMAS 8AXTUt . r A . WAlf11 4 ,.AUl.8ON II, ,. A . IAIIIIIIY (. COf'llH, t' .A .IIICHAltO 0 . TA.YL014 . ,. A .J OIH'H I HUlll9T , JII . f' A . HIZA8(TH lll081N WUIIJ,.AY . ,. A . CHltllTO,.IHIIII H(ll.11 . ,. A L AUlllA H(NIH(Y SMITH , ,. A . lt08(11T S SHAF(ft , f A . WIL LI AM ltol 0141FFIH Ill. ,. , A . M ICH AEL 5 . M0014( . f' A . DIAM( S WACS:(Y . f A WAL TEii M (l(l Ill . 1' A l(VIN A CR ASI . ,. A WI LLIAM A . WAOO(LL. JIit  f' A , Mr. Michael E. United States Gans Court U.S. Court \u0026 Custom 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL 8UILO INO 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , ARKA ... SAS n:o 1- l4tl TELEPHONE 50t - J7e-:o, I FAX ~O. 501 -l7 S- 214 7 September 8, 1997 of Appeals House 9 COTT .J l ,t,HC,t,I T ., \u0026 M -l A Y L( ,:0 11tt[Y  4 ~ O l(ltf I l(A.CW .1 111 J l( ( llltQWN ., 4 .J AW(I C 14C(II .J Iit  \u0026 M,t,IUIY 4 U OHT  4 ICOf T H ru c,c . ,- 4 .JOH N CL A'l\"\"OH Jl4HOOL,.\"'f OU Y ,t,l fO H W40( . , 4 it'I IC[ .:. 0Aflt0H(II ., 4. fO H I A ,- .10 H8 . !' .A Q ,t,V IO O Wll!IOH ,- 4 .J(FF .. (Y M WOO ..  . ,. 4 A\"\"O\"(W \" TU llfloj[Jt , ., .A Q ,t,VIO W U IIA.F . ,. A C All l A G i,.Al,..HOU\" JOH M C ;:(HOLE Y J \" A. Lll90 N !l lLI.VCS JO NA.MN C '10OSE VL7 II ,:HIIISTO r't-tEllt L AW SO -\" Gll(OO IIY O \"AYLOII TO NY L. WILC O X F\" AH C. HICS:WAM l (TTY; O(MOIIY IAIIIAll4 .J .IIAHO J A.W(I WI !Ml TH CUFFOIIJO W r'L U WC[-OAHIEl l \"l(lltllt lHG ~;: .. 4 LLISO H J :o,nfWH~ TOCO 4 a 1111 [LLE H W ,J W(HS HELEfrH \"II ~AYOEII J ASCH I . \"t(HOIIE-, 9UIAH )rif CHll.O ~9 o, c:uH W I LLIAM J 5W ITH 8 S ClAAl Wllll4W L. ... EAIIY ,  A WIL LI AM L. 4T TO M . II  4 {50 I 370  5C~ Re: Court of Appeals No. 97-1794, 97-1855 , 97-2394 and 97-2406 (Consolidated) Dear Mr. Gans: Brief CJH/k Enc. cc: I have enclosed for filing the Little Rock in the above-referenced matter. School \\..,. Christopher Heller All Counsel Dist:::-ic-:'s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APPELLANT v. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al .ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al v. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al Nos. 97-1794EALR, 97-1855EALR, 97-2394EALR and 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) Appeals from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division APPELLEES APPELLANTS APPELLEES Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE, CLARK 400 w. Capitol Ave. Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF THE CASE. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. ARGUMENT TllLZ o:, COll'l'D'l'S I. Th Diatriot Court Did ot Rely Upon Diaputed xaterial :raota ii . . l . . \"   6 II. Th Diatriot Court correctly :rollowed Recent Precedent III. Other Iaauea ltaiaed By AD And Intervenor Do ot warrant aeveraal CONCLUSION i 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '!'ULS 01' \u0026U'l'BOIU'!'XU DuPree v. Allla School Dist. No. 30 279 Ark. S.W. 2d 90 (1983) .... Jenkins v. Missouri 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 21468 (8th Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . 18 . 1 LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996 ...... 5,9,10,16 LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) 18 ii I I BTA'l'DDl'I' OP ~ CASB I Th s1tt1g1nt AsJr1uaent I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Little Rock School District (LRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), collectively the \"Districts,\" brought this case to enforce the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case settlement Agreement. For the second time, this Court has been asked to interpret those parts of the Settlement Agreement which protect the Districts from the loss of State funding for programs which were funded at the tiae of the settlement and from retaliatory action by the State because of the settlement. Two separate and distinct coponents of the Settlement Agreement are at issue in this appeal. First, because of the relatively small amount of the financial settlement in this case, 1 the State of Arkansas agreed to continue to fund all of the programs for which the Districts received state funding at the time of the settlement: 1The Settlement Agreement requires the State of Arkansas to pay to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD a total of nearly one hundred thirty million dollars, including a twenty aillion dollar loan to LRSD. ADE Appx. Vol. 1, pp. 110-124. By comparison, the State of Missouri has paid the Kansas City School District approximately two hundred fifty million dollars for restoration of the district's physical facilities and approximately nine hundred fifty aillion dollars for educational and other prograJ1s. Jenkins y, Missouri. 1997 u.s. App. LEXIS 21468 at *22- *23 (8th Cir. 1997). This Court recently approved an agreement by which Missouri will be released from any further obligation upon the payment to the Kansas City School District of an additional three hundred twenty aillion dollars over three years . .lg. at *l. The Kansas City School District has fewer students than the Districts in this case. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II.E continuation of Existing Funding In addition to any paYJlent described elsewhere in this agreeaent, the State will continue to pay the following costs:      (6) The State' share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funding. ADE Appx. Vol.l, pp. 92-93. It is undisputed that the Districts are now required to fund certain programs, including teacher retirement and health insurance, which were funded by the State of Arkansas at the time of the settlement agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p.385. The second provision of the Settleaent Agreement at issue in this case prohibits the state from retaliating against the Districts because of the aettleaent: II.L Prohibition of Punitive Action The State shall take no action (including the enactment of legislation) for the purpose of retaliating against the Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of this Litigation or this settlement. ADE Appx. Vol. 1, p. 98. 2 2This section of the Settlement Agreement also prohibits legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate, but creates an exception for fair and rational adjustaents to the funding formula which have general applicability even if those adjustaents reduce the proportion of state aid to any of the Districts. The Districts have not claied that the State's new funding formula has had a substantial adverse impact on their ability to desegregate. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Th J'Undinq roraul Before 1995, the State bore the entire burden of funding the teacher retirement and health insurance programs for all Arkansas school districts. Direct state funding of teacher retirement and health insurance was discontinued by Act 1194 of 1995. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 357-58. Act 1194 also changed the State's aethod of appropriating funds for teacher retirement, health insurance and other programs fro a line it81l appropriation to a general appropriation. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 352-53. School districts are now required to pay the total cost of these programs. undisputed ract1 The material facts of this case are not in dispute. Teacher retirement and health insurance were programs fully funded by the State of Arkansas at the time of the Settlement Agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 385. The Settlement Agreement requires the State to continue to pay its share of any and all programs for which the Districts received State funding at the tiae of the Settlement Agreeaent. ADE Appx. Vol. 1, pp. 92-93. One hundred thirty aillion dollars was appropriated for teacher retirement for the 1995-96 school year (ADE Appx. p. 387- 88; Amicus Appx. pp. 143-45) and before the new funding scheme was adopted, the Arkansas Department of Education requested $134,500.00 to fund teacher retirement for the 1996-97 school year (ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 387-88). Nearly forty-three million dollars was budgeted for \"public school employee insurance\" for the 1995-96 school year. ADE Appx. Vol 3, p. 352. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The state adopted a new funding formula, Act 917 of 1995, to take effect at the beginning of the 1996-97 school year. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 321-50. A related law, Act 1194 of 1995, requires that school districts fund their own teacher retirement and health insurance programs beginning with the 1996-97 school year. ADE Brief, p. 7; ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 357-58. The new funding laws contain no specific appropriation for teacher retirement or health insurance. Most State funding under the new State funding system is distributed on a per ADM basis as equalized by the relative wealth of the funded district. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 376. Distributing State funds on an equalized basis aeans pursuant to a method that takes into account a district's local revenue and which gives aore State funds to poorer districts than richer districts. ADE Brief, p. 6. other xatt1r1 In its statement of the case, PCSSD has addressed and clarified several other matters contained in the ADE and Intervenor briefs. LRSD adopts PCSSD's position with respect to those matters. 8omRY OJ' UCl1JIID'l' The undisputed facts in the record are sufficient to uphold the district court's grant of swaary judgment. The district court's finding that funds which in past years were appropriated specifically for teacher retirement and health insurance are now included within a larger general appropriation is a logical 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I conclusion based on the undisputed evidence and not an imperaiasible resolution of a disputed fact. ADE's contention that there exists a dispute as to whether its new funding formula distributes funds on a~ per-student basis as opposed to an equalized per-student basis is also incorrect. Both district court opinions at issue here clearly show the district court's understanding that funds are distributed on a equalized per-student basis as the State contends. This case is governed by this Court's decision with respect to the workers' compensation program. LR.SD y, PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). The actions of the State at issue here are very similar to the actions the State took to discontinue the State funded workers' copensation program and then to distribute workers' compensation funding on a per-student basis. The State's effort to redistribute teacher retirement and health insurance program funds on an equalized per student basis, rather than a basis which bears any rational relationship to the nwnber of employees in a school district or to the cost of those programs, should be rejected. The distribution of funds on an equalized per-student basis results in LRSD receiving State funding for a much smaller percentage of its teacher retirement and health insurance costs than the percentage received by other districts outside Pulaski County. Thia result is precisely what the anti-retaliation clause of the Settlement Agreeaent was eant to prevent. ,Ig. at 1018. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UGUJODl'l' I. Th Di  t.riot Court Di4 IIOt ly Upon Di pute4 Material J'aot The Arkansas Department of Education contends that the district court ignored or resolved two factual issues which \"were central and essential to the Districts' claims.\" ADE Brief, p. 14. ADE described the \"two key disputed factual issues\" as follows: First, that there is \"an identifiable amount of dollars distributed as Equalization Funding that are 'ear-marked' to satisfy school districts' teacher retirement and health insurance matching\"; and second, that \"these identifiable and ear-marked 'retirement' and 'health insurance' funds are now being distributed on a pure per-student3 basis\" as opposed to an equalized per-student basis. ADE Brief, p. 16. There is, in fact, no issue at all with regard to the second \"factual dispute\" described by ADE. Both district court opinions below clearly adopted ADE's position. In its order granting summary judgment on the teacher retirement issue, the district court found that the State's new funding scheme \"distributes funds on a per-ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district.\" ADE Add. p. 9 (emphasis supplied). In its opinion granting SWllllary judgment on the health insurance issue, the district court held \"that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based 3ADE uses the terms \"per-ADM basis\" (ADE Brief, p. 16) and \"per-student basis\" (ADE Brief, p. 14). The terms are roughly equivalent. ADM means average daily membership. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling Districts to pay health insurance matching from equalization or local funds is not a \"fair and rational\" adjustment to the funding formula.\" ADE Add. p. 17 (emphasis supplied). ADE's contention that there exists in this case some dispute about whether the new funding formula distributes funds on a \"pure per-student basis, as opposed to an equalized per student basis,\" is simply wrong. If there ever was a dispute, it has been resolved in ADE'\u0026 favor. The State's contention that there is a material dispute about whether the new funding formula distributes certain funds that are \"ear-marked\" for teacher retirement and health insurance is also insubstantial. Teacher retireaent and health insurance were programs fully funded by the State at the tiae of the Settlement Agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 385. There were specific appropriations for teacher retirement and health insurance for the 1995-96 school year. ADE Appx. p. 387-88; Amicus Appx. pp. 143-45. Act 1194 of 1995 discontinued itemized State funding for teacher retireaent and health insurance beginning with the 1996-97 chool year. Finally, overall State funding for Arkanaaa public schools is greater for the 1996-97 school year than it was for the 1995-96 school year by an amount which exceeds the total 1995-96 State payments for teacher retirement and health insurance. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 352-53. These established facts are sufficient to support the district court's finding that \"it is only logical to conclude that sums 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I that were previously either paid directly by the State or appropriated as line iteaa for distribution to the Districts must be components of a fund that is forecast to be over $200,000,000.00 more than it was at the tiae of the Lake View decision.' ADE Add. p. 7. The state is contending that if the Districts cannot find a line item appropriation for teacher retirement and health insurance, then those programs, which have been funded by the state for decades, are not funded under the new school formula. The district court reached the only logical conclusion. Funding for teacher retirement and health insurance is contained in a large, unitemized appropriation under the new funding formula, and those funds are distributed on an equalized per-student basis rather than a basis which bears soae relation to the number of employees or actual costs. 4Even the intervenor\u0026 seem to see the logic of the district court's conclusion. In describing the change from the old program funding systell to the new student funding system, they say: The money is there but the requirement to pend a specific amount on employee health insurance, for example, is gone. Intervenor\u0026' Brief, p. 20 (emphasis supplied). The Intervenor\u0026 go on to say that our argwaent that the Settlement Agreement has been violated with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance funding ignores the fact that the funds are still provided  Intervenors' Brief, p. 21. 8 I I II. Th Pitrict \u0026r BntitlO To emunnn Judgment A A Matter I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Of Lay Thia case is governed by the terms of the settlement Agreement. In deciding the eaning of the terms in the Settlement Agreement, and their application to the facts in this case, the district court carefully followed the oat recent precedent established by this Court. As a result, the district court reached the correct conclusion under the law of this case. The precedent followed by the district court was established in LRSD y, Pesso, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). In that case, this court determined that State funding of workers' compensation was a \"program\" for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and held that funding the Districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state violates the Settlement Agreement . .lg. at 1017. Although the State added a slightly different twist in its effort to redistribute funding for the teacher retir .. ent and health insurance prograJU1, the facts are close enough to the workers' compensation case to warrant the same result. In the workers' compensation case, the districts argued that payment of workers' compensation costs was a \"program\" for which they received \"State funding\" at the time of the Settlement Agreement. LRSD y, Pesso. 83 F.3d at 1013, 1017 (8th cir. 1996). This Court agreed, but defined the \"program\" as \"equal state funding of workers' compensation for all school diatricts.\"5 .lg. 5NLR.so will argue that programs such as teacher retirement and health insurance which were funded by the State at the time of the settlement cannot be discontinued even by a change in State funding 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I at 1018. This court concluded that \"the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, so long as the change is, in the words of the Settlement Agreement, \"fair and rational\" and of \"general applicability.\" l.s1- The State argues that the teacher retirement and health insurance programs have been eliminated for every district in the State and, because the \"change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement.\" lg. However, aa with the worker' compensation case, there is more to the story. To eaae the transition fro a State funded to a district funded workers' compensation program, the State disbursed \"seed oney\" which paid about one-half of the workers' compensation expense statewide but only about one-third of the expense for the settling Districts. The disparity arose because the State used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive. l.sl- This Court held that the distribution of workers' compensation \"seed money\" violated the settlement: Thia result is precisely what the antiretaliation clause was meant to prevent. It funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state. It is of no oent that the State reached this result in a aathematically consistent anner. The District Court correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide. which is determined to be fair, rational, and generally applicable. LRSD agrees with that argument. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In thia case, the legialature ha said that beginning with the 1996-97 school year funding for teacher retirement and health insurance is a district, rather than a State, responsibility. The state has also moved from a line item appropriation which shows specific funding for health insurance and teacher retirement to a general appropriation of funds to be distributed, for the most part, on an equalized per-student basis. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 317-366. Statewide, the amount of money which flows through the public school fund is greater for the 1996-97 school year than it was for the 1995-96 school year. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 352-53. ADE argues that because none of the aoney in the expanded public school fund is \"ear-aarked\" for teacher retirement or health insurance, this case does not fit within this Court's ruling which required fair distribution of workers' compensation seed money. ADE Brief, p. 19-22. All the State has really done is to strip away the labels from the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. The funding for those prograas has been shifted from a line item appropriation to a general appropriation. Funds for teacher retirement and health insurance are now combined with other funds to be distributed on an equalized per-student basis as \"equalization funding.\" ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 352. The State is playing a shell gaae, contending that if the Districts cannot find the pea, it does not exist. The district court was not fooled. It was clear to the district court that \"what used to be funded as a line item was 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I folded into the 1996-97 appropriation for State equalization funding.w ADE Ad. pp. 8-9. Simple logic dictates wthat sums that were previously either paid directly by the State or appropriated as line iteas for distribution to the districts ust be component of [the new equalization) fund .... w ADE Ad., p.7. This Court should affira the di trict court. If the State can avoid responsibility for continued funding of the teacher retirement and health insurance programs simply by moving the funds into a general appropriation to be distributed on an equalized per-student basis, the Settlement Agreement requirement of continued funding and this Court's decision concerning workers' compensation seed aoney will have been rendered meaningless. This is not a case where the State has treated all Arkansas school districts the same with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance funding. The State has changed the way it distributes funding for those prograas in a way that favors districts outside Pulaski County. Instead of simply paying the actual costs of those programs statewide, the State has elected to distribute on an equalized per-student basis the funds which would have gone to pay for the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. The impact of the State's distribution of teacher retirement funds according to the number of students rather than the number 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of teachers in LR.SD can be easily shown.' The State budgeted $130,000,000.00 to pay teacher retirement statewide for the 1995- 96 fiscal year. ADE Appx. Vol., 3, p. 352. The average daily membership for the State for the 1995-96 school year was 443,516 students. A per student distribution of those retirement funds would yield $293.11 per student. Distribution of that amount based on LRSD's average daily aeabership of 22,385 students would result in a state teacher retireaent payaent of $6,561,267.00. This is only about two-thirds of the aaount actually paid by the State to LR.SD for the 1995-96 school year when the calculation was done on a per-teacher rather than per-student basis. The State appropriation of $130,000,000.00 for the 1995-96 school year should have been sufficient to fund the entire cost of the teacher retirement program statewide. Before the establishment of the new funding program, ADE sought an appropriation of $134,500,000.00 to fund the statewide teacher retirement program for the 1996-97 school year. ADE Appx., Vol. 3, pp. 387-88. That amount also should have been sufficient to fund the entire cost of the statewide teacher retirement program. The result of the state aoving teacher retirement funds into a general appropriation and distributing those funds on an 'we understand that ADE uses an equalized per-student distribution rather than a pure per-student distribution. Largely because its aillage rate is the fifth highest in the state (ADE Appx., Vol. 4, p. 583), LR.SD is a relatively rich school district for the purposes of the new funding formula. Accordingly, LR.SD would actually receive less funding on an equalized per-student basis than is shown in this example. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I equalized per-student basis is that LRSD will receive two-thirds or less of its teacher retirement costs while the average funding level statewide exceeds one hundred percent of teacher retirement costs. The results are the same for employee health insurance. The estimated statewide health insurance contribution for the 1996-97 school year is $42,815,000.00. ADE Appx. Vol. 2, p. 245 and Vol. 3, p. 352. This money is distributed through the new funding formula on an equalized per-student basis which bears no rational relationship to a particular district's costs for employee health insurance. As a result, the State paid 109.95 percent of the cost of employee health insurance statewide excluding Pulaski County. ADE Appx. Vol. 2, p. 245. The average funding in the Pulaski county school districts is 71.39 percent. LRSD receives only 53.41 percent of its cost of employee health insurance payments. The district court correctly held \"that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling districts to pay health insurance matching from equalization or local funds is not a 'fair and rational' adjustment to the funding formula.\" ADE Ad., p. 17. III. other 11,v IAi IY N\u003eI  xntervenor1 Do 1ot warrant lYral ADE and the Intervenor\u0026 have raised several other issues, none of which warrants reversal of the district court opinions. Both appellants contend that the new funding formula is 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I beneficial to the Pulaski County School districts since they received aor State funding this year than they did last year. The Intervenor\u0026 completely misstate the District' claim: The Districts allege that the total funding is less under the new funding formula than under the prior funding foraula. Intervenor Brief, p. 8. In fact, the Districts argued that they receive less than they would haye received had the same amount of money been distributed for the 1996-97 school year under the old Act 34 formula instead of the new Act 917 formula. Intervenor Appx., p. 68. The Intervenor\u0026 seem to think that the district court resolved a conflict between the Districts' position that they would have received a greater amount of funding for the 1996-97 school year had the available funds been distributed under the old Act 34 formula and ADE' position that the Districts received more State aid this year than last year. Intervenor Brief, pp. 8- 9. There is no conflict. The district court accepted PCSSD's position \"that its total State funding in 1996-97 will be less under the new foraula than it would haye been under the old.\" ADE Ad., p. 12. ADE's exhibit which purports to show that the Pulaski County districts will receive more State funding for the 1996-97 school year than they did for the 1995-96 school year (Intervenor Appx., p. 170) is not in conflict with PCSSD's position that it would have received aore money for 1996-97 under Act 34 than it does under the new funding scheme. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ADE seems to admit that any increase received by the Pulaski county districts for the 1996-97 school year was proportionately smaller than increases received by other Arkansas school districts (ADE Brief, p. 25), but argues that the settling districts are \"winners\" under the new formula so their increased state aid \"should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them.\" ADE Brief, p. 24. First of all, the Settlement Agreement requirement of continued funding of existing programs does not require a finding of discriminatory intent in order to prove a violation, only a discriminatory impact. The workers' compensation issue was decided by this Court without any discussion of ADE'a intent. LRSD y, PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). Second, a simple hypothetical shows the flaw in ADE's reasoning. Assume that a large amount of money was added to the public school fund and that ADE intentionally devised a formula to minimize the amount of aoney that would go to the Pulaski County achool districts. Ass\\llle also that as a result education funding doubled statewide under a formula which increased funding for the Pulaski County school districts by only one percent. Would the Pulaski County school districts be precluded from claiming a violation of the Settlement Agreement simply because the small increase in their funding made them \"winners\"? The Intervenor\u0026 claim that the Pulaski County districts are seeking \"to divert millions of dollars from students outside of 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County districts.\" Intervenor Brief, p. 10. That contention is completely unsupported and is absolutely untrue. The state's 1994-95 expenditure for public schools was only forty-eight percent of the total net State general revenues. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 324. The state's practice has been to transfer funds from general revenues to the public school fund in order to pay the costs associated with the Settlement Agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 359-60. The Pulaski County districts did not ask the district court to divert any money from districts outside Pulaski County. There is no reason that the funds necessary for the State to meet its settlement obligations should come from the public school fund rather than from general revenues. The Intervenors argue that the Districts do not care about \"equal treatment\" of students and are seeking to enforce the Settlement Agreement \"simply because they believe they need more money.\" Intervenor Brief, p. 10. They are apparently forgetting that the Settlement Agreement provides a remedy for years of state imposed segregation. Had the state adopted a policy of equal treatment rather than segregation decades ago, we would not have this lawsuit today. The State cannot avoid its responsibilities under the Settl-ent Agreement simply by contending the Arkansas Constitution requires equal treatment. The response to that ar(JUllent is found in Judge Arnold's concurrence in a previous appeal in this case: The State argues that we cannot require it to spend more money in one school district than 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I another, because to do so would conflict with a recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas requiring, under the State Constitution, ubstantially equal per-pupil funding throughout the state, DuPree Y, Alma School Dist. No, 30, 279 Ark. 340, 651 s.w. 2d 90 (1983), and with a statute iapl8lllenting thi opinion, Ark. Stat. Ann. SS 80-850.10 - 80-850.22. Thia argwaent is insubstantial. Under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. CONST. ART. VI. , cl. 2 , the Fourteenth Amendment overrides any inconsistent state statute or constitutional provision. LRSD y, PCSSD. 778 F.2d 404, 437 n. 1. (8th Cir. 1985) (Arnold, J. concurring). The Intervenor\u0026 point out, correctly, that funds paid to the Districts by reason of the Settlement Agreement are not included in determining the appropriateness of public school funding under state law. Intervenor' Brief, p. 16. Nothing in state or federal law requires that uch fund be included in any calculation to determine the equity of a state school funding scheme. Inexplicably, however, the Intervenor\u0026 go on to argue that \"(t)he State funding syst8Jll will be put at risk when compliance with the federal range ratio requires additional funding to other districts as a result of any increase in funds to the Little Rock School District which will result from the district court's order.\" Intervenor Brief, p. 17. This argument is simply wrong and is in conflict with the position of the Intervenors, taken on the previous page of their brief, that funds paid by reason of the Settlement Agreement are not included in the calculation of the federal range ratio. 18 I I I I I I "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1636","title":"District Court, Amicus Curiae's memorandum brief in opposition to the Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) statement of material and undisputed facts and motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-12-24"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Retirement","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, Amicus Curiae's memorandum brief in opposition to the Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) statement of material and undisputed facts and motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1636"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["64 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF LR-C-82-866 V. a.~-- ~ ....\" '1 rr=l'l~ (! - n PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL r~U~.\\~ ~j :1 G,'.Y DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEC 3 0 1996 DEFENDAfrrs INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS AMICUS CURIAE'S MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE LRSD, NLRSD AND PCSSD'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGME T ON THE ISSUE OF TEACHER RETIREMENT MATCHING The LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment challenging - those portions of the new school funding formula they view as unfavorable while ignoring other portions from which they would admittedly benefit. The Pulaski County Districts do not allege, nor is there any showing, that the Districts receive less money under the new system. To the contrary, they receive more. By petitioning this Court for an Order directing the State to divert millions of dollars from students outside of Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County Districts, they would have this Court ignore the clear Arkansas Constitutional mandate of \"equal treatment\" to which all students are entitled.1 While the Settlement Agreement permits \"fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability\", the Pulaski County Districts suggest, by implication, s1;1ch an adjustment should not apply to them simply because they believe they need more money. There is probably not a school district in Arkansas that does not believe it needs 1Ark.Const.Art.Il, Sections 2, 3, and 18, DuPree v. Alma, 651 S.W.2d 90,279 Ark. 340 (1983). jmljr/kl/9017 more money. However, equal treatment to all students must be the concern of the Court, because it is right, it is fair and rational and it is the rule of general applicability in Arkansas. In all previous assaults on the school funding formula, the Pulaski County School Districts have argued the formula violated the following terms of the Settlement Agreement: 1. \"The State shall take no retaliatory action against the District\" and, 2. \"Fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability shall not be considered to have an adverse impact even if it reduces the proportion of State aid to the Districts.\" Here, however, the Pulaski County School Districts do not expressly contend either provision of the Settlement Agreement has been violated. Rather, they simply refer to the decision of the Eighth Circuit2 and invite this Court to interpret that decision as meaning they are entitled to claim more - money than they will receive under the new funding formula. This argument is misplaced. The Eighth Circuit, in dealing with whether the elimination of the worker's compensation program in its entirety violated the provisions of the Settlement Agreement obviously determined in obiter dictum that it did not because it was fair, rational and of general applicability. Had the inquiry stopped there, as it must here, there would have been no finding of a violation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. It was the seed money that resulted in disproportionate funding and therefore a funding formula which lacked general applicability. In the matter now before this Court, the new funding formula with its per pupil funding is clearly comparable to the total elimination of the worker's compensation program in its general applicability as opposed to the disproportionate distribution of seed money which raised the concern of this Court and of the Eighth Circuit. That concern is not present in this case because the program for teacher's retirement, like worker's compensation, has been totally eliminated, and there has been no seed 2Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). 2 Jmljr/kt/9017 money provided for teacher's retirement. Aside from these references, the Districts engage in great speculative leaps in comparing Act 34 and Act 917 funding. The Districts' plea is one of unequal treatment based only on rank speculation. The basic fact is that all districts are treated equally. Funding for all students has been brought to within 80% of the funding per student in the Little Rock School District. What could be fairer than funding each student substantially equally? The State Courts have interpreted the Arkansas Constitution as demanding this standard of funding. For the last 16 years Arkansas has been moving steadily to equal education opportunity for each student. In 1981 Chancellor Harrell Simpson, in Alma v. DuPree, found that the school finance system was becoming increasingly disequalizing under the system in place at that time. Judge Simpson's Findings of Fact, number 34, Exhibit 1. Judge Simpson also found that students attending school in poor districts received educational opportunities that are inferior to the opportunities offered to students in wealthier districts in the State. Finding of Fact o. 42. The - Court found that \"The Arkansas School Financing System is not designed to, nor does it, insure that all children in every school district in Arkansas will receive the educational opportunities that should be included in a constitutionally required 'general, suitable and efficient' system of public schools.\" Finding of Fact No. 43. As a result of the Alma case, major modifications were made to the Arkansas School Funding System resulting in Act 34 of 1983 (Ex. Sess.). Despite the major revisions to school funding and attempts to equalize funding, the question was reexamined by Judge Imber in the Lake View case resulting in Judge Imber's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of November 9, 1994, Exhibit 2. Among Judge Imber' s conclusions of law, she noted, in part: Paragraph 9: While Arkansas has not defined the terms \"general, suitable and efficient\", courts in other states have defined these terms. In Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W. 2d 186, 191-93 (Ky. 1989) the Court defined \"efficient\" as a system which required \"substantial uniformity, substantial equality of financial resources and substantial equal educational opportunity for all students\" and 3 j mljr/kt/90 I 7 money provided for teacher's retirement. Aside from these references, the Districts engage in great speculative leaps in comparing Act 34 and Act 917 funding. The Districts' plea is one of unequal treatment based only on rank speculation.  The basic fact is that all districts are treated equally. Funding for all students has been brought to within 80% of the funding per student in the Little Rock School District. What could be fairer than funding each student substantially equally? The State Courts have interpreted the Arkansas Constitution as demanding this standard of funding. For the last 16 years Arkansas has been moving steadily to equal education opportunity for each student. In 1981 Chancellor Harrell Simpson, in Alma v. DuPree, found that the school finance system was becoming increasingly disequalizing under the system in place at that time. Judge Simpson's Findings of Fact, number 34, Exhibit 1. Judge Simpson also found that students attending school in poor districts received educational opportunities that are inferior to the opportunities offered to students in wealthier districts in the State. Finding of Fact No. 42. The Court found that \"The Arkansas School Financing System is not designed to, nor does it, insure that all children in every school district in Arkansas will receive the educational opportunities that should be included in a constitutionally required 'general, suitable and efficient' system of public schools.\" Finding of Fact No. 43. As a result of the Alma case, major modifications were made to the Arkansas School Funding System resulting in Act 34 of 1983 (Ex. Sess.). Despite the major revisions to school funding and attempts to equalize funding, the question was reexamined by Judge Imber in the Lake View case resulting in Judge Imber's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of November 9, 1994, Exhibit 2. Among Judge Imber' s conclusions of law, she noted, in part: Paragraph 9: While Arkansas has not defined the terms \"general, suitable and efficient\", courts in other states have defined these terms. In Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W. 2d 186, 191-93 (Ky. 1989) the Court defined \"efficient\" as a system which required \"substantial uniformity, substantial equality of financial resources and substantial equal educational opportunity for all students\" and 3 jmljr/lcr/9017 which required that the educational system be \"adequate, uniform and unitary.\" Id. at 192. The Court concluded that an 'efficient' system of common schools should have several elements: 1 . The system is the sole responsibility of the General Assembly. 2. The tax effort should be evenly spread. 3. The system must provide the necessary resources throughout the state -- they must be uniform. 4. The system must provide an adequate education. 5. The system must be properly managed. Paragraph 11: The equal protection provisions of the Arkansas Constitution are applicable to school funding. DuPree v. Alma School Dist. No. 30, 279 Ark. 340, 345 (1983) (\"The constitutional mandate for a general, suitable and efficient education in no way precludes us from applying the equal protection clause [to school funding]\".) Paraeraph 12: Although money is not the only measure of equity, there is a correlation between the money spent and the quality of education received. See Tennessee Small School Svs. v. McWherter, 851 S.W. 2d 139 (Tenn. 1993); Washakie Co. Sch. Dist. No. One v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310 (Wyo. 1980). Judge Imber considered three statistical measures to evaluate school funding. First, she looked to the federal range ratio and found the State out of compliance with that measure. Next, she looked to the coefficient of variation by which measure the State was again out of compliance. Finally, she looked to the Gini coefficient by which the State was in compliance. Each of these statistical measures looks to the distribution of revenue or expenditure on a~ Pmill basis. Clearly, Judge Imber focused on providing substantially equal funding~ Pmill as opposed to 4 jmljr/kt/9017 general funding of school district operations. In his concurring opinion in Alma, Judge Hickman focused on this point: .. .I cannot justify on this record, any formula of distribution except on a per pupil basis. I do not say any formula, except one based on a per pupil basis, would fail legal examination; but it would certainly have a more difficult time surviving legal scrutiny. The evidence to justify any distribution, other than a per pupil basis, should be both clear and convincing. 279 Ark. at 351, 352. In response to Judge Imber's ruling, which granted the State two years to bring the funding system into compliance, Act 917 and related legislation became law in Arkansas. More recently, Amendment 74 to the Arkansas Constitution was approved by the voters creating an equalized method applicable to all Arkansas counties to raise a minimum level of funding for education. The funds raised by Amendment 74 will be pooled and that money combined with State funds. The - total will be distributed on a~~ basis that is in compliance with the statistical measures, particularly the federal range ratio, to provide an equalized distribution. It is this system of financing education in a general and rational manner which the Pulaski County Districts would have this Court throw out by creating exclusions for them. In the strictest of the statistical measures, the federal range ratio, Judge Imber determined that the Little Rock School District sets the standard for measurement of equitable funding in Arkansas. Finding of Fact No. 58, Exhibit 2. Using the federal range ratio, the State funding system was redesigned to bring all students to within 80% of the funding provided Little Rock students. In making this calculation, funds paid to the Pulaski County Districts by reason of the Settlement Agreement in this Court, are not included. Therefore, as to Little Rock students, not only do they receive State and local funds that establish Little Rock School District as the curvesetter for the State, but they receive additional funds flowing through the desegregation Settlement Agreement that are not counted. The distribution of State funds to North Little Rock and Pulaski 5 jmljr/lct/9017 County assures them of being funded within 80% of the Little Rock School District, on a per pupil basis plus they also receive whatever funds flow through the Settlement Agreement. It is no wonder that 111 school districts object to this attempt by the Pulaski County Districts to be excluded from what they perceive to be burdens under the new funding system while taking full advantage of the benefits of the new system. If the Pulaski County Districts are awarded additional money outside the State funding system, then funding to 400,000 students outside Pulaski County will suffer. The State funding system will be put at risk when compliance with the federal range ratio requires additional funding to other districts as a result of any increase in funds to the Little Rock School District which this Court might order. Increasing funding to Little Rock will mandate corresponding increases to all districts. The Pulaski County Districts argue that their retirement costs are greater because of the additional staff and extra payroll costs that they must incur because of the Settlement Agreement. Careful analysis does not support these conclusions. Examining their costs for certified salaries as - a percent of the current expenditures3 (which excludes funds distributed under the Settlement Agreement) North Little Rock only spends 58.76% of its current expenditures for certified salaries. Declaration of Winston F. Simpson, Exhibit 3. This means that of its current expenditure money, North Little Rock has 41 % after pavment of certified salaries for other expenditures. Pulaski County is in better shape spending only 58.25% of its current expenditures for certified salaries with nearly 43% left over. The Little Rock School District, the curve-setter for the State funding system, is better off than each of the other two spending only 57 .27% of its current expenditure money for certified salaries. There are only five school districts--Newark, Altheimer, Turrell, Paron and Grady--that spend less of their current expenditure money for certified salaries than Little Rock. As to Pulaski County, only those five districts plus Lead Hill spend less for certified salaries, and as to North Little Rock, only those six plus River Valley, Perry-Casa and Leslie 3Expenditures are the current expenses which include all expenditures for the benefit of the current year, including reimbursement for textbook expenditures and amounts spent on behalf of districts by other districts or cooperatives, less capital outlay, debt service and amounts received from other school districts. Annual Statistical Report of the Public Schools of Arkansas. 6 jmljr/kl/9017 spend less than North Little Rock of their current expenditure money on certified salaries. Every school district in Arkansas spends more of its current expenditure money on certified salaries than these eleven districts. 299 of the 311 schools districts in Arkansas have less money left over after paying certified salaries than the North Little Rock School District. For example, Russellville West Memphis Alma Blytheville Fort Smith Texarkana Eldorado Jonesboro Camden Fairview Hot Springs Percent of Current Expenditures for Certified Salaries4 74.01 % 71.84% 69.04% 68.28% 68.08% 67.33% 66.07% 65.99% 65.20% 63.31 % The retirement funds which the Pulaski County Districts seek to have funded are a fixed percentage of certified salaries. Therefore, if the percentage of certified salaries paid by the Pulaski County Districts is lower than other districts, then the cost of teacher retirement will be lower than the same components of other districts. Each district will be affected in the same way. Mathematically, retirement funding is 12% of the prior year certified salary. The relationship between the Pulaski County Districts and the rest of the State remains the same when the retirement cos: is added to the cost of certified salaries. Arguments by the Pulaski County Districts that the cost of living is higher, requiring higher salaries and, that the obligations of the Settlement Agreement cause them to incur additional salary all fall by the wayside when the facts are known. f 4Declaration of Winston F. Simpson, Exhibit 3. 7 jmljr/k!/9017 Exhibit B to the Declaration of Tristan Greene submitted by the State demonstrates that the Pulaski County Districts received the following increases in State funding in 1996-1997 when compared with 1995-1996: Little Rock North Little Rock Pulaski County $2,733,988 $637,161 $710,476 This clearly evidences that these districts did not lose money when the State moved from Act 34 (1995-1996) to Act 917 (1996-1997). Summary The Pulaski County Districts' Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied. The adoption by the State of a new school funding system based on equalized l2IT J;l1lllli funding is a fair and rational method of funding. Over nearly three decades the legislature and the Courts have considered school funding and evolved to this system. The application of the formula to every - student in Arkansas aptly demonstrates the general nature of the new system. There has been no allegation that the new formula is retaliatory; and since the funding system is fair and rational, and of general application, it is not violative of the Settlement Agreement. At the very least, there are disputed questions of material facts which make summary judgment inappropriate with respect to these issues. Respectfully submitted, Amicus Curiae 8 William P. hompson, .. A. #64044 James M. Llewellyn, Jr., AB.A. #66040 THOMPSON \u0026 LLEWELLYN, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 Telephone: (501)785-2867 Telecopier: (501)782-8046 jmljr/kt/9017 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James M. Lewellyn, Jr., state that I have on this z.J.~day of December, 1996, caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to be mailed first class, postage prepaid, to: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 E. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. SamuelJones,III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 W. Capitol Ave., Ste. 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 9 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL AND STREET First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Ste. 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Ste. 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Jmljr/kt/9017 .. . : Ri::CElVEU AEA NOV 2 1981 -:;.- IN THE CHA!.;CC:RY COURT Of\" PULASKI COUNTY, ARY.A ~SAS i:IRST DIVISION Al.11A SCHOOL DISTR.i:CT NO. 30, ec al PLAIN:'I:75 V. NO. 77-406 JIM DuPRE\"='., ~ al CLOVER Brno SO!OOL DIS:::tICT NO. 12 of Law-rence County,~~ FINDINGS O!'\" FAC: Frora che t2scl..l:lony and e..v:hibi:s as inc::-oduced, che scacei:::encs and sci?ulacions of counsel, and ocher rn.a.cc2rs, chings, files and proof, che Cou::-'C finds as Eaccs: L. There were 382 operacing School Discricts in Arkansas L, 1978-79, 37~ in 1979-60, and 370 in 1980-8~- 2. ~~blic schools in Arkansas derive revenues from local and scace sources, and co a fa::- lesser e..~cenc from the federal gove=menc. r~ 1976-79, sc.ace revenues for public el=enc~=7 and. seconda::_-:J educacion cocale\u003cl. abou~ $235 million and consci~~ced 51.6% of all public school revenues. Loe.al revenues a=unccd co $210.6 million a::- J8.l 7. of cecal revenues. feuer~L revenues a~ $57,_ million provided the re=ini.--::g 10.37. of public school suppo-:-c. -::-:e propor-cians of federal-scace-local reve..'1ues ;;e::::e fai::Ly conscanc bec-~ee..'1 1973-7~ and 1978-79 . J. School disc::-iccs, by voce, lev-1 ca:t. races o-:millage races on Frcpercy wichin c_he disc::-iccs. This p::-ovides the bulk of local recei?cs. Ocher minor sources include ::-enc, inceresc, dor.acions, :-evenue in lieu of caxes, revenue f::-ol!l che Counc:y and ocher miscellaneous receipcs, and are al_ included L, cbe cacego-;:-y \"lac.al revenues\", and e2ch local dscricc recains and ex;,ends all che local school caxes collecced wichin ics boundaries. f+ . . The Arkansas school t.lis cric cs va=7 widely in che amounc of caxable properry wealch per pupil wichin chei= boundaries, ant.I because of variacions in assesse\u0026 valuacion per ?upil, ~~~: discicts in che scace have g-::eacer fiscal ~~~~~cy co raise revenue for education f=om local caxes c!'lan EXHIBIT 1  do many ocher distticcs in che scace . 5. Local =evenues a=e based in stated assessments as cercifed by the assessment co-ordinacion divi~ion of che St.ace ?ublic Service Co=ission which is responsible for certifying of=icial =acios co che Seate Deparc~e..~c of Educacion. 6. Each county in che stace has a County Board of Equalization for seccing or arriving at or levying assessmencs on Che majority of che icems of property in the cou.-:ty. Schools of che various counties are permitted to select represencacion on t.\"le board, and some schools dis ciccs employ individuals co ai~ assessors in locacing propercy to be assessed or re-assessed. .T. All counties are under-assessed in Arkansas,. and it: c.oes not. appear chat Arkansas Cons c.ic:uc.ional Amendz:lenc. No. 59, adopted in Novembe=, 1980, will a.:::ord any a?preci.3.ble relief c.o the. present: school f:.:1.ance system. 8. After any future re-assessment. it is eviden= tha.t. c..he. presently wealthy school disc.rices will sc::.J.l have g-:-eater assessed. values and therefore g=e.a::er rever.ues :o;::educacion than pla::...::.cif:: districts and ocher prope~, poor dis c:ric cs . 9. Ace: tfo. 1100 of che 1979 Arkansas General Assembly, kno;m as che School FL..ance Act of 1979, i~ Section 3(B) (1947 Ark. Scat. 1980 Replacement 00-050.J(B) ) provides a=ng oc.'ier chings, co c.\"le ef:::ecc chac che Resource Decerminacion Rate for each district: is calculaced by dividing ics adjusted base aid olus 45 mills applied co charged assessed valuation by che previous year's adjusted Average Daily M=bership, ADM. Each discricc's charged assessed valuacion is based on personal income. le. is compuced by applying its portion .of che tot.al assessed valuation in the county for the previous year to the county's charged assessed valuations. The laccer is decermined by multiplying che councy's 2 proporc:ion of cocal scace per~onal income for che lase: th=ee years by che cecal scace's assessed valuacion for che previous year less public serJice cor.unission assessnec1c:s. Utility and car::-ier assessmencs and 40~ of paymencs in lieu of tax-ation a=e added to c:he personal income component: of a disc:=icc:'s charged assesscenc to ar=ive ac a dist=icc's charged assessment:. 10. The sc:ate receives c:he income figu=es chac: ic used in the Resource Decer::iinacion Race calculation f=cm the Induscrial Research Exc:ension Center of che Universi:y of Arkansas. 11. The=e is no relation be~1een che local property wealth and the personal income index used to deter..iine district wealth in Arkansas. In addition, account is nae taken as to whether generated from L,duscrial or commercial property, and chis can resulc in some districts being charged L, assessed valuations ~~ey do noc have, and this L, cu::-:. can resulc in such dis cricts :-ec eiving less ttininn.u:a Fou:1da c::.on Prcg:-am, MF?, aid than they should. 12. Ace: No. 278 of the A::kansas Ge:1eral Asse~bly of 1951 was known as the Minimum School Budget: Law, and i: provided. a. base aid or hold-ha=less feature -..;hich g.ia::anteed that no school discricc: would receive less MFP aid in any year chan ic received the previous year. Thereafter, the amount of hold-harm.less funds increased from school finance ace co succeeding schooL finance ace so as to include any additional aid a school districc received in che previous year. Any equalization aid discribuced b:1 the stace became unavailable for equalizacion purposes in the :allowing year because it became pare of che hold-harmless aid in the year afcer ic was discribuced as equalization aid, and as result, the more recenc the base ye.a.r the less :.ione;' is available for equalization. 13. A further result under the provisions of Ace 278 of 1951 and succeeding school finance statutes for soce JO years thereafter is that lfFP aid per pupil increased in some dist-::-icts wich declining enrollments, even though the declining enrollment also result~d in an increase in yroperty wealch per pupil. lfuile Ace 1100 yrovides Ear adjust:.lents in base aid for changes in enrollillent, the adjustment does not eliminate the effects of district hold-har:nless prior to 1980. 14. Act 384 of 1977 contained a provision concerning making some adjuscnenc relative co the base for changes in average dailT attendance, and until the second year after the. passage: of Ace No. 1100 of 1979, base aid was held. ha=less on a per discicc basis. u:. In 1978-79 $220,000 ,COO or 71. li:. of all stace aid. was dist::ibuted. under the If:?, and. base. aid. accounted. for approx:.:nacely- 807. of MF? aid. 16. In. addition ta base aid, MF? aid has concai::ed a small equalization component. The equalization portion of MF?  .rs escablished i:1 Ace 384. of 19 77 caused dis cribution of aid in inverse relationship to local wealch on a 2.5 to L scale, and. established. a ceiling of eligibility-. fa 1978- 79 a total of $43,380,000 was distributed. under the. equalization portion of !ITT. This represented 19. 97. of MF? f-.!nds and 15.27. of all state reve.~ues. 17: The equalization under Ace 384. of 1977 was at a 2~ to 1 ratio, but Ace No. 1100 of 1979 eq~lizes at about 1 6/7 co 1, bec;iuse one-half of the funds are disc:ributed as flat grants; and because of the flat grant provision the 1979 Act will continue co be less equalizing than the 1977 Ace regardless of how aiuch equalizing money is available. 18; Under Ace No. 1100 of 1979 there is included a flat granc component in the equalizing funds. After base aid is allocated, one-half of any additional state lfF7 fi.mds for education are allocated in the form of flat grants on a per pupil (ADl1) basis, calculated by dividing the total avail- able funds by che Stace's adjusted ADl1 for che previous 1ea=. Sach dist:=icc =eceives the same Jollar amount regardless of property T,,/'ealch. 19. Ace '.lo. 1100 of 1979 provides :or adj us c:ients in base aid for c:.anges i:1 en=olluienc, but ch'e adjust.nenc does not elil!li::iace che effects of che district hold-har.;iless prior to 1900, and und~ Act 1100 of 1979, ear_ier inequities built into the system ~\"'ill continue to be carr~ed forwa=d on a per pupil bas is . . ?lac ~ants and T,,/'eighcing can be disequalizing factors. 20. Under Act No. 1100 of 1979, one-half of the funds left ave= after che dist=ibution of base aid is allocaced as \"equalization aid\". The funds are allocated on the basis of a 4 co 1 ratio on a graduated sliding scale bec~een key discicts =e?resencing che 5th and 95th percencile of all scude.~ts i., the scace ranked on thei= resource dece=i::iacion :-ate per AD11, a measure ot wealth. Disc:icts :,;ii:...'1. up co 200~ of w'i.e state average resou=ce rate par::ici?ate in the sliding scale aid. Discricts below che Sch per::encile receive che same amount of aid as disc=icts a:: w'i.e Sch percentile, although chey are poorer. 21. In Arkansas there is a scong relationship between a disc:icc's properi:\"f wealth and its available state and local revenues for elenentary apd secondary education. Dist.rices in the scace with high property wealth tend co have greater revenues for education, T,,/'hile low wealth districts tend to have less stace and local revenues. 22. The major determi.,anc of local revenues is disttict property wealth, and the amount of local r~venues thac a school district can raise is directly related to its property wealth. 23 .. There is a subs t.antial variation in che distribution of property wealth, mensured as equalized  assessed valua:ion per pupil in ave=age daily attendance (ADA) among the state's school dis::::-icts. In 1978-79 che range was f::-om $73,773 pe= pupil in Arkansas Ci.::y to $1853 in Gosnell. The state average assessed value per ADA in 1978-79 was $9611.18. 24. The wealthiest discricts, on average, raised about $753 more in local property taxes per pu?il than low wealth discric:s in 1978-79, and with scace aid, high wealth dist:=icts had approximately $532 more in state-local =evenues per pupil, or about 1;5 times the revenues of low wealth districts. 25. /!TI' aid increased 96. 757. per pu;i:..l in Li.:::le. Rock be~~een 1973-74 and 1980-31 or fron $229 co $452. Plai...,ti:: districc Al.~a's ai~ inc=e.aseci 119.87., or f=cm $306 co $704. 26. L, 1978-79, state and locaL revenues pe::pupil ranged from. a high of $2378 in A=kansas City co So73 in Caboc, one o= the. plai.,ti.= dis::::-iccs, a di:'::erence. of S1505 per pupil.. When the wealt:hiest: and the. pooresc a=e disregarded, c~e variation is from $1576 in Lierle. Roe~ ac c!ie. 95th pe=e..'1ci.le to $937 in Cedarville ac:. c..'1e 5c::i percentile. The. state average =evenues per ADA in 1978-79 1,;as $1158. 48. 27. :he range in revenues ai:,ong school dis.:=ic:s in Arkansas a::::ects a large number of children and is not Limited to c..~e ~ccremes of the disc=ibu:ion. Over 7~ of the pupils resided in school disaiccs with over $1500 per pupil in the state--ocal revenues while over 2ll resided in districts with less than $1000 in s cace-local revenues. fa 1978- 79, 2U dis::ricts with 239,725 students were below the state mean. This represented 557. of the districts and 567. of the students in the state. 28. \\Jhen school districts are classified by size it is sho= that wealth disparities in revenues are prevalent among both large and small districts. Among small districts with less than 350 s~Jdents, the highest wealth disc-ices =aise  a~out $583 more in local revenue pe= pupil than the lowest wealth dist=ic:s, buc receive only abouc $100 less in minimum foundation aid and in total stat?. aid , and a di~ference of some $481 in total sca:e-Local revenues occurs bet~een high and low wealth small districts. T~e sa  e pat:ern exists Eor large districts. The highest wealth districts raised $768 more per pupil than the lowest wealth districts. Eowever, minimum foundation program aid was only $203 less in high wealth districts, and other st.ace aid was r.early equa_ in the high and low wealth groups. As a result, high weal:h districts had about $563 more in scace-local revenues per pupil chan low wealth disc:iccs. 29. In che rare instances where some school districts in Arkansas do not need st.ace aid, they yec continue co receive ic. 30. '.1oney is a necP.ssicy :er achieving qu.ali:-:J education. There is a wide range in ~'\u003c?endicures per pupi~ among Arkansas school disc:iccs, and the variation in e::qiendicures is st::::-ongl:, related co c!isc:icc ;,ropercy ,;ealc.h and. st.ace and local revenues. 31. Disparic.ies in ~~pendi~~res per pupil among school disc-ices, co the ~~tent chat. they are , caused by variations in local distticc fiscal abili~,. a=e w-it.hout legitimate educational justi..:icacion and result in unequal education opportunities being made availalbe co chilc!re.n by Arknasas School disc=icts, including the eleven plaint.if: distticts. Students in lo_w-wealc.h districts receive inadequac.e and inferior educational opportunities compared to the high quality educational opporcunicie.s offered to students at.tending schools in high wealth districts, and there is a subscantial range a=ng school discricts in educational expendic-ures in the state, In 1970-79 the Ross Van tless e.i;penditures per pupil for the current operating expense amounted to $1859, -. while Ca.bot' s aounte.d to $693, or a difference of $1166 per pupil. The range. bet:1-1een Little Rock's $1466 ac the 95th percentile to plaintiff district Sheridan's $807 ac the Sch   percentile shows a difference of $659. The scace average for cu=ent: ~--q,endicures in 1978-79 was $1031.98. 32. Oiscriccs in che  "}],"pages":{"current_page":1,"next_page":2,"prev_page":null,"total_pages":4,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":0,"total_count":39,"first_page?":true,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":37},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":1},{"value":"Sound","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":11},{"value":"Ballard, Kenith L.","hits":6},{"value":"Learson, T. V.","hits":4},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":4},{"value":"Burdick, W. E.","hits":3},{"value":"Watson, Thomas J., Jr.","hits":2},{"value":"Anderson, Althea W.","hits":1},{"value":"Biggar, Charles P.","hits":1},{"value":"Haynes, Cynthia","hits":1},{"value":"Liebhaber, Richard T.","hits":1},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Retirement","hits":39},{"value":"International Business Machines Corporation","hits":19},{"value":"Business, Economics and Finance--Communications","hits":18},{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":17},{"value":"IBM","hits":17},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":16},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":16},{"value":"School employees","hits":16},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":15},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":15},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":15}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Ballard, Kenith L.","hits":13},{"value":"Biggar, Charles P.","hits":2},{"value":"Watson, Jr., Thomas J.","hits":2},{"value":"Biggar, Charles","hits":1},{"value":"Burdick, W. E.","hits":1},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1},{"value":"Learson, T. V.","hits":1},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":18},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":17},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":17},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":17},{"value":"United States, Texas, Harris County, Alief, 29.71106, -95.59633","hits":15},{"value":"United States, Texas, 31.25044, -99.25061","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Chatham County, Savannah, 32.08354, -81.09983","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":1},{"value":"United States, New York, New York County, New York, 40.7142691, -74.0059729","hits":1},{"value":"United States, North Carolina, 35.50069, -80.00032","hits":1},{"value":"United States, North Carolina, Cabarrus County, Concord, Cannon Mills Company","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":17},{"value":"Texas","hits":17},{"value":"Georgia","hits":2},{"value":"New York","hits":1},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1971","hits":19},{"value":"1996","hits":6},{"value":"1998","hits":5},{"value":"1999","hits":5},{"value":"1980","hits":4},{"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":"1997","hits":3},{"value":"1930","hits":2},{"value":"1931","hits":2},{"value":"1932","hits":2},{"value":"1933","hits":2},{"value":"1934","hits":2},{"value":"1935","hits":2},{"value":"1936","hits":2},{"value":"1937","hits":2},{"value":"1938","hits":2},{"value":"1939","hits":2},{"value":"1940","hits":2},{"value":"1941","hits":2},{"value":"1942","hits":2},{"value":"1943","hits":2},{"value":"1944","hits":2},{"value":"1945","hits":2},{"value":"1946","hits":2},{"value":"1947","hits":2},{"value":"1948","hits":2},{"value":"1949","hits":2},{"value":"1950","hits":2},{"value":"1951","hits":2},{"value":"1952","hits":2},{"value":"1953","hits":2},{"value":"1954","hits":2},{"value":"1955","hits":2},{"value":"1956","hits":2},{"value":"1957","hits":2},{"value":"1958","hits":2},{"value":"1959","hits":2},{"value":"1960","hits":2},{"value":"1961","hits":2},{"value":"1962","hits":2},{"value":"1963","hits":2},{"value":"1964","hits":2},{"value":"1965","hits":2},{"value":"1966","hits":2},{"value":"1967","hits":2},{"value":"1968","hits":2},{"value":"1969","hits":2},{"value":"1970","hits":2},{"value":"1972","hits":2},{"value":"1973","hits":2},{"value":"1974","hits":2},{"value":"1975","hits":2},{"value":"1976","hits":2},{"value":"1977","hits":2},{"value":"1978","hits":2},{"value":"1979","hits":2},{"value":"1994","hits":2},{"value":"1995","hits":2},{"value":"1988","hits":1},{"value":"1989","hits":1},{"value":"1990","hits":1},{"value":"1991","hits":1},{"value":"1992","hits":1},{"value":"1993","hits":1},{"value":"2002","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1930","max":"2002","count":172,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":17},{"value":"filing","hits":16},{"value":"audiocassettes","hits":1},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":1},{"value":"legal documents","hits":1},{"value":"oral histories (literary genre)","hits":1},{"value":"prefaces","hits":1},{"value":"speeches (documents)","hits":1},{"value":"video recordings (physical artifacts)","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":19},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":19},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":19},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":17},{"value":"African American Lives","hits":1},{"value":"Andrew J. Young Oral Histories","hits":1},{"value":"Uprising of '34 Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":19},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":17},{"value":"Auburn Avenue Research Library on African-American Culture and History","hits":1},{"value":"Georgia State University. Special Collections","hits":1},{"value":"William Stanley Hoole Special Collections Library","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":39}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":39}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}