{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1635","title":"Court filings: District Court, the districts' reply to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to their 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":["1996-12-23"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","North Little Rock School District","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Employee rights","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, the districts' reply to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to their 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/1635"],"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":["70 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC'): COUR'r EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-86 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL r..: (' ~ 0 1996 L, I  J ... DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INT ERVEN ORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office 01 Deseg:ag:rc.on M.:in,iCfiilJ THE DISTRICTS' REPLY TO ADE'S RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF TEACHER RETIREMENT MATCHING INTRODUCTION INTERVENORS As one of the cornerstones to its defense, the State continues to pervert the literal language of the Settlement Agreement just as it previously did when the worker compensation and loss funding issues were on appeal. At page 1 of its brief served December 13, 1996 the State maintains that: [T]he language of the settlement agreement ... expressly permits the State to make fair and rational changes of general applicability to its school funding scheme. The Settlement Agreement authorizes such changes only as respects funds distributed through the \"funding formula\". As Robert Shaver clearly explained in his recent deposition attached as Exhibit \"A\": Q Back when we were operating under Act 34, if someone would mention the funding formula to you, what did that mean to you? A The distribution of minimum foundation program aid. 1 Q okay. And that did not include workers' compensation, for instance, did it? A No. Q Did not include teacher retirement matching? A No. Q Did not include health insurance? A No. Q They were never part of the funding formula? A Well, now, I think the funding formula is the way -- they were part of the total funding system. Q But they weren't part of the minimum foundation program aid distributed by the formula? A That's right. Thus, the teacher retirement issue clearly falls within the category of a \"program\" for which the State provided funding at the time of the- Settlement Agreement. Thus, the State should continue to fund these programs for these three districts so as to comply with the Settlement Agreement. THE SALARY ISSUE For the State to contend that the salary levels which prevail in these three districts are simply a matter of \"local choice\" is at best a naive assertion. The history of teacher strikes in all three districts, strikes bottomed on salary demands, is enough to belie this notion. Further, the very state standards mandated by the Arkansas state Board of Education in large measure dictate the 2 student teacher ratios that must be met by these and other districts. Further, and a factor unique to these three districts, is the presence of staffing requirements and ratios contained in the Desegregation Plan which further, and sometimes dramatically, dictate the level and intensity of staffing in these districts. With the exception of the Fort Smith School District, these three districts are the only districts in the State which must contend with powerful and aggressive teacher unions. Thus, the rationale which initially impressed this Court concerning workers' compensation becoming a responsibility of the school districts does not exist here. It was not contested that the shift of workers' compensation claim paying responsibility to the districts would prompt them to take measures to reduce their - workers' compensation costs. This rationale, under these unique facts, however, does not transfer to the issue of teacher retirement. The factors outlined above by and large dictate the necessary number of employees and the State law prohibition on reduction in teacher salaries creates a perpetual floor resulting in a level of employer matching that will never be reduced. Further, in the same session in which the State decided to shift teacher retirement costs to the districts, it further mandated a minimum salary law which will raise the perpetual floor even higher. Accordingly, it is disingenuous at best for the State to contend under the circumstances which prevail here, that these districts are in any position to significantly control either the number of their employees or their compensation. The State's argument loses all force and persuasion when one examines what the State did as regards ADE employees, Educational Cooperative employees, employees of the Department of Corrections School, employees of the Math \u0026 Science School in Hot Springs, Vocational Center employees, and the employees in Adult Education. It is undisputed that the State continues to pay 100% of the teacher retirement costs generated by those employees {See, ADE's response to Item #23 of the Districts' Statement of Undisputed Facts dated December 13, 1996). Not only does the State pay 100% of those costs, but it has requested, as a matter of \"priority\" additional sums for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to provide: \"For a six percent increase to provide for growth in staff and salaries.\" - See, Arkansas Budget System at pp. 14 and 31 attached as Exhibit B (hereafter \"ABS\") Thus, for the State to argue that the districts could eliminate unnecessary employees or reduce excessive salaries {State Brief at page 11) seems hypocritical when the State itself is seeking increases in its own appropriations to cover increases in the number of its employees and increases in their salaries. THE APPROPRIATION ISSUE There are at least two ways to discredit the State's current contention that no funds are contained in Act 1194 that were \"specifically earmarked or intended to satisfy school districts' teacher retirement contributions\" {State Brief at p. 15), and, by extension, for other matters such as health insurance, special 4 education, transportation aid, and certain former grants. One is to present testimony from knowledgeable witnesses such as Dr. Benny Gooden and the other is to simply look at what the State has in fact done or proposes to do. For fiscal year 1994-95, $1,233,546,155 was spent from the public school fund (See Imber, Finding of Fact No. 23). During that year, $123,000,000 was budgeted by ADE for teacher retirement matching, (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 24), a matter undisputed by the state. For fiscal year 1997, the public school fund appropriation is $1,456,697,089. (See Act 1194 at Sec. 1, p. 5625). As a matter of pure logic, and with the increases in the fund described above, the only conclusion that can be reached is that for obligations which continue today that were extant in 1994-95, the sums that were previously either paid directly by the state or appropriated as line items for distribution to the districts must be components of a fund that is forecast to be over $200,000,000 more than it was at the time of the Lake View decision. This logical outcome is amply supported by the State's own witnesses and documents. The most telling testimony comes from Dr. Bobbie Davis, Assistant Director for Finance and Administration, who testified: Q Under Act 34, there was set-aside funds for transportation costs. I believe districts received the funds based on the linear mileage rate or something to that effect; is that correct? A There was a formula you went by, yes. Q Is there such a formula for administration of 5 transportation funds now? A No, sir. Q How are those funds administered? A There are no identifiable transportation funds in Act 917. Q And why not? A Those dollars, or the total dollars, that were part of the previous funds, that went to public schools, were all consolidated into equalization funding. Q So that means all of the add-ons and weighted average factors that were distributed to districts, such as Brinkley, were, then, consolidated for approximately $300 million? A Into equalization, so they were no longer identifiable as those weighted things, yes. (Emphasis supplied.] (Davis deposition, pp. 6-7, attached as Exhibit \"B\") While the Arkansas Budget System attached as Exhibit \"C\" has - been reasonably well sanitized on this issue, certain significant concessions remain. ADE tells us at page 32 of the ABS that: Transportation Aid was eliminated under Act 1194 as a separate line item and incorporated into the new school funding formula. (Emphasis supplied.) 1 The ABS at page 23 informs us that: Act 917 of 1995 (the Equitable School Finance Act of 1995) and Act 1194 of 1995 (Appropriation Act for the Public School Fund) eliminated at-risk funding as a separate line item and combined approximately $30,000,000 into the State Equalization Funding Formula. 1Tellingly, for the next biennium, ADE has requested a line item appropriation of $10,000,000 each fiscal year \"to assist districts with high cost transportation.\" This is a \"priority request\" of ADE. See, Arkansas Budget System at p. 14. Apparently ADE is willing to consider \"needs\" issues when it suits it. 6 Similarly, at p. 11, the ABS states: \"Act 917 and 1194 for 1995 eliminated all at-risk tunding from the Department of Education's budget and shifted approximately $30.0 million into state Equalization Aid. [Emphasis added.] Act 1194, appended to the State's brief as an exhibit, at Item 28, reflects a $30,000,000 appropriation for at-risk grants and training for 1995-96, the last year that Act 34 operated. Accordingly, it is clear that in this category, the State recognizes that what used to be funded as a line item was folded into the 1996-97 appropriation for state equalization funding, the new near equivalency of MFPA under Act 34. The ABS also informs us at p. 34 as respect to grants to school districts: These payments are made to Missouri for educating students in North Arkansas who cannot get to their assigned district because Bull Shoals Lake separates them from their district and it would require a round trip of more than 35 miles. This program was incorporated into the school funding formula, but the Department is requesting a separate line item of $27,000 for the 1997- 99 biennium. [Emphasis added.] Again, in examining Act 1194 at Item 11, \"grants to school districts\", the identical figure, $27,000, was appropriated for 1995-96, the last year of operation of Act 34. In addition to this, the districts' assertion is supported by the deposition testimony of Dr. Charles Dyer, Superintendent of the Alma School District, the district that was the lead plaintiff in Alma v. Dupree, the original funding case. When asked what became of these items previously paid directly by the state, including teacher retirement and health insurance, Dr. Dyer explained his 7 understanding that: Q I always say that wrong. A billion, three hundred million, I'm sorry. A Okay, that's somewhere in the neighborhood, yes. Q All right. Do you know how that figure was built or gotten at, where it came from? A Only in general terms. Q Okay. I'll take that. A I can't remember exactly what the MFPA was. We had a substantial amount of money that was already targeted for MFPA, had about fifty billion [million) in transportation funds that was put over there. I say put over there. It was put together with the MFPA. Around a hundred and thirty-one, two or three million dollars of teacher retirement payments that was also put in. Somewhere in the mid-forty millions, forty-three, four or five million of payment for health insurance. Q Sure. A It was my thoughts that they were taking X number of dollars from the Department of Education that they had originally put out in all these other categories and put into one large pool. Q Yeah. A I think that's the same thing that you're saying. And then, in addition to that, they were putting in somewhere around $60,000,000.00 of additional money to come up to this 1.3 billion or one billion, two hundred and eighty-eight million or whatever that figure, somewhere in that neighborhood. These deposition pages are attached as Exhibit \"D\". Additionally, the expert witness engaged by the state in the Lake View case, Dr. Robert Rossmiller was asked these same questions and testified that: Q Can we agree, though, that by transferring that obligation to the school districts, both for paying teacher retirement and paying health insurance, that if the state put that money in the appropriation, it freed 8 up more money to flow through the equalization formula? A Yes. Q But do you know whether or not that happened? A Whether what happened? Q Do you know what became of the money that the state used to use to pay the teacher retirement and the health insurance? A I can only assume that it was put into this pool. I don't know specifically. I believe I heard yesterday that there is no appropriation for it. Q Yes. A So in that regard, it has disappeared. Now, where did it go? I assume it went into the equalization pool, but I don't know for sure. (Rossmiller Deposition, p. 115) These testimony abstracts are attached as Exhibit \"E\". The ABS explains the aid distribution changes as follows: Act 917 of 1995 changed the method the State uses to distribute aid to school districts. Prior to 1996-97 the Department of Education distributed the majority of state aid as Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA) . In addition, the state funded other programs such as Transportation Aid and At-Risk Grants by formulas or based on need. The State also paid Teacher Retirement Matching and Health Insurance Matching on behalf of school districts. The calculation for MFPA included addon weights for various categories such as Special Education, Isolated School Districts, Consolidation Incentives, Vocational Education and Centers, Gifted and Talented Students, and growth and loss funding. 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. (ABS at p. 29). The structure of this explanation by ADE strongly suggests the recognition that the sums previously paid through MFPA, as teacher 9 retirement matching and health insurance matching, and as transportation aid and at-risk grants are simply now distributed as state equalization funds. Finally, the State complains that the districts are isolating certain funding programs and not considering the new formula outcomes as a whole. First, the Settlement Agreement specifically provides for the districts' approach when it sets forth the State's obligation to continue funding \"programs\" for these three districts when it has historically funded them. Second, the calculations of Mr. Green offered for the proposition that the PCSSD does better under the new formula than the old are unadjusted for the increases in teacher retirement and health insurance costs that the PCSSD is experiencing this year and instead rely upon data from the previous school year. Exhibit \"F\" demonstrates that even in utilizing Mr. Green's analysis, the district loses over $100,000 as compared to last year. When that same analysis is further adjusted for the current effects of M-to-M transfers, the PCSSD is shown to be losing almost $1,000,000 as compared to last year. Further, the state makes no response whatever to PCSSD's analysis which accompanied this motion initially in which it compared Act 34 funding outcomes as if Act 34 were still in place and funded at current funding levels. That comparison demonstrates that the PCSSD is losing millions of dollars under the current scheme as compared to the previous 10 program. 2 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the districts' pray that their motion respecting teacher retirement be granted, for their costs, attorneys' fees, and all proper relief. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2000 Boatmen's Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-0808} NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-1122 Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501} 376-2011) By: II 2Given the holiday seasons, counsel for the PCSSD was not able to obtain similar analyses for the NLRSD and the LRSD but on their behalf would request permission to present those analyses as soon as reasonably possible. 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE on December 2.:i_, 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. o. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 J:jhsl050.030 12 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Turner Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 ___,.\u003e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF - PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS SIXTH DIVISION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT * NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, * ARKANSAS, ET AL, Plaintiffs * 1 VERSUS * NO: 9 2 - 5 318 MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF * THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, ET AL, * Defendants * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VOLUME II DEPOSITION OF ROBERT E. SHAVER TAKEN BEFORE Vanessa C. Aucoin, Certified Court Reporter, LS Certificate No. 503, Bushman Court Reporting, 620 West Third Street, Suite 101, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 on Thursday, October 10, 1996 at the offices of the Attorney General, 200 Tower Building, 323 Center Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, commencing at 9:30 a.m. VANESSA C. AUCOIN, RPR, CCR BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 372-5115 I EXHIBIT A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 l. . Q. Back when we were operating under Act 34, if someone would mention the funding formula to you, what did that mean to you? A. The distribution of minimum foundation program aid. Q. Okay. And that did not include workers' compensation, for instance, did it? A. No. Q. Did not include teacher retirement matching? A. No. Q. Did not include health insurance? A. No. ... .. -- ~ Q. They were never part of any funding formula? A. Well, now, I think the funding formula is the way -- they were part of the total funding system. Q. But they weren't part of the minimum foundation program aid distributed by the formula? A. That's right. Q. Bob, I'm trying to -- I wrote this down. What did you have to say about the treatment of carry-over balances? Was that in the context of that's not necessarily tied to a particular appropriation? A. With respect to the comments a few minutes ago about whether or not there was a 60-million or VANESSA C. AUCOIN, RPR, CCR BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 372-5115  IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS SIXTH DIVISION LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS,; MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, IRMA MOREHOUSE, PRESIDENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE SCHOOL BOARD; GENORA FRAZIER, INDIVIDUALLY, IN HER CAPACITY AS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE ON BEHALF OF HER CUSTODIAL GRANDCHILDREN, LOUIS LONG, JR. AND CHRISTOPHER FRAZIER; HENRIETTA J. WILSON AND IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY; SIDNEY FITZHUGH, SR., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A MEMBER; VELMA LARKIN, AND ON BEHALF OF HER CHILDREN, TAWANNA LARKIN SUPERINTENDENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF THE LAKE VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25. PLAINTIFFS vs. No. 92-5318 MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; JIMMIE LOU FISHER LUMPKIN, TRASURER OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; REP. BOBBY HOGUE, SPEAKER OF THE ARKANSAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; STANLEY RUSS, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE ARKANSAS SENATE; ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; GENE WILHOIT, DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JAMES McCLARTY, CHAIRMAN; EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., MEMBER; CARLE. BAGGETT, MEMBER; GARY BEASLEY, MEMBER; MARTHA DIXON, MEMBER; WILLIAM B. FISHER, MEMBER; JAMES WHITMORE, MEMBER; LUKE GORDY, MEMBER; BETTY PICKETT, MEMBER; ELAINE SCOTT, MEMBER; RICHARD SMITH, MEMBER; SHERRY WALKER, MEMBER DEFENDANTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DISCOVERY DEPOSITION of Dr. Bobbie A. Davis Friday, October 11, 1996 2:45p.m. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * REPORTED BY: GRIGGS REPORTING SERVICE Alvah M. Griggs, CCR 1-501-633-2124 I EXHIBIT (3  6 1 Q We would meet, periodically, throughout the session, durin 2 days, you know, while our other jobs were going on. Sometimes 3 those meetings would go over into the evenings. We were asked to 4 respond to legislative proposals . We were asked to respond to 5 proposals by the Governor's Office. We were asked to, I guess, 6 be a \"think tank\" more than anything else. 7 Q Are you currently, fairly, familiar with t he 8 Administration's Act 917? 9 A I am familiar with it in kind of a general sense. I am not 10 the technician that Dr. Shaver or Tristan are -- certainly not. 11 Q 12 A Were you familiar with Act 34, in any way? Not in any -- when that was in place, I was an administrator 13 at school, certainly not at the day to day work that we are 14 now. 15 Q But, you as Superintendent of Brinkley Schools, you were 16 somewhat familiar with the plan -- 17 A 18 Q 19 A 20 Q Somewhat. Is that correct? Yes. Under Act 34, there was set-aside funds for transportation 21 costs. I believe districts received the funds based on the 22 linear millage rate or something to that effect; is that correct? 23 A There was a formula that you went by, yes. 24 Q Is there such a formula for administration of transportation 25 funds now? ALVAH M. GRIGGS, CCR 1-501-633-2124  1 A 2 Q 3 A 4 Q 5 A 7 No, sir. How are those funds administered? There are no identifiable transportation funds in Act 9-17. And why not? Those dollars, or the total dollars, that were part of the 6 previous funds, that went to public schools, were all 7 consolidated into equalization funding. 8 Q So that means all of the add-ons and weighted average 9 factors that were distributed to districts, such as Brinkley, 10 were, then, consolidated for approxomately $300 million? 11 A Into equalization, so they were no longer identifiabie as 12 those weighted things, yes. 13 Q '-14 A 15 Q Are there any weighted factors under 9-17? No. Under equalization the money is distributed by ADM. And, I believe, that you heard Mr. Green's testimony, I 16 believe that basically said that all of those funds were 17 considered under Category One for the purposes of meeting the 18 19 20 Federal Range Ratio; is that correct? A Right. Q Do you agree with that assessment? 21 A 22 Q I agree with that assessment, yes, sir. Now, in teacher -- under Act 34, Teacher Retirement was 23 distributed or paid by the State their portion. 24 25 Q MS. TURNER: Object to the form of the question. (Mr. Lewellen continuing) : Do you agree with Teacher ALVAH M. GRIGGS, CCR 1-501-633-2124 - -------- - ---------- l - . ,iilKANSAS BUDGET SYSTEM - AGENCI' l'ROGRAIH COMMENTARI' -- ---------------- _ _ __ 1_9_9_7_-_1_99_9 ________________ _ runuc SCIIOOL FllNll PRIORITY BlillllliSIS /\\l-lUSK GRANTS - Acl 917 and 1194 for 1995 diminalcd all al-risk funding fr11111 Ilic I h:par1n1cn1 of hl11ca1io11. s b11Jgcl anJ shiflcd approximalely $30.0 million inlo Slale Eq11aliza1ion t\\id. The fkparlmcnl is reqm:slillf! 1hat 1he follo\\\\ ing at-risk programs he conlinucd in 1he biennium. The priorily requesls lotaling S 17.1 million each liscal year can he sepa1 alcd inlo two parls. 1-'irsl. is a request for $7. 1 \u003e million to continue programs the agency plans to li111d in FY1\u003e7 with 1'11hlic School Fund balances. Second. is n rcq11csl fiir $9.2 million each fiscal year to conlinue funding for K-5 summer s1.:hool prog1ams. The re411est for $7 .9 million each fiscal year lo conlinue e:--.isling programs rnusis1i11g 111 l 'ollcge l'rcparalory Emichmcnl l'rngram ll 'l'l:1') (SI ,800,000). Early Childhood Training ($3,000.000). Limited English l'rolicicnc~ I I I I')($::!. I 00.000) and Training. Monitoring and Technical Assistance for Academic and Fiscal Dis1rcss ($1.000.000). CPL:1'-Dming the 191)5-96 school year lhe depa11111enl lumlcd -D scho11I disll ids and 1\u003e cooperali\\es 111 provide ACT training lo 3.41111 students. EARi. Y Cl IILDI 1000 lRAININ(i- In 1he I 1l1JS -% school year Al )I: dis11 ihu1cd $IA 111illiu11 to pro\\'iJe slilff ,.kvclopmenl 1rai11i111! for 5,555 K-5 teachers anJ ad111i11istrah1rs. t\\ddi1i1111ally. Al\u003eE pwvi1bl $1 .h 111illi1111 1'11r 1he K-4 crusade 10 1rain 2,319 leachcrs 1 he deparlment anticipates similar pnrticipatio11 in FY1J7 I l:P-Du1i11g the 1995-96 school year. the /\\UL dis11ihu1cJ $3,972.8 Ill dirc1.:ll) 1t1 schnul Jistiids In provide runJing for 1.1-:1' s1ude11ls for a two-year period. 1 his money sci vcd I . 'iK s111de11l in I 31 districls. /\\ I \u003eI : also p1 ovides $1110.0110 in 1.-ai11ing lo schoul dist, icls for these progrnms. The $2 .1 million priorily n:t111est each fiscal year ,..,ill rn111i1111e 10 liind the program at previous k\\'cls I RAININ(i, MONITORING AND IH.:I INH.'AI . ASSIS f/\\NCE- I his is a new rcq11ire111e111 i11 FY%. Act 915 of 1995. requires the department to identify school districls in academic and fiscal dis1ress. As a pail of 1hc process. 1he dcparlmenl is 1eq11i1ed tn provide !raining, 1111111i1oring. and technical assistann: 1111h11se school dislricts \\\\'ho a,e ide111ilicd as dis1resscd. 'I he p1iority runding is 1eq11i1c\u003cl l111.:nntinue 1his process -------------------- unrncron AGENCY PAGE A\u003c;ENCY PROGRAM AHKANSAS DEl'ARUIENI' OF Ellt.lCATIOO EXHIBIT GENE \\.lllJKHT C:OMMENTARV , 11 ~lt21 '---______ . __ __.___., C - - --------------------- AGENCY PROGRAM COMMENTARY L - 1\\RKANSAS BUDGET SYS1'EM _- ------------- ____19_ 9_7_-_1_99_9_ ________________ _J The n:quesl for $9.2 million each liscal year for s111nn1e1 sdlllol will allow 1he Alli: 111 rnntinue lo fund K-5 di1ec1 services for approximately 1S.000 sludents. This priority will provide runding 10 school disll ids 111 pay sun11ner sd1nol teacher salaries .-ind purchase instructional materials. ISOI.All:D FUNDING - The priority request of $272 .1100 in FY98 and $283 ,1100 in I Y11 \"ill provide $80.000 euch Ii seal year liir additional districts that may qualify for isolated status and $1 ')2 .0110 in FY9H and $111 , . 'i '.:! 11 in FYI)) li,r M:, grmvth in 11ase l.ocal lkve 1111 e Per Student. S Ill DEN r liROWTII - The priority request of $1110.lltltl em:h liscal year is neelkd In p11,, ide for 6'1~ growth in the Base l.ocal Re,ernie l'er Student and a growlh of approximately 7.400 students in growing di sll icts l\"hc lkp;11 t11ll.:111 Base I eve! li1r Student \u003c irnwth is $21 .\u003c, million. AODITIONAL BASE FlJNDINCi - The appropriation 1e4uest for Additional Base lu11di11g f11r the hiennium emling June 30, 1999, is based upon worst case sccmuio projections. The main concern of the flcpa,1mcnt is the \"I''\"\"' Inca! rc,wuc iucocascs in the Polaski ('unnly school dislricts of 1en pci-cenl. If that is in fact the situation beginning in FYl)H_ and all 111her c1111ditions rem;1in the same (1111mbcr of sludenls, assessment. and stale funding), then increases in Additional Base lullllill~ 111 $ I (1 -I million in FY98 and $20.4 million in FY 1 J') ,.,,ill he necessary for lhe state 10 meet the court test and abide by thc intent of The Fquitahlc School Finance S) stem Acl of I 995 . l\u003eEI' AIU MEN I\" OF COIWEC I ION - I he Al\u003eI: p1 i11rily rel1uesl uf $128..11111 i11 I Y1'8 and $16-l.Stl-l prm i1ks liir a \u003ci% inc1ease in the l\\asc I .ocal Revenue l'er Student. After the hudgct suh111issi11n, the Department uf ( 11rrecti1111 Sch11ol District (I)( 'SI\u003e) requested the A ni: suh111i1 .i request for additional funding for new schools they plan to open in the hiennirnn . The I\u003e( 'SD plans to establish schools al two (2) new prisons in FY97-98 . They anticipate an ADM gnm th or 400 students in l-'Y98 a111I I Oil in I Y99. The I)( 'SI) has requested the Department of Correction to fund the FY98 growth of $447.S0II and therealier thc ADI: 111 continue funding for FYIJ\u003c\u003e . n,c $447.S00 for FY99 nectls he considered as a priority rcquesl of the ADE. AGENCY DIRECTOR AHKANSAS DEl'AR'ltlENl' Of EllUCATIOO GENE \\.l[IJk)IT AGENCY PROGRAM COMMENTARY Hlt21 PAGE 12 ----------- ,ill KANSAS BUDGET S1'S1'EM AGENCY PROGRAM COMMENTARY 1997 - 1999 Pl JUI.IC SCIIOOI. EMPLOYEE INSlmANCI: - prll\\ ides for health insurance c11n11 ib111i11ns li,r emph\u003e) ees or 1he l'ouperalive b.l11ca1i1111 Service Areas. Vocational Centers and the school opcralcd hy the l)cpa1t111cnt of('tirreclilln 1'11e prioi-ity request of $36.030 in FY 1 18 a11d $74,222 in FY99 allows for a 6% t;rowlh in rates or employees. SPEClAl. EDUCATION SERVICES - The priority request of $747,630 each r1scal ) c,11 \"ill provide apprnpriatinn anJ hmJing ahove Base Level for the anticipated program needs of $3,747.630. The program ind mks $2.725 .llllll Ill n.:imbmscment to school districts for Special hlucation Supcrvisms. $402,630 for extended school year services. $50.0011 li,r ~L'I, i1:cs 111 foster children. $270.000 lor Regional Transitional Specialists. and $300.000 for consultants rm students \"\"i1h se,c1e disahili1ics COOl'ERATIVE 1:l\u003el lCA l'IONAL SERVICl~S Alff AS - I he priority request 111' $1.5211.IIIHI in FY98 and $116.000 i11 l-'Y9 1 \u003e will p10\\'i1k a Jistance learning classroom in each educational cooperative and one to he lncatcd in l'ulas~i ( ounty. The cost of each dassrnnm is '\\; 1 \u003e5 .0110 Continuing lim: charges arc projected at $7,250 per focility each year. rhe dis1a11cc ka111ing dassroon1s will he useJ li1r staff dcvdllpmcnl. student instruction, and to provide a statewide conununication netwrn k. DEBT SERVICE FUNDING SUPPLEMENT - 1 he Base l.evd appropriation or $21111 million is for olJ Jeht\", which is Jdincd as Jehl voted prior to fcbruary 22. J9()5. The priority request of$l0 0 million each r1sc.1l ~ca1 \\\\1111ld limd new clcht voted alier 1hat date. DIS'l RICT FISCAL CRISIS RELi L:.F - I he p1 iorit} 1eq11est ol a uegati\\'e $ I ll.11111illiu11 ..:ach year is tu eliminate the base kvcl appropriation. It is the understanding that the appropriation was l'nr one fiscal year lo p1m ide transition 1'11nJs hcca11sc of the changes in the method school fumling is distrihutetl. SI All: 1:QlJAI.IZA rlON AIIJ - the priority reL111csl or $71).255 .2 18 in i:'1'98 and $15 7. 7511 .338 in l Y 1\u003e1 \u003e prnvides ror a (1'1/o, increase each fiscal year and for the continuation of $5.203,218 h11dgc1cd from FY1)7 fund balances tin potential tleseg1egation cost. A(;J~NCY l\u003etnECTOlt AGENCY PAGE AHl\u003cANSAS DEl'AHUIENI' OF EJXJCATIOO GF.NE WllJK\u003eIT PROGRAM COMMENTARY Billi 13 I I [ 1\\RKANSAS BUDGE1' S1'S1'EM AGENCY PROGRAM COMMENTARI' ... ------------ 1997 - 1999 TEACIIER RETIREMENT MAlCI IINU - provides 1cad1cr rc1i1c111cn1 111a1chi11g 1111 e111pl11) ccs lllTllnpcralive l:duca1io11 Service 1\\reas, Vocalional Centers, and the school operated by the Ocpa11mc11t of Corn.:clion. 111 lhi!\u003e line i1c111. 1hc deparlmcnl has a base level budget of $2.1 million. The dcparlment was-required 10 increase 1hc FY97 hudgcl from lhc app111p1 i.1lill11 level of $1 .5 million Ill 1hc $2 .1 111 fully fund 1his program. The priority request of $126,000 in fYC)K anti $2S9.S60 in FY()\u003c) p1m idc!\u003e li11 a 6'!1, increase 111 provide for growth in stall and salaries. 11lANSPORTATION AID-The priority request of $10.8 million each liscal consist 111 ll\\11 prngra111s. First. is $8011.000 each liscal year Ill cunlinue 10 fund safely training for school hus drivers and mechanics. In FY1 Jl1 lhc .\\1)1 : 11.1i11cd 7.:wo d1ivcrs and 2411111ccha11ics. I he department plans to utilize Public School Fund balances 111 rnn1in11e lhc p1ogra111 in FY1J7 111 addililln. $10.11 is req11es1ctl each tiscal year 111 assist dislricts with high cost transportation. RESIDENTIAL CENTERS - 1 he priorily re4uest of $85b.22 I in FY98 and $9111Ul(1::! 1111 I Y1J 1 J is to provide adtli1ional funding for anticipated growth in student placeme.nt at approved rcsidcnlial treat1nent fadli1ics a11d 1 111 j11n:nik dclention facililics. D111ing the 199S-IJ6 school year there was an increase of approximately I Oil new heds in lhe rcsi1lc111ial farililics. Sludenls a1e lhc responsih "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1656","title":"Court filings concerning 1996-97 budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, LRSD 1998 program planning and budgeting tool, Amicus Curaie's response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment of the Little Rock School District, and PCSSD's statement of material and undisputed facts on the issue of teacher retirement matching","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","North Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning 1996-97 budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, LRSD 1998 program planning and budgeting tool, Amicus Curaie's response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment of the Little Rock School District, and PCSSD's statement of material and undisputed facts on the issue of teacher retirement matching"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1656"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["38 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, order; District Court, motion for approval of plan development period; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for approval of plan development period; District Court, order; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, motion; District Court, brief in support of motion; District Court, order; District Court, response to Knight et al.'s motion; District Court, objections of the Joshua intervenors to the proposed 1996-97 budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring; District Court, motion to withdraw pleading; District Court, response of the Joshua intervenors to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for the approval of a plan development period; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua motion to request Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1998 program planning and budgeting tool; District Court,Amicus Curaie's response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); District Court,Amicus Curiae's response to Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) statement of material and undisputed facts on the issue of teacher retirement matching; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  12 D: 1996 16 : 51 FROM JOHN W. WAL~ ER P . A. TO :::;- 10100 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEL U 2. 1996 EAST~E~~~I~vi!I~SAM~ES 'r'v. 1v1t.vvn111nvr., \\;LERK By: -------- LI TTL E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIMB OEP CLERK The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court for an order extending to them the same time as requested by the Arkansas Department of Education in which to file a response to the Office of Desegregation proposed 1996-97 budget. For its motion, Joshua states: 1. Due to trial in Texarkana, Arkansas before the Honorable Judge Harry Barnes and absence from the city on Thanksgiving, plaintiff did not formally meet the response deadline herein. 2. The Joshua Intervenors have previously advised the ODM that ODM's budget was too low and asked the ODM to bring their position to the attention of the Court. 3. There is no prejudice to any party by granting the motion to extend the time or to file our of time. WBBRBPORB, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the Court enter an order allowing them until Oecelllber 13, 1996 in p . 0.:: 12 02, 1995 16 : 52 FROM JOHN W. WALI EP P . A. TO 3 71 0100 - which to respond to the ODM budget request. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 certificate of Service I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was sent via facsimile to all counsel of record on this 2nd day of December, 1996. P . 03 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRDER r~~~ :;-~~\\ 11~ . ;:~~  ; 1.~~ ,; .,; J; ... 7;-,.,:7 :_: :_::J~T [i,~T~~~i G.$--;-:r_:-: 1 ,\\r~:A,~SAS Before the Court are the motions of the Arkansas Department of Education (\" ADE\") for _ extensions of time to file objections to the 1996-97 ODM budget (see docket entry 2852) and to respond to the motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching (see docket entry 2862). The motions (docket entries 2871 \u0026 2873) are granted. The ADE has until and including December 13, 1996, within which to file its objections and response to the motion for summary judgment No further extensions will be granted. SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December 1996. 1/ l/, )ii:'~i;\\ r ~-HS Q~)C~J~/:f:i!T t:i\\JT~1EQ r:~~ ~(::..:i-\u003cET Sr.E:=- 1i -: -~.t~,1?LL\\~~C~ \\~  ,TH :7U:..'.= :.; ;\\;O/OR 79{c.} rsc:=- 'JN ~/3 /f 0 BY _kt~~-- ~-- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 RE: ~ a ~. l! \"\"'\"' -. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL _;1::. y -  .. DEC ~ 1996 DEFENDANTS Office of Dese~rsgat1011 :.ion1tonnfINTERVENORS  -- I'NTERVENORS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERIOD The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion states: 1. This court has repeatedly expressed the view that LRSD - could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan mod if ica tions. The court has noted, however, that any proposed modifications must be developed by the parties and not the court. 2. LRSD can improve its educational program for all students and can enhance the prospects for the long term desegregation of the district if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task. LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ( \"ODM\") in order to develop and present to the court plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within - the district. 3. The Knight Intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for education and desegregation within LRSD. They are willing to work cooperatively with the other parties to develop such a plan. 4. PCSSD and NLRSD do not intend to become directly involved in the process of developing a modified education and desegregation plan for LRSD, except to the extent that the development of such a plan might impact interdistrict desegregation issues, but they support the effort described in this Motion. 5. LRSD expects that they can work cooperatively with all parties to present to the court within the next six to nine months a plan for improving education and desegregation in LRSD. This - plan will necessarily modify or replace certain components of the present LRSD Desegregation Plan. 6. LRSD and Joshua have met with the desegregation monitor to discuss ways in which LRSD, Joshua and ODM can work together toward improving education and desegregation in LRSD. ODM moni taring reports have shown the need for changes in LRSD' s approach to desegregation. ODM could, with this court's approval, support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD; by redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline r:-~.,,..... 2 issues; and by withholding any further monitoring of the current - LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this court authorize ODM to consult with the parties and participate in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD; to redeploy monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues; and, to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-_2_0_1_1 __ _ BY: 3 Christopher Hell John c. Fendley, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peop~y depos~a copy of same in the United States mail on this day of~~ , 1996. Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 1.stopher Helle John C. Fendley, Jr. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEC (, DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS 1996 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Moni!oririiJ INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERIOD The Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), outlined the standard for modification of a consent decree: (A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving party meets this standard, the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id., at 393, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. The Eighth Circuit applied the Rufo standard in affirming this Court's decision granting LRSD's request to close Ish incentive school and to assign the former Ish attendance zone students to the new King interdistrict school. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). The Eighth Circuit stated, \"We are convinced that the closing of Ish advances [the goal of desegregation] by offering a desegregated setting for students within the Ish attendance zone alongside children from the 1:-\\fmdlcyllnd~ PCSSD. 11 Therefore, the Eighth Circuit has approved - modifications of the LRSD Desegregation Plan where the modifications further the goal of desegregation. Moreover, the LRSD Desegregation Plan was drafted with the expectation that modifications would be made as necessary to further the purposes of the plan. A six to nine month plan development period for the purpose of developing plan modifications would further the goal of desegregating LRSD. Improving education in LRSD is essential to maintaining current levels of desegregation and improving desegregation in the future. Modifications are also needed in other areas including budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues. ODM could, with this court's approval, support LRSD's efforts - by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD; by redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as 1The Eighth Circuit's reasoning is consistent with the rule of equity which allows a court to modify an equitable decree to further the purpose of the decree. See, e.g., Larken Minnesota, Inc. v. Wray, 881 F.Supp. 14i3, 1419 (D.Minn. 1995). It is also consistent with decisions from other jurisdictions which have identified a myriad of changed circumstances which justify modification. See, e.g., Jacksonville Branch, NAACP v. Duval County School Board, 978 F.2d 1574, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992) (\"Modification [of a consent decree) may be considered when (1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met, (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has a legitimate interest to be considered.\"). f:lhomolfclldloyllndlbri-1JWUlov 2 budget development, staff development, student assignment and - resolution of discipline issues; and by withholding any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. LRSD prays that ODM be authorized to support LRSD in this manner so that modifications of the LRSD Desegregation can be developed and so LRSD can take a step closer to its goal of providing all LRSD students a quality desegregated education. f:lbomolbdloy\\lodlbri-plaLdcv Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-~2~01=1.,___ BY: C. Fen 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peo(5\"7}PY depos~g~ of same in the United States mail on this day of~ , 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 f:lbomolfeadlcyllndll,rl.plan.dcv 4 - - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRDER F~lED U.S. OISTi:ICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEC O G 1996 JA~~ES ! ~C{lRMACK, CLER!( By. \\L \\~\\..{AA .. QA DEP CLERK \" DEC ~ 1996 Offics of Desegregation Monrrori~ Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in , which to file objections to the 1996-97 ODM budget (see docket entry 2852). The motion is granted. The Joshua Intervenors have until and including December 13, 1996, within which to file their objections. SO ORDERED this rf1''-- day of December 1996. ,7 'u 2 8 7 7 RECE DEC 1 1 1996 Office of Desegregation Monitormg IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION -~ ,, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FILED US DISTRICi COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEC 1 0 1996 JAME$ ~CORMACK, CLERK By:\\/. ~\\,V\\~ OEP CL.fRI( Before the Court are the motions of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") and the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") seeking attorney's fees and costs in connection with their efforts to enforce the Settlement Agreement with the State of Arkansas. Having carefully considered the motions, affidavits, responses, and briefs, the Court finds that the motions should be granted. I. In the summer of 1994, the moving parties challenged actions by the State of Arkansas which had the effect of reducing the amount of state funds the three Pulaski County school districts receive for funding workers' compensation claims and for \"loss funding,\" claiming the State was in violation of the Settlement Agreement. The parties also challenged the State's establishment of a statewide computer network which they claimed would not facilitate desegregation in the three Pulaski County school districts. The Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court's finding that funding of workers' compensation by the State is a \"program\" for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and that the State must J disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Counry Special School Distria, # 1, 83 F. 3d - 1013, 1918 (8th Cir. 1996). The circuit court also held the district court correctly ordered the State to exclude M-to-M transfer students from ADM in the loss-funding formula. Id. With respect to the statewide computer network, the Eighth Circuit reversed this Court's order which directed the State to pay the three Pulaski County districts an amount equivalent to what the State would spend on any other educational cooperative. Id. The PCSSD and the LRSD seek fees pursuant to Ark.Code Ann.  16-22-308, 28 U.S.C.  1920 as well as 42 U.S.C.  1988. The ADE urges that the districts are not entitled to fees under either state or federal law. The Court finds that the districts are entitled to fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988. 2 II. Title 42 United States Code Section 1988 provides that the Court may allow the prevailing party in a civil rights action a reasonable attorney's fee as a part of the costs, and the Eighth Circuit has directed the award of attorney's fees pursuant to  1988 in connection with the compliance phase of this case. See Liule Rock School Disrrict v. Pulaski County Special School District, No. 1, 17 F.3d 260 (8th Cir. 1994). In addition, the Court has directed the State to pay attorney's fees to the Joshua Intervenors in connection with their efforts to reinstate the Arkansas State Department of Education as a party defendant in this case. See docket entry 2045. The Court has broad discretion in determining the amount of attorney's fees awarded under 1988. Winter v. Cerro Gordo County Conservation Board, 925 F.2d 1069 (8th Cir. - 1991). \"The number of hours to be awarded to a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C.  1988 is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. 'The trial judge should weigh the hours claimed against [her] own knowledge, experience, and expertise of the time required to complete similar activities.\"' Gilbert v. Little Rock, 867 F.2d 1063, 1066 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 812 (1989) (citations omitted). The usual procedure used in calculating attorney's fees is to compute the base 'lodestar' figure by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended times the lawyer's regularly hourly rate. Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982). After careful review of the pleadings, the Court finds that PCSSD should be awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $28,854.50. 1 The LRSD 1This figure represents an hourly rate for M. Samuel Jones of $110.00 during 1994 and $135.00 during 1995-1996; an hourly rate for Angell Jones of $55 .00 during 1994 and $75 .00 during 1995-96; and an 3 should be awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $42,520.002 and costs in the amount of $563.32. III. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the PCSSD's motion for attorney's fees and costs [docket entry 2757] and supplemental motion for attorney's fees and costs [docket entry 2819] are granted. The PCSSD is awarded $28,854.50 in attorney's fees. The LRSD's motion for attorney's fees and costs [docket entry 2797] is granted. The LRSD is awarded $43,083.32 in attorney's fees and costs. A DATED this _LfL day of December 1996. ~-~~~ UTED STA ESDISTRicT DGE hourly rate for Valerie Bryant of $40.00 during 1994 and $55.00 during 1995-96. The total hours for both M. Samuel Jones and Valerie Bryant were reduced by .8 and 5.6, respectively, because of lack of success on the APSCN issue. 2This represents an hourly rate of$ 160.00 for Christopher Heller and an hourly rate of $100.00 for Clay Fendley. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC!f~J?~~.::.:: EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARNANSAS-;:;1l, ,\\ ... I\\\\, , - ~ WESTERN DIVISION DEC 1 0 1996 JAMES W McCOR~,lACK. CL::.;-,K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COU TY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. DEC f : 1996 KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. MOTION DEFENDAi TS INTERVENORS Il''TERVEI\\'ORS Katherine Knight. et al., by and through their attorneys. ROA.CHELL LAW FIR.\\1. for their i:{otion, state: 1. Effective September 3, 1996, the Court ordered striking teachers of PCS SD back to work as a result of a motion filed by PCSSD. The Court also ordered the parties to mediate and appointed a mediator for that purpose. Since the appointment of the mediator, the main issue in dispute between the teachers and the district, salaries, has not been resolved. In fact, there has been almost no movement by PCSSD with regard to salaries. 2. The PCSSD approved and submitted to the Court its tentative 1996-97 budget in August of 1996. 3. Since the submission of the PCS SD tentative 1996-97 budget to the Court, PCS SD has created new line items in its budget and increased tentative budget line items without C authorization by the Court expending monies that could have been used for negotiations for teachers' salaries. The district. however, continues to maintain that it does not have the necessary funds for an increase in teachers' salaries. At each monthly board meeting, the board re\\iews a monthly financial report of the district prepared by administrators. The budgeted amounts on the monthly financial reports change each month from the proposed 1996-97 budget submitted to the Court. The board votes to adopt the financial report which amends the budget without approval of the Court and authorizes expending monies that could be used for salary negotiations with PACT. 4. The reconfiguration of Jacksonville Junior High North and Jacksomille Junior High South was not a line item in the tentative 1996-97 budget PCSSD submitted to the Court. In November, 1996, the board voted to retain architects which item was not budgeted and there are likely other expenditures from the 1996-97 budget that will be related to the reconfiguration to be - paid for from the 1996-97 budget which could be used for salary negotiations. Although it is the infonnation and belief of PACT that these budgeted expenditures for the Jacksonville reconfiguration come primarily from capital outlay, such funds have consistently been off limits to the district in negotiating salary increases. Other costs for the reconfiguration from the 1996-97 PCSSD budget will not be paid from capital outlay funds which could be used to negotiate an increase in teacher salaries. 5. The actions of the PCS SD stated herein and more fully in the brief accompanying show that PCSSD has been negotiating with PACT in bad faith. WHEREFORE, Knight et al Intervenors prays that the Court order the PCSSD Board of Directors to refrain from taking action on any matter that would increase a budgeted line item or add 2 new line items to that budget for budget expenditures except upon orders of the Court and until a contract settlement with PACT has been reached. ~~b~Q_j_ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roache!!, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on December 10, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard W. Roachell FILED Us DISTRICT C1..,URT EASTEciN DISTRIC_T ARl\\-\"IN$AS DEC 1 0 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CK Cl \u003e=\"K EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANS,~ \\\\I McCOm.\\A   __ n WESTERN DIVISION 8r ~=::,_ c!..c::::K LlTTLEROCKSCHOOLDIBTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOO1FJ r;,:z DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. d, r'J ' /.~ \":~:= :\".: \",\\, .,. -:- ~ ~ ,:::;.. ....:,;,z ~ ~I ~  MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. -,. DEC 1 @ 1996 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION~ - PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS I TERVE oRS After a full day of court proceedings. the Court ordered striking PCSSD teachers back to work effective September 3, 1996 upon Motion filed by PCSSD. The Court ordered the parties to mediate and appointed a federal mediator for that purpose. To this date, there has been no settlement with regard to salaries, the main dispute between the parties. PCSSD has consistently led the Court and the public to believe that it does not have sufficient funds to settle its labor dispute with regard with PACT. In August 1996, PCSSD submitted to the Court its tentative budget for the 1996-97 school year. Recently, the district has posted to hire personnel to fill nine (9) coaching positions which were not reflected in the budget or approved by the Court. Although the addition of some of these coaches was ostensibly for the purpose of complying with Title VII requirements, the district did not seek permission from the Court and has not shown PACT that such expenditures of monies not in the budget were absolutely necessary. See attached Exhibit \"A.\" Further, the district prepares a monthly financial report which is presented by the administration to the board at each regular monthly meeting to show where the district is in its financial condition. The board then adopts the monthly financial report which in effect amends the budget. The budgeted amounts in many budget categories change from month to month and are different than the proposed budget submitted to the Coun. In general, each month the budget figures increase. In as much as the district is spending far more money than it budgeted and the proposed budget figures were used in contract settlement negotiations, it appears that the district is spending money from sources which could be used to settle its labor dispute. See attached Exhibit \"B\" which is a recapitulation of the monthly financial repons from July 31, 1996, through September 12, 1996. - It should be noted that the total budget of the district as well as the funds themselves continue to mcrease. The Court approved earlier in 1996 the reconfiguration of Jacksonville Junior High North and Jacksonville Junior High South. It should be noted that the cost of such reconfiguration is not reflected in the tentative budget submitted to the Court. However, monies from the 1996-97 budget will be used to partially fund the reconfiguration. See attached Exhibit \"C.\" Certainly, some expenditures will come from the district's capital outlay. For instance, in November 1996, the board voted to retain architects which was not in the budget. Also, it is reasonable to assume that the 1996- 97 budget will require the expenditure of monies for supplies and materials and other costs in connection with the reconfiguration. In addition, the potential additional allocation of personnel for training; substitute costs, and overtime will be paid from the 1996-97 budget which will create 2 increases in expenditures from the salary fund and the general fund not reflected in the budget presented to the Court. These monies could be used to fund a settlement of the labor dispute within the PCSSD. In contract negotiations, for example, one of PACT's submitted proposals was for a modest $100,000 of the amount required to settle the labor dispute to come from interest on the building fund which the district has steadfastly refused since the Court ordered the teachers to return to work. See PACT Fact Sheet attached as Exhibit \"D.\" Such monies could be used to settle the labor dispute between PCSSD and PACT. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Coun should order the district not to take action on any matter that would increase any budgeted line item in its tentative budget as submitted to the Court or add new line items to that budget except upon orders of the Court and until a contract settlement has been reached with PACT. 3 ~tfully submitted, \"-~4~ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar o. 78132 ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roache!!, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on December I 0, I 996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. I 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 I Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 4 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, .A..R 7220 I Richard W. Roache!! TO: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT MEMORANDUM Board of Directors 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216-8601 (501) 490-2000 THOROUGH: Bobby G. Lester, Superintendent of Schools FROM: QrJ\"'Ronnie Higgins, Director of Athletics RE: DATE: ~...l_ry Miller, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel /_j~~ly Bowles, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Assistant Coach Allocations November 12, 1996 Renresentative senior high principals, girls basketball coaches, and boys basketball coaches met with us on October 27, 1996 to discuss perceived inequities in the allocation of assistant coaches. After reviewing the District's current regulations on the number of coaches assigned to each sport and Title IX guidelines, we make the following recommendation. In an effort to provide for equitable allocation of assistant coaching staff, we recommend that the Board approve an allocation formula which requires an assistant coach in boys basketball, girls basketball, baseball, softball, volleyball, boys track, and girls track when there are twenty (20) student participants. If a team has twenty (20) participants at the end of a athletic season, the assistant coach allocation will be implemented for the following school year. Teams with less than twenty (20) participants will lose the assistant coach allocation until such time as the number of participants reaches twenty (20) participants. The determination of twenty (20) participants will be made by the coach of that particular sport and approved by the secondary principal who will submit recommendations for coaching allocations to the Director of Athletics and Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Services. When it is determined that the number of participants has fallen below twenty (20) participants, it shall be the responsibility of each principal to notify the Director of Athletics and the Director of Certified Personnel by April 20. If approved by the Board, this allocation is projected to increase the budget by approximately $9,000 for the 1996-97 school year and an additional $30,000 for the 1997-98 school year. - - i ! !/ i i I I ,J I :/ I ' I i I i ' ' I ! !I I/ ! I ,! ' ;I 1996 - 1997 PCSSD FINANCIAL REPORT \"BUDGET AMOUNTS\" T ; =--=-\"= =- -=.,=-= ==-=---c ~-==- __ ;---- --- -- -- DATE UY\"\"Fiti~fltt Rfrv~I I I I I I FUND I I . Fund 1000 j Fund I ~ Fund 2000 2900 1 GRANO TOT AL .J ,j ~ I I .l j I 7/31/96 :1 8/31 /96 ,, I 9/12/96 I 51051512 51710451 51253200 ;/ 95852533 ~1400885~ 1035185 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1630","title":"Court filings concerning PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South junior high schools, cross-district teacher retirement and employee health insurance issues, PCSSD strike issue, LRSD fourth quarter status report, and ODM budget concerns","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1996-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Jacksonville South Junior High School (Jacksonville, Ark.)","Jacksonville North Junior High School (Jacksonville, Ark.)","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education, Secondary","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School employees","School districts","Teachers","Employee rights","Retirement","Insurance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South junior high schools, cross-district teacher retirement and employee health insurance issues, PCSSD strike issue, LRSD fourth quarter status report, and ODM budget concerns"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1630"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["124 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Court of Appeals, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South (junior high schools),District Court, two orders; District Court, pre-trial brief of Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) on teacher retirement and employee health insurance issues; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) prehearing brief; District Court, three orders; District Court, response of Joshua intervenors to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South (junior high schools); Court of Appeals, amended certificate of service; District Court, order; District Court, response to the motion of the Joshua intervenors for reconsideration regarding the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, brief in response to the motion of the Joshua intervenors for reconsideration regarding the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) fourth quarter status report addendum program planning and budgeting document for desegregation progress; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1996-97 first quarter status report program planning and budgeting document for desegregation programs; District Court, motion for summary judgment by the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); District Court, brief in support of Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching; District Court, statement of material and undisputed facts with respect to the LRSD, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching; District Court, affidavit of Donald M. Stewart; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua motion to request Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, notice of filing, LRSD November program planning and budgeting tool; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) objection to proposed Office of Desegregation Monitoring budget; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to response of Joshua intervenors to PCSSD's motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South (junior high schools)  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT  HAEL E. GANS lerk of Court U.S. COURT \u0026 CUSTOM HOUSE 1114 MARKET STREET ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63101 VOICE (314) 539-3600 AB!S (B00I 652-B671 http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/8th.cir November 6, 1996 Mr. Christopher John Heller FRIDAY \u0026 ELDREDGE 2000 First Commercial Building 400 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEVE NOV 8 ,996 t Desegregation Monl\\on,1~ O!Me o ~- ~ ---- Re: 96-2047EALR L.R. School Dist. vs. Servicemaster Manag. Dear Counsel: Enclosed is a copy of an order entered today in the above case. jmh Enclosures cc: Joseph Steven Mowery John C. Everett Samuel Arnold Perroni William Henry Trice III Richard Wilson Roachell John W. Walker Norman J. Chachkin Philip K. Lyon M. Samuel Jones III Nelwyn L. Davis Tim C. Humphries Office of Deseg. Monitor Horace A. Walker Perlestra Hollingsworth Kenne~h G. Torrence Otis Henry Storey Petre's Stenograph Jim McCormack District Court Case Number: 82-CV-866 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2047EALR L. R. School District, Appellant, v. Servicemaster Management, et al., Appellees.          Appeal from the United States District Com:t for the Eastern District of Arkansas Upon review of the notice of appeal and appellant's opening brief, this Court has determined that this appeal was mistakenly captioned. The Clerk is directed to correct the case caption and provide the parties with a new service list. Appellant's counsel is directed to serve his opening brief upon those parties not previously served within seven days of the date of this order and provide the com:t with proof of service. Those appellees who have not previously filed responsive briefs may have to and including December 11, 1996 to file their briefs. Appellant's supplemental reply brief shall be due on or before December 27, 1996. November 6, 1996 Ordev:tc:r:J\"~~ Rule 27;)  Clerk, U.S. Court of~s, Eighth Circuit Novembez 5, 1996 Case Numbez: 96-2047 Distzict Couzt/Agency Case Numbez(s): 82-CV-866 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIS'TRICT; Plaintiff - Appellant LORENE JOSHUA; Intezvenoz Plaintiff - Appellee SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES; Intezvenoz below - Appellee ANNE MITCHELL ; BOB MOORE; PAT GEE; PAT RAYBURN; MARY J . GAGE; NORTH LITTLE ROCK CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION; PULASKI ASSOCIATION OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS; LITTLE ROCK CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION; ALEXA ARMS'TRONG; KARLOS ARMS'TRONG; ED BULLINGTON; KHAYYAM DAVIS; JANICE DENT; JOHN HARRISON; ALVIN HUDSON; TATIA HUDSON; MILTON JACKSON; LESLIE JOSHUA; STACY JOSHUA; WAYNE JOSHUA; KATHERINE KNIGHT; SARA MATTHEWS; BECKY MCKINNEY; DERRICK MILES; JANICE MILES; JOHN M. MILES; NAACP; JOYCE PERSON; BRIAN TAYLOR; HILTON TAYLOR; PARSHA TAYLOR; ROBERT WILLINGHAM; TONYA WILLINGHAM Intezvenoz Plaintiffs - Appellees V. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT; LEON BARNES; SHERYL DUNN; MAC FAULKNER; RICHARD A. GIDDINGS; MARIANNE GOSSER; DON HINDMAN; SHIRLEY LOWERY; BOB LYON; GEORGE A. MCCRARY; BOB MOORE; STEVE MORLEY; BUDDY RAINES; DAVID SAIN; BOB STENDER; DALE WARD; JOHN WARD; JUDY WEAR; GRAINGER WILLIAMS; PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DIS'TRICT; STATE OF ARKANSAS; Defendants - Appellees OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR; Claimant - Appellee HORACE A. WALKER; P.A. HOLLINGSWORTH; KENNETH G. TORRENCE; PHILIP E. KAPLAN; JANET PULLIAM; JOHN BILHEIMER Movant - Appellees DALE CHARLES ; ROBERT L . BROWN, SR. ; GWEN HEVEY .J:ACKSON; DIANE DAVIS; RAYMOND FRAZIER Plaintiffs - Appellees - V. PULASKI COUNfY BOARD OF EDUCATION; 0. G. JACOYELLI, Individually and as President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District; PATRICIA GEE, Individually and in her official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock Schood District, A Public Body; DR. GEORGE CANNON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; JOHN f-OORE, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; DORSEY JACKSON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; W. D. HAMILTON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body; CECIL BAILEY, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a Public Corporate; 11-IOMAS BROUGJITON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a Public Corporate; DR. MARTIN ZDLDESSY, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a Public Corporate Defendants - Appellees November 5, 1996 jmh 96-2047 L.R. School Dist. v. Servicemaster Manag. Mr. Christopher John Heller FRIDAY \u0026 ELDREDGE 2000 First Commercial Building 400 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Joseph Steven Mowery GIROIR \u0026 GREGORY Suite 1900 111 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Everett EVERETT \u0026 STILLS P.O. Box 1646 3822 N. Parkview Drive Fayetteville, AR 72702 Mr. Samuel Arnold Perroni THE PERRONI LAW FIRM, P.A. 801 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201-2103 Mr. William Henry Trice III HOWELL \u0026 PRICE 211 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Wilson Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREETT Suite 504 401 w. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.C. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Norman J. Chachkin NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 16th Floor 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013 Mr. Philip K. Lyon JACK \u0026 LYON 3400 TCBY Building 425 w. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT \u0026 LINDSEY 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Mr. Nelwyn Leone Davis PULASKI COUN1Y ATTORNEY Suite 400 201 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim C. Humphries ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 Office 0 Desegregation Monitor 510 Heritage West Building 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72204 Mr. Horace A. Walker Second \u0026 Center Streets 518 Pyramid Place Little Rock, AR 72203-1448 Mr. Perlesta Arthur Hollingsworth HOLLINGSWORIB LAW FIRM 415 Main Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Kenneth G. Torrence 1721 Abigail Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Mr. Otis Henry Storey HOOVER \u0026 STOREY Suite 1100 111 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Petre's Stenograph Court Reporter PETRE S1ENOGRAPH SERVICE 207 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Jim McCormack Clerk U.S. DIS'IRICT COURT, EASTERN ARKANSAS Room 402 600 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 . . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. NOV 1 :5 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS Office 01 Deseg;s9aton Monilcrina IJ\\iTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION TO ENLARGE JACKSONVILLE NORTH AND SOUTH The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. The PCSSD presently operates Jacksonville North Junior High School and Jacksonville South Junior High School. By order dated March 27, 1996, this Court approved the conversion of one of these junior high schools to be operated as a middle school housing grades six and seven and the other as a junior high school housing grades eight and nine. 2. After having gone through the appropriate public forum process, the PCSSD has determined to operate Jacksonville North as the middle school and Jacksonville South as the junior high school. 3. This reorganization adds grade six to the middle school and therefore necessarily substantially increases the number of seats necessary to house all of the students in the t wo reconfigured schools. Because of this, the PCS SD seeks the permission of this Court to add eight ,classrooms at Jacksonville South and three classrooms to what is presently Jacksonville North. 4. Any impacts upon the residual racial balance in the two reconfigured schools will be positive. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for a further order of this Court authorizing the construction of these classrooms for the 1997-1998 school year. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By_-\u003e\u003c------'-\"\"?\"'\"\"9-..=-:.------'--\"-~=---J,,c=-\u003e------- M. A 76060) a ski County ict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On November / 2--, 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 - IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPEC1AL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * NOV 1 i 1996 Office of Desegregalion Monuormg FilcD U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN Di STRICT ARKANSAS ;mv 1 21996 * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET.AL., * JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK Bv:Q'.7.w~ '- ~EPCLERK * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRDER Pending before the Court are several motions filed by the parties concerning the effect of the State's new funding formula on the Settlement Agreement. See docket entries 2668, 2685, 2690, 2695, 2715, and 2737. Also before the Court are the State's Motions to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Abstention [docket entries 2713 \u0026 2771] and a Motion to Intervene by a number of school districts in the state [docket entry 2715]. The Court has determined that a conference with the parties and movants would be useful in determining the status of the issues involved and the Court's alternatives in dealing with the matter. For example, the Court believes it might be helpful to determine whether the issues of teacher retirement and employee insurance can be addressed without awaiting resolution of the Lakeview case. This will not be an evidentiary hearing. Therefore, the Court will hold a conference on Tuesday, November 19, 1996, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 3C (#305) of the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse Building. SO ORDERED this 12th day of November 1996. 2 NOV 1 5 1996 iWV 1 4 1996 Office of Desegregation M9nitormg IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEP CLERK , C, .....,_ :;,..-, . - - ..., . --~- -~---~ ..... ....... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL. ; * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRDER The Court has received the proposed 1996-97 budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. See attached letter and budget document. The parties may file any objections to the proposed budget within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of en try of this Order. Af7\\ DATED this _11__ day of November 1996. --uNITErfST A TES DIST rH!S cocu:\u003c:F ,:: ;- :- - -J c; J '.),.::-.. : :\u003cET SHEET IN CC.,MPLIANCE w, l h nULE S8 Ai-JC/OR 79 (a) FRCP ~ ON II ( I 1 ( 9 fp 8Y 1C - ._ Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor November 13, 1996 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax {501) 371-0100 The 1996-97 budget for ODM is attached for the parties' review and your approval. . TI1e format of our 1996-97 budget follows that of previous years, including annotation to explain revenue calculations, budget category definitions, 1995-96 budgeted and actual expenses by category, and the amount budgeted for each area in 1996-97. Most of the ODM expenditure categories for this year are budgeted comparably to last year. Any salary increases for ODM staff are 3.29%, which is the prevailing annual experience step increase on the three districts' salary scales. Again this year, I have chosen not to accept an increase in salary. You will note a marked increase in the Benefits category, due to the changes in the State's method of handling health insurance premiums and teacher retirement. These changes have similarly effected all three Pulaski County school districts, constituting a significant growth in this budget area. We have contained 1995-96 expenditures such that they were below the projected budget; once again, we have credited that difference proportionately to each of the school districts' pro rated contribution to our 1996-97 budget. If you or the parties should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: All Counsel OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION 1996-97 BUDGET REVENUE 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET State of Arkansas 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 LASO 154,276.00 154,276.00 223,889.00 Credit (see note below) 44,455.00 44,455 .00 19,197.00 NLRSD 55,510.00 55 ,510.00 80,121.00 Credi1 (see note below) 15,995.00 15,995.00 6,870.00 PCSSD 125,014.00 125,014.00 184,831 .00 Credit (see note below) 36,023.00 36,023.00 15,848.00 Interest 6,123.96 Total Revenue 631 273.00 637,396.96 730756.00 Note: Every budget cycle, ODM credits each distnct a pro rata proportion of the unspent amount of the previous year's budget. We apply this amount toward the current budget allocation. See Annotated 1996-97 Budget. EXPENDITURES 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET Communications 7,870.00 7,641 .69 7,870.00 Dues and Fees 2,700.00 3,205.00 3,300.00 Eouipment 10,614.00 10,444.08 14,159.00 Food Services 250.00 204.98 250.00 Manaoement Services 3,000.00 292.50 3,000.00 Periodicals 500.00 453.84 500.00 Printino and Bindino 10,340.00 5,077.59 6,000.00 Prof. and Tech. Services 28,497.00 22,614.15 28,497.00 Rent 46,204.00 46,204.00 48,417.00 Repairs and Maintenance 1,231 .00 1,414.93 1,500.00 Resource Library 1,000.00 372.11 500.00 Salaries 444,854.00 425,981.98 468,904.00 Benefits 49 ,613.00 44,770.84 120,109.00 Staff Development 1,000.00 1,007.00 1,000.00 Supplies 7,750 .00 7,552.84 7,750 .00 Travel 15,850.00 18,244.12 19,000.00 Total Expenditures 631,273.00 595,481 .65 730,756.00 ANNOTATED ODM 1996-97 BUDGET REYE UE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Coop) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis ... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ... 10/1/95 % of Total 1996-97 Budget 1995-96 Credit 1996-97 Budget Enrollment Enrollment Allocation /Budget not spent) Payment LRSD 24.876 45.80 243,086.00 19.197.00 223.889.00 NLRSD 8.901 16.39 86,991 .00 6,870.00 80,121 .00 PCSSO 20.534 37.81 200.679.00 15,848.00 184,831.00 State of AR -0- -0- 200.000.00 -0- 200,000.00 Total 54,311 100.00 730,756.00 41 ,915.00 688,841.00 Step-by-step process used to determine districts' contributions to ODM 1995-96 budget: I. The State of Arkansas' contribution is subtracted from OD M's total budget: 730,756.00 200,000.00 530,756.00 2. Based on the previous year's October I enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the State's contribution): LRSD 530,756.00 X 45.80 243,086.25 NLRSD 530,756.00 X 16.39 86,990.91 PCSSD 530,756.00 X 37.81 200,678.84 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share of OD M's unspent 1995-96 budget: LRSD 243,086.25 -19,197.21 223,889.04 NLRSD 86,990.91 -6,869.92 . 80,120 .99 PCSSD 200,678.84 -15,848.18 184,830.66 4. Each district will contribute these amounts to ODM's 1996-97 budget: LRSD 223,889.00 NLRSD 80,121 .00 PCSSD 184,831 .00 Page 2 - EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or information. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. 1995-96 Budget 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Expenditures Amount 7.870.00 7,641 .69 7,870.00 Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided, such as conference registration fees. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budqet Expenditures Amount 2,700.00 3,205.00 3,300.00 The bulk of the 1995-96 expenditures were for seminar and conference registration fees; membership renewals were for $510.00, including membership fees of $250.00 for joining the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budqet Expenditures Amount 10.614.00 10,444.08 14,159.00 We will upgrade our computer hardware by replacing six computers which are out-dated, overloaded, and repeatedly breaking down, resulting in extensive down time, lost data, and repair expense. We will also replace a thermo-paper fax with a plain paper fax. We will add a color copier to help trim out-of-office copying expenses. Page 3 Food Services: Expenditures for food or preparation and serving of food, which may include catering. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Expenditures Amount 250.00 204.98 250.00 Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Expenditures Amount 3.000.00 292.50 3,000.00 Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals of less than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budget Expenditures Amount 500.00 453.84 500.00 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job pnntmg and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Expenditures Amount 10,340.00 5,077.59 6,000 .00 With last year's purchase of the Duplicating Management Program (DMP) and this year's purchase of a color copier, we will be able to do most printing in-house. The above budget is the annual cost of the DMP ($4,994.36) plus $1,000.00 for printing we cannot do in-house, such as letterhead and - envelopes. Page 4 Professional and Technical Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 1995-96 1995-96 Budoet Exoenditures 28,497.00 22,614.15 Arkansas Financial Services Temporary help/specialized services 1996-97 Budgeted Amount 28,497.00 23,497.00 5 000.00 28,497.00 The 1995-96 expenditures covered the services of three expert witnesses, a computer technologist, and additional office and administrative help. To date, ODM has not needed Arkansas Financial Services (AFS) to complete the terms of a previous agreement. However, because services ultimately may be required, we are electing to maintain the AFS agreement and, thus, have budgeted an allotment for AFS. Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Exoenditures Amount 46,204 00 46 204.00 48 .417.00 According to the lease agreement negotiated in 1995, the 1996-97 rent will increase 4.7%. Repairs and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budget Expendilures Amounl 1,231 00 141493 1.500 00 Page 5 Resource Library: Expenditures for regular or incidental purchases of library books available for general use. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budqet Expenditures Amount 1.00000 372.11 500.00 Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budqet Expenditures Amount 444 854 .00 425 .981 98 468,904 00 Most of the salary changes between 1995-96 and 1996-97 reflect a 3.29% increase, which is comparable to the annual step increase in the three Pulaski County school districts. Exceptions are noted below: Salaries: I Name of Emeloyee I 1995-96 Salary I 1996-97 Sala!}'. Ann Brown 1 104,1 64.00 Melissa Guldin 2 44.042.00 Gene Jones 3 33,031 .00 Norman Marshall 55,052.00 Marcie Powell 55,052.00 Horace Smith 55,052.00 Research Associate 4 26,000.00 Pollv Ramer 41,323.00 Linda Brvant 22,915.00 Jackie Banks 5 8,223.00 Total 444,854.00 1 Ann Brown declined to accept a salary increase for 1996-97. 2Melissa Guldin works 4/5 time. 104.1 64.00 45.490.00 47.815.00 56.863.00 56,863.00 56,863.00 26.000.00 42.683.00 23.669.00 8,494.00 468.904.00 I 3During 1995-96, Gene Jones increased his work time from 3/5 to 4/5 time. Therefore, his annual salary increased to $45,925.60, which included Gene's election to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits. 4Position not filled. 5Jackie Banks works 25 hours per week. Page 6 Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid in behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but arc over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Expenditures Amount 49.613.00 44.770 84 120,1 09.00 Below is a breakdown by category of each employee's budgeted fringe benefits: Name Travel Social Hospital- Lile Dental Hospital Short Retire- Total Allowance Securitv ization Ins. lndemnitv Term ment Benefits Brown 1,800.00 5.423.88 1,968.00 44.1 6 188.64 60.96 62.88 12.715.68 22.264.20 Guldin 1.200.00 3,571 .79 1,968.00 44.1 6 188.64 60.96 62.88 5,602.80 12.699.23 Jones 960.00 3.731 .29 5,853.00 10.544.29 Marshall 1.200.00 4.441 .82 1,968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 6,967.56 14,934.02 Powell 1,200.00 4 441 .82 1,968.00 44 16 188.64 60.96 62.88 6,967.56 14,934.02 Smith 1.200.00 4.441 .82 1,968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 6.967.56 14,934.02 Research 600.00 2.034.90 1,968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 3,192.00 8,1 51 .54 Ramer 3.265.25 1.968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 5,121 .96 10.n1.85 Brvant 1.810.68 1,968.00 27.60 188.64 60.96 62.88 2.840.28 6.959.04 Banks 649.79 1,968.00 27.60 188.64 60.96 62.88 1.019.28 3.977 15 Total 8.1 60.00 33.813.04 17,712.00 364.32 1.697 76 548.64 565.92 57,247.68 120.109.36 The following changes have occurred since the 1995-96 budget year, and are reflected above in the 1996-97 budget figures:  The State of Arkansas shifted the burden of the expense for health insurance from state funds to the employer, causing hospitalization to increase 227% per employee, from $50. l 0 per month in 1995-96 to $164.00 per month in 1996-97.  Long-term disability (workman's comp) is no longer available as an employee benefit.  Short-term disability increased 7%, from $4.90 per month in 1995-96 to $5.24 per month in 1996-97.  The State of Arkansas shifted the total expense of teacher retirement from state funds to the employer. causing an additional 12% expenditure.  Jackie Banks increased her working hours to 25 per week and, therefore, is now eligible to receive benefits.  Gene Jones again elected to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits. Page 7 Staff Development: Services performed by persons qualified to assist in enhancing the quality of the operation. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Exoenditures Amount 1 00000 1,00700 1 000.00 Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out. or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Exoenditures Amount 7,750.00 7,552.84 7,750.00 Travel: Expenditure for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Budgeted Budoet Exoenditures Amount 15,850.00 18.244.12 19,000.00 The 1995-96 expenditures exceeded the budget as a result of the travel expenses for the three expert witnesses called by Judge Susan Webber Wright. The 1996-97 budget reflects the potential for additional expert witnesses to be called on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors. Page 8 ~ . J l . .:-: i~) us c,~rr;r ~T ~._11,.'.iT ~A~--: i  r . ~7 ...._,~;,.J,''f1.S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOV 1 8 1996 fL'-11) - Dffice of Dosegrega!Jon ;'w.in:il'Jiin~ DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS r. PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DY~TRICT, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AND NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ON TEACHER RETIREMENT AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE ISSUES Introduction In its most recent decision concerning the responsibilities of State of Arkansas pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, this court said: \"The state of Arkansas needs to focus on its obligation in the settlement to give the Pulaski County school districts special consideration to enable these districts to meet their numerous and burdensome obligations under the settlement. The court reminds the state of the Eighth Circuit's specific findings about the state's complicated and lengthy history of promotion of unconstitutional racial segregation which has led to this interminable litigation.\" Memorandum and Order, January 13, 1995, p. 16. Following a ~ulaski County chancery court determination that the Arkansas school finance system was unconstitutional, the state adopted the \"Equitable School Finance System Act of 1995.\" Ark. Code Ann. 6-20- 301 rt seq. Under the new finance system, Arkansas school districts are required to fund certain programs which were previously funded by the state, including teacher retirement and health insurance. The state funds which were previously used to pay the full cost of each Arkansas school district's teacher retirement and employee health insurance obligations are now distributed through the new formula which pays districts according to their average daily membership. As a result, there exists a huge gap between the Pulaski County districts and the rest of the state with respect to the proportion of state funding for teacher retirement and employee heal th insurance. As with the recently decided workers' compensation issue, \"[t]his disparity arose because the state's formula used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d. 1013, 1018 (8th Cir. 1996). The Pulaski County districts' claims for fair treatment with respect to state funding of teacher retirement and employee health insurance are no different than their recent successful claims for a proportional share of workers' compensation funding. The state must distribute funds \"to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" Id. 2 II. Teacher Retirement contribution The state budgeted $134,500,000 to fund teacher retirement for the 1996-97 school year. This money was distributed through the new funding formula according to average daily membership, which bears no rational relationship to a particular district's costs for teacher retirement. As a result, the percentage of actual teacher retirement contributions funded statewide excluding Pulaski County is 102. 89 percent. See Exhibit 1. The average funding in the Pulaski County school districts is 74.66 percent. LRSD receives only 68.57 percent of the cost of its teacher retirement contributions. PCSSD and NLRSD receive only 78.89 percent and 82.94 percent respectively of their cost of teacher retirement contributions. In a recent case squarely on point concerning state distribution of funding for workers' compensation insurance, this court refused to allow the Pulas "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1599","title":"Court Filings concerning request for production of documents and interrogatories to the State Board of Education, motions to enforce settlement agreement, and project management tools.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. State Board of Education","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","School management and organization","School districts","Education and state","School employees","Retirement","Teachers--Salaries, etc."],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning request for production of documents and interrogatories to the State Board of Education, motions to enforce settlement agreement, and project management tools."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1599"],"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":["13 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_451","title":"Early retirement incentive program","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Teachers","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Early retirement incentive program"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/451"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["207 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District APR 1 5 1994 Early Retirement Incentive Program for Teachers ,  . OtJice of Dosegrey. Application .ng The purpose of the Early Retirement Incentive Program is to reduce recurring District expenditures for salaries without reducing individual salaries for teachers or teacher salary schedules. A. The Early Retirement Incentive Program will be in effect for the 1993-94 school year only. B. Teachers who are at Step 16 or above on the Teacher Salary Schedule are eligible for the Early Retirement Incentive Program. C. Participating teachers are not required to retire under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. D. Participating teachers are not required to retire from the teaching profession. E. Participating teachers may be employed in another Arkansas School District. F. Teachers must complete the application form for participation in the Early Retirement Incentive Program, indicate beneficiary(s), and submit to the Director of Human Resources by May 20, 1994. G. Applications received after May 20, 1994, will not be considered. H. Applications will not be rescinded after Board approval. I. \"Current salary\" as used below includes salary paid from the teacher salary schedule at the time of application. \"Current salary\" as used below does not include any other compensation including stipends paid under Appendix B (Supplementary Pay Schedule). J. Early Retirement Incentive Program compensation will be determined as follows: 1. Eligible teachers less than 56 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid one hundred percent (100%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 2. Eligible teachers 56 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid ninety percent (90%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 3. Eligible teachers 57 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid eighty percent (80%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 4. Eligible teachers 58 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid seventy percent (70%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 5. Eligible teachers 59 years of age on the May 20th application deadline wiU be paid sixty percent (60%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15.6. Eligible teachers 60 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid fifty percent (50%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 7. Eligible teachers 61 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid forty percent (40%) of current salary divided in four (4) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 8. Eligible teachers 62 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid thirty percent (30%) of current salary divided in three (3) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 9. Eligible teachers 63 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid twenty percent (20%) of current salary divided in two (2) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. K. L. M. N. O. 10. 11. Eligible teachers 64 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid ten percent (10%) of current salary in one (1) installment on January 15. Teachers 65 years of age or older on the May 20th application deadline are not eligible to participate in this program. Teachers will begin receiving installments on January 15, 1995. Participating teachers in the Early Retirement Incentive Program must agree to not apply for or otherwise be employed in a full-time, part-time, or temporary contracted position in Little Rock School District for a period of four (4) years. Participating teachers may be employed in Little Rock School District in a substitute position only. Unless a minimum of 100 eligible teachers apply for the Early Retirement Program by the application deadline, any agreement reached regarding the implementation of this program shall be considered null and void. This offer is extended to the first 250 eligible teachers who apply. All applications will be numbered as received in the Human Resources Department. Only those applications received on the date that the 250th application is received will be accepted after the 250th application. I am submitting this application for early retirement under the agreement reached between the Board of Directors and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association under the terms listed above. I understand that once this application is approved by the Board of Directors it is irrevocable. I agree to the condition that I will not apply for or otherwise be employed in a full-time, part-time, or temporary contracted position in the Little Rock School District for a period of four (4) years\nhowever, I understand that I may be employed in a substitute position, only. (signature) (date) (current position)H RECOVER .1 APR 1 5 1994 ELarly Retirement Incentive Program for Administrators Office of D8segre?\natscrj Mu\n. The purpose of the Early Retirement Incentive Program is to reduce recurring District expenditures for salaries without reducing individual salaries for employees or employee salary schedules. A. B. C. D, E. F. G. H. 1. The Early Retirement Incentive Program will be in effect for the 1993-94 school year only. Employees who are at step 16 or above on the salary schedule for their position are eligible to participate in the Early Retirement Incentive Program. Participating employees are not required to retire under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Participating employees may be employed in another Arkansas School District. Employees must complete the application form for participation in the Early Retirement Incentive Program, indicate beneficiary(s), and submit to the Director of Human Resources by May 20, 1994. Applications received after May 20, 1994, will not be considered. Applications will not be rescinded after Board approval. Current salary (base salary) as used below includes salary paid from the salary schedule at the time of application not to exceed $55,000. \"Current salary\" as used below does not include any other compensation including stipends, overtime, or supplemental pay. Early Retirement Incentive Program compensation will be determined as follows: 1. 2. Eligible employees less than 56 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid one hundred percent (100%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. Eligible employees 56 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid ninety percent (90%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 3. Eligible employees 57 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid eighty percent (80%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 4. Eligible employees 58 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid seventy percent (70%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 5. Eligible employees 59 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid sixty percent (60%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 6. Eligible employees 60 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid fifty percent (50%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each 9 mJanuary 15. 7. 8. Eligible employees 61 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid forty percent (40%) of current salary divided in four (4) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. Eligible employees 62 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid thirty percent (30%) of current salary divided in three (3) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 9. 10. 11. Eligible employees 63 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid twenty percent (20%) of current salary in two (2) annual equal installments, one each January 15. Eligible employees 64 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid ten percent (10%) of current salary in one (1) installment on January 15, 1995. Employees 65 years of age or older on the May 20th application deadline are not eligible to participate in this program. K. L. Employees will begin receiving installments on January 15, 1995. Participating employees in the Early Retirement Incentive Program must agree to not apply for or otherwise be employed in a full-time, part-time, or temporary contracted position in Little Rock School District for a period of four (4) years. M. Participating employees may be employed in Little Rock School District in a daily rate substitute position only. N. Money saved as a result of the implementation of the Early Retirement Incentive Program will be used for the purpose of reducing expenditures to assist in balancing the budget for each year. Savings from this program will be exempt from all laws pertaining to teacher salaries and funds designated for teacher salaries only during the five (5) years of the payout of this incentive. If the exemptions from all laws pertaining to teacher salaries and funds designated for salaries are not approved by the appropriate legal authorities, any agreement reached between the Board and the Association shall be considered null and void. Signature: Date: Social Security #: Location: Position/Job Title:ar :z3 h\u0026gt; Gt Little Rock School District APR 1 5 1994 Early Retirement Incentive Program for Teacl)$|:s Application 'UiLt? o! L/ssegn U' The purpose of the Early Retirement Incentive Program is to reduce recurring District expenditures for salaries without reducing Individual salaries for teachers or teacher salary schedules. A. The Early Retirement Incentive Program will be in effect for the 1993-94 school year only. B. Teachers who are at Step 16 or above on the Teacher Salary Schedule are eligible for the Early Retirement Incentive Program. C. Participating teachers are not required to retire under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. D. Participating teachers are not required to retire from the teaching profession. E. Participating teachers may be employed in another Arkansas School District. F. Teachers must complete the application form for participation in the Early Retirement Incentive Program, indicate beneficiary(s), and submit to the Director of Human Resources by May 20, 1994. G. Applications received after May 20, 1994, will not be considered. H. Applications will not be rescinded after Board approval. I. \"Current salary\" as used below includes salary paid from the teacher salary schedule at the time of application. \"Current salary\" as used below does not include any other compensation including stipends paid under Appendix B (Supplementary Pay Schedule). J. Early Retirement Incentive Program compensation will be determined as follows: 1. Eligible teachers less than 56 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid one hundred percent (100%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 2. Eligible teachers 56 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid ninety percent (90%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 3. Eligible teachers 57 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid eighty percent (80%) of cunent salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 4. Eligible teachers 58 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid seventy percent (70%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 5. Eligible teachers 59 years of age on the May 20th application deadline wiU be paid sixty percent (60%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15.K. L. M. N. O. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Eligible teachers 60 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid fifty percent (50%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. Eligible teachers 61 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid forty percent (40%) of current salary divided in four (4) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. Eligible teachers 62 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid thirty percent (30%) of current salary divided in three (3) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. Eligible teachers 63 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid twenty percent (20%) of current salary divided in two (2) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. Eligible teachers 64 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid ten percent (10%) of current salary in one (1) installment on January 15. Teachers 65 years of age or older on the May 20th application deadline are not eligible to participate in this program. Teachers will begin receiving installments on January 15, 1995. Participating teachers in the Early Retirement Incentive Program must agree to not apply for or otherwise be employed in a full-time, part-time, or temporary contracted position in Little Rock School District for a period of four (4) years. Participating teachers may be employed in Little Rock School District in a substitute position only. Unless a minimum of 100 eligible teachers apply for the Early Retirement Program by the application deadline, any agreement reached regarding the implementation of this program shall be considered null and void. This offer is extended to the first 250 eligible teachers who apply. All applications will be numbered as received in the Human Resources Department. Only those applications received on the date that the 250th application is received will be accepted after the 250th application. I am submitting this application for early retirement under the agreement reached between the Board of Directors and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association under the terms listed above. I understand that once this application is approved by the Board of Directors it is irrevocable. I agree to the condition that I will not apply for or otherwise be employed in a full-time, part-time, or temporary contracted position in the Little Rock School District for a period of four (4) years\nhowever, I understand that I may be employed in a substitute position, only. (signature) (date) (current position)\u0026lt;Ci iV kPR 1 5 1991 Early Retirement Incentive Program for Administrators Office of Desegrsgafcor* i'i'l V  ......4 The purpose of the Early Retirement Incentive Program is to reduce recurring District expenditures for salaries without reducing individual salaries for employees or employee salary schedules. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 1. The Early Retirement Incentive Program wiU be in effect for the 1993-94 school year only. Employees who are at step 16 or above on the salary schedule for their position are eligible to participate in the Early Retirement Incentive Program. Participating employees are not required to retire under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Participating employees may be employed in another Arkansas School District. Employees must complete the application form for participation in the Early Retirement Incentive Program, indicate beneficiary(s), and submit to the Director of Human Resources by May 20, 1994. Applications received after May 20, 1994, will not be considered. Applications will not be rescinded after Board approval. Current salary (base salary) as used below includes salary paid from the salary schedule at the time of application not to exceed $55,000. \"Current salary as used below does not include any other compensation including stipends, overtime, or supplemental pay. Early Retirement Incentive Program compensation will be determined as follows: 1. Eligible employees less than 56 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid one hundred percent (100%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 2. Eligible employees 56 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid ninety percent (90%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 3. Eligible employees 57 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid eighty percent (80%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 4. Eligible employees 58 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid seventy percent (70%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 5. Eligible employees 59 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid sixty percent (60%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 6. Eligible employees 60 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid fifty percent (50%) of cunent salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) eachJanuary 15. 7. Eligible employees 61 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid forty percent (40%) of current salary divided in four (4) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 8. Eligible employees 62 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid thirty percent (30%) of current salary divided in three (3) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 9. 10. 11. Eligible employees 63 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid twenty percent (20%) of current salary in two (2) annual equal installments, one each January 15. Eligible employees 64 years of age on the May 20th application deadline will be paid ten percent (10%) of current salary in one (1) installment on January 15, 1995. Employees 65 years of age or older on the May 20th application deadline are not eligible to participate in this program. K. L. Employees will begin receiving installments on January 15, 1995. Participating employees in the Early Retirement Incentive Program must agree to not apply for or otherwise be employed in a full-time, part-time, or temporary contracted position in Little Rock School District for a period of four (4) years. M. Participating employees may be employed in Little Rock School District in a daily rate substitute position only. N. Money saved as a result of the implementation of the Early Retirement Incentive Program will be used for the purpose of reducing expenditures to assist in balancing the budget for each year. Savings from this program will be exempt from all laws pertaining to teacher salaries and funds designated for teacher salaries only during the five (5) years of the payout of this incentive. K the exemptions from all laws pertaining to teacher salaries and funds designated for salaries are not approved by the appropriate legal authorities, any agreement reached between the Board and the Association shall be considered null and void. Signature: Date: Social Security #: Location: Position/Job Title:RECEIVER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 8 1994 Office of Desegregation Mofiiiv,..ig LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSD^S MOTION FOR EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM EXEMPTION AND RACIAL IMPACT APPROVAL The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD or \"District\"), for its Motion for Early Retirement Incentive Program Exemption and Racial Impact Approval, states: 1. By Order dated July 14, 1993, this Court entered an Order following its review and hearing of testimony concerning the proposed Early Retirement Incentive Program by the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"). The Order found that the program would not adversely impact the racial balance of the PCSSD's staff. Further, the Order found that the savings to be realized by the PCSSD from its program were exempt from the new revenue requirements of 1983 (Ex. Sess.) Ark. Acts 34\nArk. Code Ann.  6-20-301, et seq.(\"Act 34\"). 2. In developing its budget for the 1994-95 school year, the LRSD has determined that it too should offer an early retirement incentive program for its teachers and certain other employee groups. Similar to the PCSSD, the LRSD considers it essential that LRSD's Motion For Early Retirement Incentive Exemption and Racial Impact Approval April 28, 1994 Page 2 any revenues realized from such a program be exempt from the requirements of Act 34. By doing so, the funds realized by the District could be used for other purposes, such as reducing or eliminating the projected budget deficit. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of the \"Fast Track\" evaluation of the Early Retirement Incentive Program. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of an analysis of the impact of the early retirement program on the racial balance of the District. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of a report indicating the number of teachers eligible for the program by subject area as well as the number and percent eligible by race and gender. These exhibits are incorporated herein by reference as if set out word-for-word. 4. As reflected by the racial balance impact analysis, the Early Retirement Incentive Program is not projected to have a disproportionate or negative impact on the racial balance of the LRSD. In fact, based upon those teachers taking advantage of the opportunity as of April 26, 1994, the District may be in a position to increase the percentage of black teachers as a result of the incentive being taken in significant numbers by non-black teachers. thereby creating opportunities for new black teachers to enter into the District.LRSD's Motion For Early Retirement Incentive Exemption and Racial Impact Approval April 28, 1994 Page 3 5. Based on the foregoing, it is submitted that an order should be entered by this Court declaring that the Early Retirement Incentive Program of the LRSD will not have a negative impact on the racial balance of the District's staff and that any funds realized from the program are exempt from the requirements of Act 34. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District moves the Court for the entry of an order declaring that the District's Early Retirement Incentive Program does not have a negative impact on the District's racial balance and that the funds realized therefrom are exempt from the requirements of Act 34\nthe District should also be awarded any and all other legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT erry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSp's Motion For Early Retirement Incentive Program Exemption and Racial Balance Approval has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on April 28, 1994, upon the following, except as otherwise indicated: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered pursuant to the order of the Court) Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone EXHIBIT 1 Little Rock School District Human Resources Department Early Retirement Program Description: Early Retirement incentives are generally offered for one or more of four basic reasons. First, it is a method to save money on recurring personnel costs by replacing higher paid staff with lower paid staff. Second, it is a method to reduce staff without resorting to a layoff. Third, it is a method to reorganize or restructure staff alignment and responsibilities. Fourth, it is a method of providing an employee benefit. Before the District enters into an agreement with the union on an early retirement program, it should determine what the purpose would be as it applies to the LRSD. It is apparent to everyone who has even peripheral knowledge of the District budget that cuts must be made in recurring expenses. By far the greatest recurring expense is personnel costs. One of the reasons that the District would decide to implement an early retirement incentive must be to reduce recurring payroll obligations. Since the District is also experiencing declining enrollment, the second reason should also be considered. It allows a method to reduce staff to match the shrinking enrollment without the trauma of a layoff while also eliminating the highest paid employees in each affected group. The third reason should be left open although at the time of the preparation of this \"fast track\" evaluation, there is no plan to have a major reorganization of the District. The fourth reason should be considered in two ways. Would the program be designed primarily as an employee benefit, or would it primarily be for cost savings? If it is designed as an employee benefit, it should be negotiated as a retirement bonus and continue indefinitely. If it is a cost savings measure, it should be a one time opportunity for employees to receive an incentive to separate service with the District. A window of opportunity should be opened to encourage retirement and then the window should be closed. Otherwise, the program becomes a bonus and is simply an additional expense. At this time one would have to conclude that the first two would be the principal benefit to the District and the other two reasons are possible by-products. 1Little Rock School District Human Resources Department The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) implemented an early retirement incentive program last year. It would appear that their primary purpose would be the same as ours. With their program and its regulations and procedures as a guide, we can anticipate some possible results if we apply their program to current staff. Attached as \"Appendix B\" is a copy of PCSSDs program. our Goals: The goal of the program described above as it applies to the LRSD would be to reduce recurring personnel costs while avoiding the trauma of a reduction in force. Evaluation Criteria: Because of the amount of the projected budget deficit for the 1994-95 school year, probably no one program or budget reduction will eliminate the entire deficit. An analysis of alternatives to an early retirement incentive program need not be considered to replace it. Alternatives must be considered to complement the possible results of it. Those alternatives are being explored through other \"fast track\" evaluations and the program budgeting process. A comparison of the number of teachers in the PCSSD who took advantage of the incentive to the number of teachers who meet the defined criteria who normally leave the PCSSD each year will be made. Although it would be a more accurate comparison to compare percentages of teachers rather than numbers of teachers, that data is not available. Therefore, a determination of the number of teachers who would have fallen in this category last year in the LRSD will be projected for the current school using the PCSSD experience as a guide. This comparison and projection will only have value if the LRSD uses exactly the same window of opportunity as the PCSSD. Evaluation Results: Since the salary schedules of the LRSD and PCSSD are not identical, the same criteria cannot be applied exactly. The eligibility requirement has been adjusted slightly. Instead of starting the eligibility at Step 13 as in PCSSD, Step 16 has been used for the LRSD. For a teacher to be eligible, he/she must be at Step 16 or above. 2Little Rock School District Human Resources Department The chart below illustrates the portion of the salary schedule which would be covered by the early retirement incentive. The salary shown below is for a 9.25 month teacher\nteachers with extended contracts would have to be prorated to determine the actual salaries for all covered teachers. LRSD 1993-94 16 17 18 19 BA $32,118 BA + 12 $33,162 BA + 24 $34,206 $35,009 MA/BA + 36 $35,270 $36,073 $36,876 MA + 15 $36,354 $37,157 $37,960 $38,763 MA + 30 $37,458 $38,261 $39,064 $39,867 20 $40,670 The chart below shows the number of teachers on each step of the schedule defined above and the actual dollars with FICA attached to each step. There are 630 teachers on the chart who would be eligible. 16 BA BA+12 BA-I-24 MA/BA-l-36 MA+15 MA-l-30 30 $1,168,761.54 37 $1,411,785.06 6 $266,387.45 20 $798,954.27 10 $470,533.51 21 $899,764.19 17 40 $1,594,582.60 19 $776,586.41 14 $591,120.61 11 $525,497.17 18 126 $5,350,045.95 14 $600,668.05 14 $9,312,558.79 19 66 $2,951,248.46 14 $633,463.47 20 188 $8,771,417.14 3Little Rock School District Human Resources Department In PCSSD, only 38 eligible teachers took advantage of the incentive plan. The PCSSD plan calls for a two year window of opportunity which probably accounts for the small number of teachers who took advantage of the incentive in the first year. Officials from the PCSSD indicate that normally 12 to 15 teachers from this group would leave each year. The PCSSD is anticipating that at least 100 teachers will apply for the incentive this year before the window closes. If the LRSD uses a more narrow window of opportunity (one year), it is impossible at this stage to project how many teachers at each step will elect to participate. Before projecting the possible savings, the incentive which would be paid to the employees must be calculated. To do this the salaries must be applied to the age chart shown below. The percentages in the chart are the same as used in the PCSSD program. AGE SALARIES PERCENT LIABILITY LESS THAN 56 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 $21,424,153.83 $ 1,165,916.63 $ 994,238.20 $ 672,218.13 $ 691,237.51 $ 579,940.43 $ 365,476.61 $ 349,527.66 $ 353,417.90 $ 264,156.59 NOT ELIGIBLE 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 $21,424,153.83 $ 1,049,324.96 $ 795,390.56 $ 470,552.69 $ 414,742.50 $ 289,970.21 $ 146,190.64 $ 104,858.29 $ 70,683.58 $ 26,415.66 TOTAL 6,860,283.49 $24,792,282.92 4Little Rock School District Human Resources Department The total liability for the payout to the employees would be $24,792,282.92 if every eligible teacher participated. Under the PCSSD plan the total liability for the participating teachers would not be paid in the first year after their separation from their district. The amount due would be paid in installments of 20% for five years. If every eligible teacher participates, the installments would be approximately five (5) million dollars per year. The LRSD currently gives teachers new to the District up to seven (7) years credit for previous experience\ntherefore, step eight (8) would be the highest step possible for a new teacher who would be hired to replace a participating teacher. With an MA+30 hours and step eight (8) placement, the maximum salary for a replacement teacher would be $33,408 with FICA. If all replacement teachers were hired at the maximum placement, the total salary would be $21,047,040. The average salary for all teachers hired by the LRSD for the 1993-94 school year was $24,403 with FICA. Using this as the average replacement salary, the total salary for replacement teachers would be $15,373,890. The current total salary of the eligible teachers is $26,860,090. Using the average replacement salary, the District would save $11,486,200 in salary and would have a net savings of approximately $6.5 million dollars per year. Using the worst case scenario with 100 percent participation, the net savings for the District would be approximately $.8 million. If the same eligibility criteria were applied to the LRSD for last year, there were 37 teachers who left the District who would have been eligible by salary placement\nhowever, five of these teachers were older than the age guidelines. If the assumption were drawn that a like number of teachers would leave the District whether or not there is an incentive program, at least 32 eligible teachers would have to leave before the incentive has any impact on the number leaving. Using the 1993-94 salary schedule, the salaries for these teachers would have been $1,555,227. The savings would have to be large enough to compensate for those teachers who would have left anyway to avoid the District losing money from the incentive. If applied to last year, the District would have had to pay $731,023 (^46,205 for each of the five years) for the incentive to those teachers who left the District with no early retirement incentive. While it would be helpful to apply the criteria to more years than just last year\nas a result of the computer conversion the information is not available. Unless the District saves more than $731,000, it is questionable whether the program is a bonus or an incentive. Proportionally applying the data presented above, there would have to be seventy-one (71) eligible teachers participate before there are any savings above the savings normally achieved without the early retirement incentive. 5Little Rock School District Human Resources Department Obstacles to Goal Attainment: The early retirement incentive program would have to be negotiated since it would be a policy directly affecting teachers. Provided the incentive is negotiated, the primary obstacle to having a successful program with the resulting savings would be that the incentive did not entice employees to separate service than would have left without the program. Recommendation: A survey of eligible teachers should be conducted to determine the level of interest without making any commitments that the program would be enacted. If fewer than 85 teachers express an interest in the program for this year, the Board should not move to open negotiations to implement the program. If there is sufficient interest, an early retirement incentive program modeled after the program in place with the PCSSD should be proposed and negotiated with the teachers union. The window of opportunity should be limited to the current school year to prevent participation by only those who would have left anyway. The Board of Directors should reserve the right to reopen the window of opportunity next year after experiencing the program this year. There should be no guarantee that the program will ever be offered again to maximize the participation this year. Objective: The purpose of the recommendation is to reduce recurring expenses by reducing payroll while avoiding if possible a RIF through traditional means where the least senior and lowest paid teachers are laid off. Impact Analysis: Other than the objective presented above, the program could impact the racial composition of the teaching staff. The District should also use this window of opportunity to recruit black applicants into positions which might not otherwise become vacant. It is possible that a disproportionate number of black teachers could take advantage of the incentive. If this happens, the District must guard against lowering the percentage of black teachers. 6Little Rock School District Human Resources Department Desegregation Plan: There is no apparent negative impact with the possible exception of the impact presented above. This should not be a problem if the racial composition of the participants is closely monitored. This should be viewed as an opportunity rather than a problem. Court Orders: There is no known negative impact. Political Factors: There are no known political factors which would impact this program. Timing: The program would have to be negotiated in time to encourage participation this spring before a RIF would have to be implemented. A target date of March 15, 1994, should be set for the completion of negotiations and ratification by both the Board and the union. The 1994-95 budget would be the first budget impacted. Resources Analysis: See Evaluation Results. Force Field Analysis: There should not be widespread or organized opposition to the plan. It should have Board support because it should reduce the deficit. It should have employee and union support because of the employee benefit (the incentive). The court should support the plan because of the positive budget ramifications and the possible positive impact on the racial balance of the staff. 7Little Rock School District Human Resources Department Implementation Plan: A joint survey from the District and the union should be submitted to the eligible teachers as soon as possible. It should be a joint survey to avoid any claims of bad faith in the bargaining process. If the results of the survey show an adequate level of interest the plan should be submitted to the Board as a recommendation to open negotiations with the union. Negotiations should begin as soon as possible after the Board and the union consent to open negotiations. It should be negotiated as a special interest of concern to both parties and not as part of the package for negotiations for successor agreements. Negotiations should begin by February 1, 1994, and conclude as soon as possible thereafter. Negotiations should be completed and the program ratified by both parties no later than March 15, 1994. After successful negotiations, all eligible parties should be sent information concerning the incentive and encouraged to participate. By May 20, 1994, the application for the incentive should be received by the District for processing. This information should be presented to the Manager of Support Services for inclusion in the budgeting process. 8APPENDIX A % TEACHERS CURRENT SALARIES 5 YEAR LIABILITY PAYOUT EACH YEAR PROJECTED REPLACEMENT SALARIES 20% PAYOUT REPLACEMENT 630 100% $26,860,090 $24,792,282 $ 4,958,456 $ 15,373,890 $ 20,332,346 32 5% $ 1,364,320 $ 1,259,288 $ 251,858 780,896 1,032,754 63 10% $ 2,686,009 $ 2,479,227 $ 495,845 1,537,389 2,033,234 71 11J% $ 3,027,089 $ 2,794,050 $ 558,810 $ 1,732,613 $ 2,291,423 95 15% $ 4,029,014 $ 3,738,516 $ 747,703 2,318,285 3,065,988 100 15.87% $ 4,263,504 $ 3,935,280 $ 787,056 2,440,300 3,227,356 SAVINGS $6,527,744 $ 331,566 $ 652,775 $ 735,666 $ 963,026 $1,036,148 $ $ $ $ + $ $ $ $ KEY: TEACHERS: NUMBER PARTICIPATING %: PERCENTAGE OF TEACHERS ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE (630) CURRENT SALARIES: BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF SALARIES OF TOTAL ELIGIBLE GROUP 5 YEAR LIABILITY: PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION FROM CURRENT SALARIES PAYOUT EACH YEAR: 20% LIABILITY FOR EACH OF THE 5 YEARS PROJECTED REPLACEMENT SALARIES: NUMBER PARTICIPATING TIMES CURRENT AVERAGE NEW HIRE SALARY SAVINGS: CURRENT SALARIES MINUS 20% PAYOUT AND REPLACEMENT SALARIESLittle Rock School District Human Resources Department Appendix B PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Early Retirement Incentive Program The purpose of the Early Retirement Incentive Program is to reduce District expenditures in order to build a reserve which will offset the cessation of State Desegregation Settlement Funds in 1995-96 and 1996-97. A. B. C. Eligibility for the Early Retirement Incentive Program will remain in effect for the 1992-93 and 1993-94 school years unless renegotiated. Teachers who are at Step 13 or above on the Teacher Salary Schedule are eligible for the Early Retirement Incentive Program. Participating teachers are not required to retire under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. D. E. F. G. Participating teachers are not required to retire from the teaching profession. Participating teachers may be employed in another Arkansas School District. Teachers must complete the application form for participation in the Early Retirement Incentive Program, indicate beneficiary(s), and submit to the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel by May 20 each year. Applications received after May 20, 1994, will not be considered unless this program is renegotiated. H. 1. Applications will not be rescinded after Board approval. \"Current salary\" as used below includes salary paid from the teacher salary schedule and professional growth contract at the time of application, \"Current salary\" as used below does not include other compensation. J. Early Retirement Incentive Program compensation will be determined as follows: 1. Eligible teachers less than 56 years of age on or before the May 20 application deadline will be paid one hundred percent (100%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15.Little Rock School District Human Resources Department Appendix B 2. Eligible teachers 56 years of age on or before May 20 application deadline will be paid ninety percent (90%) of current salary divided in five (5) annual equal installments, one (1) each Januaiy 15. 3. Eligible teachers 57 years of age on or before the May 20 application deadline will be paid eighty percent (80%) of current salary divided in four (4) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 4. Eligible teachers 58 years of age on or before the May 20 application deadline will be paid seventy percent (70%) of current salary divided in four (4) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 5. Eligible teachers 59 years of age on or before the May 20, application deadline will be paid sixty percent (60%) of current salary divided in three (3) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 6. Eligible teachers 60 years of age on or before the May 20, application deadline will be paid fifty percent (50%) of current salary divided in three (3) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 7. Eligible teachers 61 years of age on or before the May 20 application deadline will be paid forty percent (40%) of current salary divided in two (2) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 8. Eligible teachers 62 years of age on or before the May 20 application deadline will be paid thirty percent (30%) of current salary divided in tow (2) annual equal installments, one (1) each January 15. 9. Eligible teachers 63 years of age on or before the May 20 application deadline will be paid twenty percent (20%) of current salary in one (1) installment on January 15. 10. Eligible teachers 64 years of age on or before the May 20 application deadline will be paid ten percent (10%) of current salary in one (1) installment on January 15. 11. Teachers 65 years of age or older on or before the May 20 application deadline are not eligible to participate in this program. K. Teachers may not receive installments until the January following Board approval forAppendix B L. M. N. O. Little Rock School District Human Resources Department participation in the Early Retirement Incentive Program. Participating teachers in the Early Retirement Incentive Program must agree to not apply for or otherwise be employed in a full-time, part-time, or temporary contracted position in Pulaski County Special School District. Participating teachers may be employed in Pulaski County Special School District in a substitute position only. Savings Calculation Method: 1. 2. 3. Teacher replacement costs will be computed by calculating the average teacher salary including FICA costs for incoming teachers employed by September 1 of that year times the number of participants in the Early Retirement Incentive Program for that year. Increases in the teacher salary schedule in subsequent years will be included in the calculation of participant costs and replacement costs. Money saved will be computed as follows: (Participant Salaries -I- FICA costs) - (Replacement Costs + FICA 4- Installment Payments + FICA). Money saved as a result of the implementation of the Early Retirement Incentive Program will be credited to a Compensatory Trust Fund maintained by the District for the purpose of reducing expenditures and thus balance the budget when the State Settlement Monies cease. Monies saved, including interest, which accrue above the annual amount needed to balance the budget and thus promote the continued implementation of the court approved Desegregation Plan will be placed in the Districts Contingency Fund. Resolved through impasse hearing by the Board on April 29, 1993.EXHIBIT 2 The Impact of Early Retirement on Racial Balance The early retirement incentive which has been negotiated with the Rock Classroom Teachers Association for teachers should have no negative impact on the racial composition of the teaching staff. The current teaching staff is approximately 33.6 percent black while the overall pool of teachers eligible for the incentive is 37.4 percent black. Because these percentages are relatively close to each other, this balance should allow teachers of both races equitable opportunities to apply for the early retirement incentive. the early It is impossible to precisely predict how many teachers of each race will take advantage of this opportunity\nApril 26, 1994, sixty-five (65) teachers had applied for the incentive. of this number 16.9 nercent nr pvon n-P \u0026lt;-ho sixty-five (65) however, through Of percent or eleven (11) of the teachers are black. The impact The racial composition of the teaching staff and the possible impact of the incentive on that balance has been considered from the start of the planning process for the incentive. The impact analysis of the fast track evaluation completed for the early retirement incentive states, \"The District should use this window of opportunity to recruit black applicants into positions which might not otherwise become vacant. It is possible that a disproportionate number of black teachers could take advantage of the incentive. If this happens, the District must guard against lowering the percentage of black teachers.\" It 1 In At this time there does not appear to be any negative impact, fact there would appear to be an opportunity to increase the percentage of black teachers as a result of the incentive. Nonetheless, the impact will be continually monitored to be certain that the incentive will not cause a negative impact. 1. See page 6,\"Impact Analysis\", of the attached fast track evaluation.TO\nFROM\nDATE\nSUBJECT\nEXHIBIT 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Superintendent's Cabinet 72201 Brady Gadberry, Director of Human Resources January 31, 1994 Early Retirement Incentive The table below shows the subjects taught by the iue caoxe Deiow snows the subjects taught by the 630 teachers presented in the fast track evaluation on the early retirement incentive. These numbers were derived fmm a down load . , These miners derived from down of the eligible teachers using state department codes to classify the subject. Many of the teachers may teach additional STibjects which are not represented here to keep from counting teacher more than once\ntherefore, the information presented in teachers by subj ect. a the should be used only to give an indication approximately how many teachers could be eligible in each area. chart to an of SUBJECT NUMBER OF TEACHERS ELEMENTARY KINDERGARTEN GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENTED READING MATH (ELEM \u0026amp; CHAP I) LIBRARIAN COUNSELORS SPECIAL ED ENGLISH MATH SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES HEALTH \u0026amp; PE VOCATIONAL BUSINESS 105 37 19 36 31 26 39 56 39 36 28 32 21 20HOME EC 8 CAREER ORIENTATION 6 ICT 4 CCE 9 OTHER VOCATIONAL ART INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC MUSIC FRENCH GERMAN LATIN SPANISH SPEECH COMMUNICATION ADULT ED JOURNALISM TOTAL TEACHERS 29 8 9 10 3 1 4 4 5 6 1 630 The race and gender of the eligible group is shown in the followina table. BF BM WF WM NUMBER 194 42 324 70 PERCENT 30.8 6.6 51.4 11.1RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 8 1994/7/ Office of Dessgregaiion Monuuiiiig LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LRSD^8 MOTION FOR EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM EXEMPTION AND RACIAL IMPACT APPROVAL The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its Memorandum Brief In Support Of LRSD's Motion For Early Retirement Incentive Program Exemption And Racial Impact Approval, states: The District, pursuant to its budgeting process, has projected a deficit for its 1994-95 budget unless deficit reduction measures are taken. In accordance with its planning and budgeting process. the District conducted a fast-track evaluation of the possibility of offering an early retirement incentive program. Based upon that evaluation, the District determined that such an incentive program would be beneficial to its budgetary efforts. Accordingly, it is in the process of determining whether sufficient employee interest exists to warrant the implementation.Memorandum Brief April 28, 1994 Page 2 As this Court is aware, the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD) has implemented such a program. In fact, an Order was issued by this Court on July 14, 1993. That Order determined that the PCSSD program would not have a negative impact on the racial balance of the District's staff and that the funds generated from such a program would be exempt from the reguirements of Act 34 under Arkansas State law. Based upon the exhibits supplied with the motion by the LRSD and the prior determination regarding the PCSSD program. it is submitted that the Early Retirement Incentive Program being offered by the LRSD should be found free of negative racial impact on the District's staff and any funds generated from the program should be exempt from the reguirements of Act 34. Respectfully Submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT B' T. rrry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum Brief In Support Of LRSD's Motion For Early Retirement Incentive Program Exemption And Racial Balance Impact Approval has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on April 28, 1994, upon the following, except as otherwise indicated: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered pursuant to the order of the Court) Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 7/ Jerry L. Malone' 1 I Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE May 10, 1994 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 SPECIAL BOARD MEETING SCHEDUTTJ) FoUowing e regularly scheduled Little Rock School District board agenda meeting on May 12, at 5:00 p.m., there will be a special board meeting to discuss early retirement incentives for personnel who were not eligible for programs approved earUer this year. Modifications for the previously implemented early retirement incentive programs, including the addition of a $2,500 bonus, will be discussed as well. The LRSD Board members will also meet with state legislators at 6:30 p .m. fftt'tt O'y TTT___i C- REC^\"' MAR 2 1 1995 FILED U.S. district court EASTERN district ARKANSAS Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR 1 6 1995 JAMES W.^^COR^CK, CLERK OeP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court are three motions which the Court now addresses: (1) motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") to amend the desegregation plan (doc.#2126)\n(2) motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for early retirement incentive program exemption and racial impact approval (doc.#2172)\nand (3) motion of the PCSSD to approve certain program analyses and to amend the PCSSD permanent intradistrict desegregation plan as necessary (doc.#2218). The Court will address each of these motions in turn. I. The PCSSD desegregation plan provides at page 82 that II [a]ny PCSSD student may apply to transfer to a magnet school from any PCSSD school in which the black percentage is between 28% and 49%\nexcept that black PCSSD students may apply for such transfer if the racial composition of the sending school is 28% black or greater. II The PCSSD moves that its desegregation plan be amended by adding 2 3 8 2( language g_iving the PCSSD the discretion to deny the transfer of white PCSSD students to interdistrict magnet schools if. in the judgment of the PCSSD's Office of Desegregation, any such transfer would have an unacceptable impact upon the black/white ratio of the sending school. 1 There are no specific objections to this motion although the LRSD has filed a pleading voicing several concerns it has with the proposed amendment. The Court has carefully considered the matter and finds that the motion should be and hereby is denied. In the recent order granting the Magnet Review Committee's (\"MRC\") request for approval of the interdistrict magnet school budget for the 1994-95 school year, this Court noted that the PCSSD had not filled its allotted magnet seats, and that the LRSD had Instituted new magnet school assignment policies which resulted in seats remaining vacant. The Court admonished the LRSD that it must consult with the MRC prior to making decisions that impact the schools which the committee oversees. Giving the PCSSD discretion to deny the transfer of white PCSSD students to interdistrict magnet schools, however. would afford it privileges unavailable to the LRSD and the North Little Rock school District and would usurp the oversight role of the MRC. The proposed amendment would also impede the primary goal of filling the magnet seats to capacity. As noted in the recent order, empty seats at the magnet schools are costly and deprive 1 The proposed additional language is as follows: \"However, if in the judgement of the PCSSDs Office of Desegregation any such transfer would have an unacceptable impact upon the black/white ratio of the sending school, then the PCSSD may deny such transfer.\" 2children of_the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of magnet school programs. The Court reiterates that the MRC and the three school districts whose students populate the magnet schools are responsible for conducting recruitment activities, and that it fully expects the MRC and the parties to engage in vigorous, sustained recruitment so that all magnet school seats are filled every academic year. II. The LRSD has before the Court a motion for early retirement incentive program exemption and racial impact approval. This matter was Included in the LRSD's 1994-95 budget, which the Court allowed to proceed by order dated August 22, 1994. Accordingly, this motion is moot. The Clerk is directed to remove this motion from the pending motions report. III. The PCSSD asks this Court to approve certain program analyses addressing various items of operation in the PCSSD and to amend the PCSSD permanent intradistrict desegregation plan as necessary. Specifically, the PCSSD seeks approval for program analyses regarding (1) the transfer of an assistant principal position from Jacksonville High School to Jacksonville Junior High South and Jacksonville Junior High North\n(2) a proposal to emphasize team learning and teacher expectation and student achievement and deemphasize the program for effective teaching\n(3) a proposal for 3t the elimir^tion of the assistant principal's position at Scott Elementary School\n(4) a proposal for changes in summer school programs in the PCSSD\n(5) a proposal to combine the positions of associate directors for elementary and secondary education into one position. that being the Director of Instructional Support Services\nand (6) a proposal to change the position of Director of Music and Extra-Curricular Activities t Coordinator of Music and Extra-Curricular activities. These matters were included in the PCSSD's 1994-95 budget, which the Court allowed to proceed by order dated August 26, 1994. Accordingly, this motion is moot. The Clerk is directed to remove this motion from the pending motions report. IV. In sum. the Court denies the PCSSD's motion to amend the desegregation plan (doc.#2126), finds the LRSD's motion for early retirement incentive program exemption and racial impact approval to be moot (doc.#2172), and finds the PCSSD's motion to approve certain program analyses and to amend the PCSSD permanent intradistrict desegregation plan as necessary to be moot (doc.#2218). IT IS SO ORDERED this A- /day of March 1995. UNITED S'TATES DISTRICT/ 1 JUDGE OOCKBT fHffT 4 PROP \u0026gt;41 FRIDAY, MAY 6,1994 ERSD adds incentive to retire Out-early teachers  to get $2,500 bonus .......... BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-QazeMe EdtKallon Writer '  Negotiators for the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association decided to sweeten the pot i\nIJhursday to entice veteran I teachers to consider early re- : l tirement. i\n The two negotiating teams\nreached a tentative agreement  to add a $2,500 bonus to the re-\ntirement benefits approved ear-\nlief this year by the CTA and the\nschool board. The CTA mem-\nbership and school board must  adopt the bonus before it can\ntake effect.\nThe district's early retirement\nplan will give up to a years  \u0026gt; salary to employees with 16 or .1 more years of experience if they\nanhounce their plans to retire\nfrom the district by May 20.\nFor the one-time-only retire- : ment plan to take effect, at least\n100 teachers must enroll. Par-\nticipation in the program is I  capped at 250, though more than \u0026gt; 600 of the districts 1,400 teach-\ners are eligible. So far, 65 teach- ers have signed up for the early\nretirement program. ' The program is one attempt .: to cut salary expenses for the\nnext school year. District offi- \n|cials are trying to trim $7 million \u0026lt; in expenses to balance the bud- : get for next year and avoid an il- : legal deficit. .\nVacancies created by the ear- ly retirements will either not be ' filled or will be filled by the 80 teachers whose jobs are being eliminated at the end of this year  also as a cost-cutting measure. Tile vacancies would be filled by Jl^Shhers who have less seniority IXnd earn less than the retirees, j: -Brady Gadberry and Frank jaartin, chief negotiators for the lliflslrict and CTA negotiating Cteams respectively, said the $?,500 bonus would be paid by ^ug. 2. -Despite being ineligible for Sariy other retirement incentive, ,31)e districts 28 teachers aged 65 ^r older would be eligible for the \u0026gt;$2,Soo bonus. The system has no ^iSoo bonus. The system Smahdatory retirement age.  i\n\u0026lt;Jadberry pointed out that the ^,'^2^600 would be more than Enough to cover a retiring iVeJ'chers yearly health insur- rSHC.e premiums.Arkansas Democrat a SATURDAY. MAY 21, 1994 Numbers dont add up for teacher retirement plan Democrat-Gazette Staff Eighty-nine Little Rock School District teachers  11 short of the 100 required  signed up for the districts early retirement incentive program by the deadline Friday, leaving the programs fate uncertain. The Classroom Teachers Association is expected to ask for at least a weeks extension of the deadline to meet the minimum number or to ask that retiring administrators be included in the teacher count. As of Friday afternoon, 14 administrators had signed up for the early retirement incentive program. The school board could also decide to lower the minimum number of participants. Earlier this year, the board adopted the teacher retirement incentive program as a way to trim salary expenses for next year. District officials had estimated $750,000 in savings if 100 teachers retired and were replaced by less-experienced, lower-paid employees. , According to the terms of the program, teachers with 16 years of experience in the district were eligible to get all or a part of a years salary if they retired before age 65. The years salary would be paid over as many as five years. In addition, all retiring teachers, including those 65 and older, would be eligible for a $2,500 bonus to be paid Aug. 2.Copyright  Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. I LRSD staff\nLet teachers retire early BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ' Democrat-Gazette Education Writer ''  Little Rock School District administrators will recom-\nmend that the School Board proceed with a teacher early retirement incentive program although applications fell 12 short of the minimum requirement of 100. The staff also will recommend extending by one week the application deadline, which originally was last Friday, for teachers, administra- tors, clerical workers and nurses, said Brady Gadberry, district director of labor relations. Eighty-eight teachers applied for the early retirement incentive by the deadline\nIn addition, 17 administrators, 17 clerical workers and three nurses also signed up for early retirements. The School Board adopted the one-time early retirement program to trim costs. The district must cut more than $7 million in expenses for next year to avoid an illegal budget deficit. The early retirement program could be more financially successful than expected. Gadberry said retirement of the 88 teachers who signed up for the program by last week would save the district about $820,000 in salary costs. Earlier, district officials estimated retirement of 100 teachers would generate $750,000 in savings.  The savings would be generated by replacing the retiring teachers with less experienced, lower-paid ones.\nThe projections do not include any savings that might be realized by the early retirements of the administrators, nurses and clerical work- | ers. Those savings have not been calculated. - To be eligible for the-eai^ ly retirement, a teacher had to have at least 16 years of experience in the district and be under age 65. Of ffie districts 1,400 teachers, 630 were eligible for the incentive, which is all or part of a year s salary to be paid out over up to five years. In addition, all retirees, including those 65 and older, will get a $2,500 bonus in August.AAansas Democrat (gazette SATURDAY, MAY 28, 1994  LRSD will lose 124 educators to early retirement incentive  BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District will lose some longtime and well-known educators at the end of this school year because of an early retirement incentive program. The program will save the district about $1 million in salary costs next year. Most who are leaving arent frequently mentioned in news reports, but they are well known in education circles and beyond because of their long tenure, job assignments and accomplishments. The district implemented the early retirement program to cut costs. The retirees, 124 in all, will be replaced with people with less experience at lower salaries. Among the 87 teachers who will retire this year is Mary Beth Greenway, an English teacher at Parkview High School who this year won a $25,000 award from the Milken Family foundations for outstanding teaching. She also was one of two teachers from Arkansas to be named candidates for the NASA teacher in space program in the late 1980s. Among others who are leaving is Louise Bloom, a teacher at Williams Magnet Elementary\nCarol Barnhouse, a math teacher at J.A. Fair High\nBryant Cochran, a math teacher at Hall High and a former president of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association\nDelores S. Ivey, a counselor at Central High\nArlin Jones, a band director at J.A. Fair High\nCharles Lance, journalism teacher at Central High\nSusan May, an English teacher at Pulaski Heights Junior High\nElizabeth Willingham, an English teacher at Hall High\nand Crystal Wood, a kindergarten teacher at Badgett Elementary. The salaries for the teachers range from $31,138 to $48,083. Included among the retirees are at least 17 administrators. The administrators have until June 17 to apply for the early retirement program, which provides employees with $2,500 plus all or part of a years salary if they resign before age 65. The 17 include five principals, the director of the Metropolitan Vocational Technical Skills Center, the director of the Safety and Security Department, the desegregation facilitator and the reading and mathematics supervisors. The principals are Donna Davis at Gibbs Magnet Elementary, Mary Guinn at Carver Magnet Elementary, Richard Maple at Forest Heights Junior High, Clell Watts at Henderson Junior High and Al Niven at Fair High. Also retiring are Doyle Dil- lahunty at Metropolitan, Bill Barnhouse, who is the safety and security director, Arma Hart, the desegregation facilitator\nAlice Stovall, the reading supervisor, and Judy Trowell, the math supervisor. The salaries for the administrators range from $32,163 to $65,676. In addition, three nurses and 17 clerical employees are taking early retirement, including Norma Rogers, the executive assistant to the superintendent, and Sue Pederson, the executive assistant to the associate superintendent for desegregation.\nThis 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 Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"gsu_uprising_384","title":"Cynthia Haynes Interview 2","collection_id":"gsu_uprising","collection_title":"Uprising of '34 Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Stoney, George C."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Cabarrus County, Concord, Cannon Mills Company","United States, North Carolina, Cabarrus County, Kannapolis, 35.48736, -80.62173","United States, North Carolina, 35.50069, -80.00032"],"dcterms_creator":["Haynes, Cynthia"],"dc_date":["1990/1999"],"dcterms_description":["Cynthia Haynes was a textile mill worker in Kannapolis, N.C.","Haynes discusses her union organizing, African Americans and the union, her mother's battle with brown lung and other topics."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":["L1995-13_AV0023"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Containers 33 and 83||Southern Labor Archives||https://archivesspace.library.gsu.edu/repositories/2/resources/472||Series III: Archival Footage||The Uprising of '34 Collection (L1995-13)"],"dcterms_subject":["Textile Workers' Strike (Southern States : 1934)","Textile workers--Health and hygiene","Unfair labor practices","Retirement","African Americans--Civil rights","Segregation in education","Blacklisting, Labor"],"dcterms_title":["Cynthia Haynes Interview 2"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Georgia State University. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/uprising/id/384"],"dcterms_temporal":["1990/1999"],"dcterms_rights_holder":["Copyright to this item is owned by Georgia State University Library. Georgia State University Library has made this item available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. For more information see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/40/"],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: Cynthia Haynes, interviewed by George Stoney, no date. L1995-13_AV0023, Series III: Archival Footage, The Uprising of '34 Collection (1995-13), Special Collections and Archives, Georgia State University."],"dlg_local_right":["Click the segments in the viewer above to navigate to different topics within the video.||Copyright to this item is owned by Georgia State University Library. Georgia State University Library has made this item available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. For more information see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary genre)","audiocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":["1:28:41 AM"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"alm_p17336coll22_2294","title":"Retirement speech for Althea V. Morton, May 27, 1980","collection_id":"alm_p17336coll22","collection_title":"African American Lives","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Chatham County, Savannah, 32.08354, -81.09983"],"dcterms_creator":["Anderson, Althea W."],"dc_date":["1980-05-27"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["The University of Alabama Libraries Special Collections"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Williams family papers"],"dcterms_subject":["Retirement","Savannah State College (Ga.)"],"dcterms_title":["Retirement speech for Althea V. Morton, May 27, 1980"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["William Stanley Hoole Special Collections Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digitalcollections.libraries.ua.edu/digital/collection/p17336coll22/id/2294"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Images are in the public domain or protected under U.S. copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code), and both types may be used for research and private study. For publication, commercial use, or reproduction, in print or digital format, of all images and/or the accompanying data, users are required to secure prior written permission from the copyright holder and from archives@ua.edu. When permission is granted, please credit the images as Courtesy of The University of Alabama Libraries Special Collections."],"dcterms_medium":["speeches (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":["3 p."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aarl_andrewyoung-oh_aarl-young-713","title":"Video Recording of the Mother of Andrew J. Young Delivering a Speech for the Quality Living Service, 1980s","collection_id":"aarl_andrewyoung-oh","collection_title":"Andrew J. Young Oral Histories","dcterms_contributor":["Young, Andrew, 1932-"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":["Young, Andrew, 1932-"],"dc_date":["1980/1989"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Andrew J. Young papers"],"dcterms_subject":["Atlanta (Ga.)","Local government","Retirement","Senior Adult Services"],"dcterms_title":["Video Recording of the Mother of Andrew J. Young Delivering a Speech for the Quality Living Service, 1980s"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Auburn Avenue Research Library on African-American Culture and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://youtu.be/fGs63akzQ3s"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.usg.edu/record/aarl_andrewyoung-oh_aarl-young-713"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["video recordings (physical artifacts)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 hr, 23 min, 21 sec."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Young, Andrew, 1932-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"int_jjhp_249570","title":"[Letter from T. V. Learson to Kenith L. Ballard - 1971-12-17]","collection_id":"int_jjhp","collection_title":"John J. Herrera Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Texas, Harris County, Alief, 29.71106, -95.59633"],"dcterms_creator":["Learson, T. V."],"dc_date":["1971-12-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/png"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Business, Economics and Finance--Communications","Government and Law","International Business Machines Corporation","Retirement","Employees--Dismissal of","IBM"],"dcterms_title":["[Letter from T. V. Learson to Kenith L. Ballard - 1971-12-17]","[Letter from T. V. Learson to Kenith L. Ballard - December 17, 1971]"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Texas. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth249570/"],"dcterms_temporal":["1939/2019"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["letters (correspondence)"],"dcterms_extent":["2 p. ; 27 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Ballard, Kenith L."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"int_jjhp_249556","title":"[Letter from Kenith Ballard to Mr. Learson - 1971-12-06]","collection_id":"int_jjhp","collection_title":"John J. Herrera Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Texas, Harris County, Alief, 29.71106, -95.59633"],"dcterms_creator":["Ballard, Kenith L."],"dc_date":["1971-12-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/png"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Business, Economics and Finance","Meetings","International Business Machines Corporation","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["[Letter from Kenith Ballard to Mr. Learson - 1971-12-06]","[Letter from Kenith Ballard to Mr. Learson - December 6, 1971]"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Texas. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth249556/"],"dcterms_temporal":["1939/2019"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["letters (correspondence)"],"dcterms_extent":["4 p. ; 28 cm., with a envelope 10 x 24 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Biggar, Charles P."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"int_jjhp_249577","title":"[Letter from Kenith L. Ballard to T. V. Learson - 1971-12-06]","collection_id":"int_jjhp","collection_title":"John J. Herrera Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Texas, Harris County, Alief, 29.71106, -95.59633"],"dcterms_creator":["Ballard, Kenith L."],"dc_date":["1971-12-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/png"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Business, Economics and Finance--Communications","International Business Machines Corporation","Retirement","Employees--Dismissal of","IBM"],"dcterms_title":["[Letter from Kenith L. Ballard to T. V. Learson - 1971-12-06]","[Letter from Kenith L. Ballard to T. V. Learson - December 6, 1971]"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Texas. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth249577/"],"dcterms_temporal":["1939/2019"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["letters (correspondence)"],"dcterms_extent":["4 p. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Learson, T. V.","Watson, Jr., Thomas J.","Herrera, John J."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"int_jjhp_249569","title":"[Letter from T. V. Learson to Kenith L. Ballard - 1971-10-08]","collection_id":"int_jjhp","collection_title":"John J. Herrera Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Texas, Harris County, Alief, 29.71106, -95.59633"],"dcterms_creator":["Learson, T. V."],"dc_date":["1971-10-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/png"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Business, Economics and Finance--Communications","International Business Machines Corporation","Retirement","Employees--Dismissal of","IBM"],"dcterms_title":["[Letter from T. V. Learson to Kenith L. Ballard - 1971-10-08]","[Letter from T. V. Learson to Kenith L. Ballard - October 8, 1971]"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Texas. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth249569/"],"dcterms_temporal":["1939/2019"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["letters (correspondence)"],"dcterms_extent":["2 p. ; 27 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Ballard, Kenith L."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":2,"next_page":3,"prev_page":1,"total_pages":4,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":12,"total_count":39,"first_page?":false,"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}}]}}