{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"gych_rogp_005","title":"Carl Sanders, 01 October 2006.","collection_id":"gych_rogp","collection_title":"Reflections on Georgia Politics oral history collection, 2006-2010","dcterms_contributor":["Short, Bob, 1932-"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Short, Bob, 1932","Sanders, Carl, 1925-2014"],"dc_date":["2006-10-01"],"dcterms_description":["Sanders discusses his upbringing in Augusta, his rise to Governor of Georgia in 1963, the 1970 gubernatorial race, and his career after politics. He shares his political philosophy on such issues as civil rights, education, and transportation.","Carl Edward Sanders was born in Augusta, Georgia, on May 15, 1925. He attended the University of Georgia, where he accepted a football scholarship. In 1943, before he could finish his college education, he enlisted in the Air Force and trained as a B-17 pilot. After World War II he returned to the University, finishing three years of law school in two years and passing the bar in 1947. Sanders entered private practice in Atlanta and eventually started the law firm of Sanders, Thurmond, Hester and Jolles. In 1954, he made a successful bid for the Georgia House of Representatives. In 1956, he won a seat in the Georgia Senate. At the time, the seat rotated between Richmond, Glascock, and Jefferson counties. Sanders was subsequently elected to the same seat by both Jefferson and Glascock counties due to his overwhelming popularity, becoming the only man to serve three consecutive terms in a multi-county district. In 1959, Governor Vandiver named Sanders floor leader of the senate. He went on to serve as president pro tempore of the senate from 1960 to 1962. Sanders took the next step in his political career by running for governor in 1962 against Marvin Griffin. Sanders won the election, making him at 37 the youngest governor in the country at the time. Sanders could not succeed himself as governor and, therefore, retired back into private life in 1967. Instead of returning to Augusta, he and his family remained in Atlanta where he started a new law firm. Sanders' final campaign for public office was in 1970, when he was defeated by Jimmy Carter in the governor's contest. Sanders never ran for public office again, but worked for many other Democratic candidates such as Zell Miller, Andrew Young, and Sam Nunn. He also went on to serve as finance chairman for the Democratic Party of Georgia during George Busbee's term as governor.","Finding aid available in repository.","Interviewed by Bob Short."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Reflections on Georgia Politics Oral History Collection","http://sclfind.libs.uga.edu/sclfind/view?docId=ead/RBRL220ROGP.xml"],"dcterms_subject":["Georgia. General Assembly. Senate","Georgia. General Assembly. House of Representatives","Legislators--Georgia--Interviews","Governors--Election","Governors--Georgia","Civil rights--Georgia","Civil rights--United States","Education--Georgia","Educations--United States","Transportation--Georgia","Transportation--United States","Civil rights","Education","Governors","Legislators","Transportation","Augusta (Ga.)--History","Georgia","Georgia","United States"],"dcterms_title":["Carl Sanders, 01 October 2006."],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.libs.uga.edu/russell/RBRL220ROGP-005/video"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Reflections on Georgia Politics Oral History Collection, ROGP 005, Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies, University of Georgia Libraries, Athens, Georgia, 30602-1641."],"dlg_local_right":["Resources may be used under the guidelines described by the U.S. Copyright Office in Section 107, Title 17, United States Code (Fair use). Parties interested in production or commercial use of the resources should contact the Russell Library for a fee schedule."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)","interviews"],"dcterms_extent":["1 interview (50 min.) : sd., col."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Carter, Jimmy, 1924-","Sanders, Carl, 1925-2014"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Carl Sanders interviewed by Bob Short \r\n2006 October 1 \r\nYoung Harris, GA \r\nReflections on Georgia Politics \r\nROGP-005 \r\nOriginal: video, 50 minutes \r\n \r\nsponsored by: \r\nRichard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies \r\nUniversity of Georgia Libraries \r\nand \r\nYoung Harris College \r\n \r\n BOB SHORT:  I'm Bob Short, and this is Reflections on Georgia Politics here at Young Harris College.  We're delighted to have you as our guest, and we're anxious to speak to you about yourself and your administration.  \r\n \r\n CARL SANDERS:  Well, I'm delighted to be here and I'm looking forward to talking to you.  \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Good.  Before we get into a serious discussion about your administration, would you mind telling us just a little bit about your early life and family and growing up in Augusta? \r\n \r\n SANDERS:  Well, I was born in 1925.  My father was with Swift \u0026 Company, the meat packing plant -- a salesman with them.  I grew up in Augusta and I grew up in an even-handed family that was god-fearing and dedicated to doing the right thing.  My mother was one of the most wonderful individuals that I have ever known.  And so, I had a very fine childhood.  \r\n When I was about seven or eight years old, my mother took me down and enrolled me in the YMCA.  They taught me how to swim.  They taught me how to play football, basketball, baseball.  Those sports were not in the public schools at that time.  And later, as a result of that, when I went to high school in Augusta at Richmond Academy, which is one of the finest schools that I have ever attended, I had played enough football that I got a scholarship -- a football scholarship -- to the University of Georgia.  Otherwise, I would not have gone to college.  I was the first individual in my family that ever attended college, and if it had not been for the athletic scholarship -- if it had not been for that training that the YMCA gave me -- I doubt if I would have gone.  So, I grew up in a family that was not very poor, but was not considered to be well-off.  I doubt seriously if my father ever made more than a couple hundred dollars a month.  And back in the Depression, much to my -- without my knowledge -- everybody got their salary cut in half in the Depression, including my family.  We had to give up buying a home and rent a home from the insurance company because of that.  But I never knew that, because I always had a good, healthy family relationship.  I had a brother.  As I said, my mother was just absolutely dedicated to her two sons.   \r\n And I assumed the opportunities in leadership that I could at a very young age.  I was captain of the school board patrol.  I used to stand out on the corner and protect the children coming and going from school.  I was President of my class in high school.  As I said, I made the all-state football team.  I had many good opportunities, but they were because I had a good family.  And I always look back on my life and treasure my mother and my father for helping me grow up and grow up in an environment where I could continue to go on and do other things.  \r\n Of course, when I left the University of Georgia after a year, I -- World War II came along.  There I was at Georgia, playing football, when I was on the freshman team of the University of Georgia's Rose Bowl team in 1943.  And I went to Georgia because I was -- at a very young age -- because back when I was in school, you only had eleven grades.  You didn't have the twelfth grade.  So, I went into the University of Georgia at a time when I was sixteen.  When I became seventeen-years-old, the war had broken out, and I did what every red-blooded young American boy wanted to do -- I came over here to Atlanta, and enlisted in the naval air corps.  They took my papers, filled them out, and after taking the papers, the Naval instructor said, \"You've got a problem.\"  I said, \"What kind of problem have I got?\"  He said, \"You're only seventeen years old.  You've got to go home and get your parent's consent.\"  So I said, \"Ok.\"  So, I went back to Augusta that weekend.  I got to thinking about trying to land an airplane on one of those carriers out in the ocean, with it bobbing up and down!  And I thought, you know, I don't believe I want to do that!  So, I went out to the air force base in Augusta and enlisted in the army air corps, at eighteen years old.  I went through pilot training.  I went through World War II as a first bomber on a B-17 bomber, which was the largest air craft that we had there, except for the B-29 at the end of the war.  I was the chief bomber.  The first bomber.  I had a ten-man crew.  I was the youngest.  I was nineteen years old, flying that plane.  I was the youngest man on the crew, but I was responsible for the crew.  \r\n I -- the war came -- ceased in 1945, when we dropped the atomic bomb.  I was headed to the eighth air force, having finished my overseas training, and the war ended.  I had a choice -- either stay in the air force for four more years, or get out and go back to school.  I chose to get out and go back to school.  In 1945, I went back to the University of Georgia.  I re-entered my athletic scholarship.  My brother and I -- who had come up -- who was two years younger than I was, and had not been in World War II, but later went to the Korean War, he and I played on the 1945 Georgia football team.  We went to the Oil Bowl, which was in Houston, Texas.  We beat Tulsa.  \r\n At that time, I had taken exams.  I really had only -- as I said -- a year of college work before I went in the service.  Georgia had an opportunity -- or gave me an opportunity to take exams -- as a returning veteran -- and anything I could pass, they'd give me college credit.  I took enough exams that I was able to go to law school with one quarter's work as an undergraduate.  So, I went into the law school, and when I did, I went to see Coach Butts, and said, \"I can't play football and go to law school.  It's just impossible for me to do both of those things.\"  Plus, the fact -- I was backing up to Johnny Rauch, who was playing -- who was an All-American that year, so I was playing more defense than I was offense.  So, it wasn't a big decision on my part. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  *Laughter* \r\n \r\n SANDERS:  So, I went to law school.  And, the law school at that time was crowded with World War II veterans returning.  The law school takes three years, normally, but they gave me an opportunity -- and others -- if we wanted to, to go around the clock.  Twelve months out of the year rather than just nine months.  I finished three years of law school in two years.  When I was in law school, switching over to politics, there were lots of people that were already running for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and so forth.  I had no interest at that point in politics, other than trying to get through law school, go back home, and get a job and go to work.  But anyway, I went around the clock for two years.  I took the bar exam before I finished law school.  You can't do that now, but back in those days they would allow you to do it.  I came over here with some friends who were taking the bar exam for practice.  I lucked out and passed the bar exam before I got out of law school.  Knowing that I was a lawyer then, and I could practice law, I asked my present wife of fifty-eight years, if she would entertain a marriage.  We got married in September of 1947, which was six months before I picked up my law degree.  We went back to Augusta, and I entered a small law firm in Augusta, Hammett \u0026 Kennedy.  It later became Hammett \u0026 Kennedy \u0026 Sanders.  I practiced law, primarily trying cases in the court room in front of juries for two or three years.   \r\n Richmond County was in the control, back in those days, of what was known as the Cracker Party, which is sort-of like the Tammany Hall was in New York.  One of the big participants in that was Roy Harris, who had previously been the Speaker of the House and the Georgia legislature, and who was an avowed segregationist in every way, shape, and form and fashion.  Some of us that had served in World War II and were veterans, decided that we didn't like the idea of having the county and the city controlled by the Cracker Party.  So, we joined the Independent Party, and took on the Cracker Party and beat them.  That was my first election in 1955 to the House of Representatives.  I came to Atlanta.  I served for two years in the House of Representatives.  \r\n Vandiver was running for Lieutenant Governor at that time, and he was getting ready to run for Governor.  I then decided to run for the Senate.  I ran for the Senate, which was a rotation back in those days of two or three counties for each Senatorial district.  My district was Richmond, Jefferson, and Glascock County.  I ran for the Senate as a -- for Richmond County.  I won the election.  I ran for the Senate for Jefferson County.  They gave up their right to have a Senator appointed, and I got elected again.  I ran for the Senate for the third time for Glascock County.  They gave up their right to have a Senator, and I served three terms in the Senate.  I was Vandiver's floor leader.  I later was elected President Pro Tem of the Senate, and that's when I then decided that maybe I ought to try to run state-wide.   \r\n Well, at that time, the Lieutenant Governor's position, of course, was not a very strong position, but it existed.  The candidate of the -- of the Vandiver group, initially, was Peter Zack Geer, who was Ernie Vandiver's Executive Secretary.  I was President Pro Tem of the Senate, so I announced that I was going to run for Lieutenant Governor and Peter Zack Geer announced that he was going to run for Lieutenant Governor.  We started campaigning.  This was in 1961 and '62, and while I was campaigning for Lieutenant Governor, I was down in Dublin, Georgia, making a speech, and the editor of the local paper came up to me and said, \"Have you heard the news?\"  I said, \"No. What's the news?\"  He said, \"A retired Atlanta policeman, who's now a lawyer by the name of Carl F. Sanders, has just announced that he's going to run for Lieutenant Governor.\" \r\n \r\n SHORT:  *Laughter* \r\n \r\n SANDERS:  I said, \"You've got to be kidding!\"  He said, \"No, it's on the news.\"  So, I went back to Atlanta and I thought about how I was going to get people to distinguish between Carl E. and Carl F. Sanders.  I knew that Peter Zack Geer and some of his friends had gotten that guy to get in the race.  So, I said to myself, \"That seems like an impossible thing.\"  So, I said, \"I'm going to run for Governor.\"  And then all of a sudden these people from all over Georgia started coming in, saying, \"Don't get in the Governor's race.  We've got the county locked up for you for Lieutenant Governor.\"  And I said, \"It's too late.  I'm in the Governor's race.\"  \r\n So, I started in the Governor's race.  Marvin Griffin announced -- who was the former Governor -- with Garland Byrd, who was the Lieutenant Governor, and two or three other non-descript candidates.  And we started running in 1962, campaigning for the Governorship for Georgia.  I opened my campaign in Statesboro, Georgia, which was the home of my wife.  And, of course, I didn't know at that time how much it took -- what kind of effort it took to really run a state-wide race, but I learned very quickly.  It took a lot of money back in those days, not the kind of money that it takes today, but it also took an all-out effort.  The county unit system was still in existence when I announced.  And I knew that.  But I still believed that I could win.  The county unit system in the middle of the campaign in 1962, the Supreme Court of Georgia -- of the United States, not Georgia -- came down with a decision outlawing the county unit system, and putting it on a popular vote.  I campaigned, both under the county unit system and under the popular vote system.  I won the election over Marvin Griffin.  I would have won it whether we were under the county unit system or under the popular vote system.  I would have won it if we'd been voting just with white votes.  I would have won it if we'd just been voting for black votes.  And I won it anyway you could win it.  And, of course, that was a wonderful experience, and something that I'll never forget.  \r\n But, right after I won the campaign for Governor, the -- Vandiver announced -- or the courts announced that we had to redistrict the state of Georgia, the Senate, the House.  And Vandiver said to me, \"You are now the Governor elect.  I don't have anymore time other than to serve out my term.  That's your responsibility, not mine.\"  I said, \"You've got to be kidding.\"  He said, \"Yeah, you've got to redistrict the Senate.\"  So, I had to take on -- before I became Governor -- I was still a member of the Senate -- the responsibility of recreating the legislative districts for the Georgia Senate.  I saw men and women -- not too many women in the General Assembly back in those days -- stand up after I explained to them that most of them, when they were in their new districts -- would never again be able to sit in the Senate and serve, because they were -- their district wouldn't allow it.  And I was able to get enough Senators to agree that we had to go ahead and redistrict the Senate, even though many of them would never come back -- to put that bill through the General Assembly.  Therefore, that took me up to the inauguration.   \r\n At the inauguration, of course, we had the normal things that you have when a Governor.  We moved from Augusta to Atlanta, and moved into the old mansion out in Ansley Park.  The Ansley Park mansion was a -- recently had been a residence -- a home.  It was a big rock house.  And it was not the most delightful place to live.  In fact, many of things didn't function that normally would function in a house.  The type of labor that you had was prison labor.  My wife, god bless her soul, said to Ben Fortson, who was the Secretary of State, \"I don't know whether I would like to live in a house being manned by prison labor.\"  Mr. Fortson said, \"Well, if you don't want to do that, we'll hire some civilian labor.\"  Well, he hired some civilian labor.  He was in charge of the upkeep of the mansion.  Of course, civilian labor came to work at eight o'clock in the morning, and got off at five o'clock in the afternoon.  Prison labor came to work at whatever time you needed them in the morning, and didn't go back to the prison till sometime when you needed them -- when you finished later in the evening.  So, after that short period of time, my wife said, \"You know, I wouldn't mind going back to prison labor. See if we can do that.\"  So we did that.  And, of course, we lived in that mansion through the four years that I was Governor.  But we knew -- and I knew -- from the very beginning, that that was not the kind of mansion that Georgia needed for the kind of state that we were.  So, I undertook while I was Governor, the job of building the new mansion, knowing that I would never live in it.  Because you can't build a mansion for yourself, you've got to build it for whoever will succeed you.  We were able, through my wife's efforts and the efforts of many other good Georgians, to put together the land out on West Paces Ferry Road to build a beautiful new mansion.  While I was building that mansion, the biggest critic -- one of the biggest critics in our hair -- was Lester Maddox, who was writing a column in the Atlanta papers every week, telling me what an idiotic fool I was for building a new mansion.  And the irony of it was that he wound up being the first one to live in it, and he never wanted to move out after he lived in it! \r\n \r\n SHORT:  *Laughter*  Well, there's no doubt, Governor, that you and your administration completely turned Georgia around.  You were responsible for a lot of the programs and, particularly, the national image that changed while you were in office.  Would you explain to us how the state of Georgia survived the great crisis of school integration and the loss of the county unit system? \r\n \r\n SANDERS:  Well, I think one of the most important decisions that I ever made was the decision that I was involved in before I became the Governor.  Ernie Vandiver had run for Governor on a campaign of \"No, not one.  Not ever one in the public schools.\"  Meaning, not ever one -- not having a black student.  The Supreme Court and the federal courts had come down with the order of integrating the schools.  The University of Georgia was under the gun for the admission of Charlayne Hunter and Hamilton Holmes, who were two black students.  Ernie Vandiver called a meeting out at the Governor's mansion in 1961, I guess it was. '61 or '62.  And said to the group that was there -- and I was invited because I was the President Pro Tem in the Senate -- that, \"I've got to make the decision of whether or not to close the University of Georgia.  And I'd like to go around the room to find out what the sentiment is as to what I might want to do.\"  There were fifty-some odd leaders from all over the state.  He went around the room asking for an indication of what he should do.  Forty-eight out of the fifty said close the University of Georgia.  Myself and Frank Twitty, from Camilla, Georgia, who was a House member, were the only two individuals at that meeting that said to Governor Vandiver, \"You cannot shut down the University of Georgia.  If you did that, you not only would ruin the state, but you would create a generation of illiterates.  And you shouldn't do that.\"  He took our advice and the advice of the others, thought about it, and fortunately decided that he would not close the University of Georgia.  So, that was a decision that was made by me, and I think it helped him.  He -- he certainly gets credit for not closing the University.  But I think the decisions and encouragement from me and Frank Twitty had a heck of a lot to do with him making the decision that he wouldn't go through with closing the University of Georgia.  Therefore, that was a very important decision in the dynamics of the state of Georgia.   \r\n After I ran for Governor, and, of course, I ran on a ticket of what we needed to do for this state, not on a ticket of what we were -- shouldn't do so far as races were concerned.  I have never run a political campaign, either as a legislator or as a candidate for Governor of Georgia, and used racial division as the basis of my campaign.  When I ran for Governor, every Governor that I've ever known prior to that time, had always had some racial card that was involved in their gubernatorial campaign.  I don't know what caused me to think that way.  Maybe it was my mother, maybe it was some co-chairs or maybe it was some people that I grew up with.  But I just never had the feeling that there was a big difference between whether my skin was white and whether your skin might be a different color.   \r\n I had a paper route when I was a kid.  Made seventy-five cents a week.  Gave my mother fifty cents and kept a quarter.  I didn't know how to throw papers -- to throw them up on the steps of the people.  There was a -- a black paper carrier named Charles Butler, who told me how to fold the papers so that I could throw them.  He later became the principal of the high school in Augusta, Georgia, and I put him on the state Board of Education when I was the Governor of Georgia.  But I grew up with no bias, no prejudice, and I never had any prejudices or bias.  \r\n I have always been a strong supporter, as you know, of the YMCA.  The YMCA eventually encompassed no racial division.  I work out, now, three times a week, with one of the best friends that I've got.  I met a black trainer by the name of Tony McKlinnon.  He and I have been working out for twenty-five years, starting at the Luckie Street YMCA in Atlanta, Georgia.  And I've got friends on all sides.  \r\n But I never did -- when I was Governor -- I never did get -- I kept Georgia from being dragged down the path and the race that took over in Alabama and took over in Mississippi and took over in Arkansas.  I kept pointing to the future of Georgia as a place where people can come and live in peace, people can raise their children, people can get a good education.  And those were the things that I kept focused on while all this other turmoil was going on all around us.  And as a result, Georgia became the leader of the South.  Georgia -- Atlanta still maintains, I think, the leadership in the South.  People move into Georgia that wouldn't have moved in otherwise.  Companies came to Georgia -- industries are located here.  All of those things took place because people looked at Georgia as a different type of state in the South -- than you could find in other Southern states.  That, I think, is one of the legacies that I have helped leave to the people of Georgia, and one that I am most proud of.  \r\n \r\n SHORT:  You also opened Georgia on the national scene by cooperating, instead of criticizing, the federal government, which all your predecessors had done.  You became a good friend to President Johnson and the national administration, which we all believed helped Georgia.  \r\n \r\n SANDERS:  Well, I did become a good friend of Lyndon Johnson, because in 1964 -- when he ran for the Presidency -- and I was the Chairman of the Democratic Party and he was the Democratic candidate, the two United States Senators from Georgia -- Senator Russell and Senator Talmadge -- Senator Russell went to Spain and spent the summer in Spain inspecting military bases, Senator Talmadge went underground and wouldn't show up at any of the functions.  So I carried that Democratic banner.  And I carried it to -- to my political disadvantage, later in 1970, when I offered again to run for Governor.  But I felt like -- that Lyndon Johnson had been good to Georgia.  While he was President, we got the largest contract ever granted out in Lockheed to build the C-5A transport plane.  I got to be Chairman of the Appalachian Governor's Commission.  We got all kinds of federal funds for hospitals and schools and other types of things in northern Georgia that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise.  But you know, I -- I would have been an ingrate in 1964 if I had done what others had done and had refused to ride with -- step up with and vote for the individual who done so much for my state.  So that's why I did it.  Later, it was used by my opponent in 1970 as a way of defeating my campaign.  But I don't regret one minute of it.  I would do it over again if the circumstances were still the same. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  When you took office, your prime goal, as outlined in your inaugural address, was education.  If I recall correctly, you said, \"If there is a star in the show in the next four years, it will be the Georgia child.\"  \r\n \r\n SANDERS:  You got that right!  And I meant to -- and we accomplished that.  And I'll tell you why I did that.  To me, the most precious thing that any individual can have, is freedom.  Freedom to think.  Freedom to act.  And the only way you can have freedom, in my book, is through education.  Education creates freedom, and therefore, it was my intention to make sure that we had the best educational program that we could ever have.  \r\n When I was in the Senate, I went to California.  I stood at the California community college system.  I found that out there you could go to a community college any time you wanted to, tuition free.  And I came back to Georgia and said if I ever got elected Georgia's Governor, I was going to create something similar to that.  Because you couldn't put all the boys and girls who lived in Georgia -- either up in Athens or in Atlanta -- at Tech or the University of Georgia.   \r\n So, we built eight or ten junior colleges and converted four junior colleges into four-year community colleges while I was Governor.  Those colleges allowed boys and girls to stay at home and go to the community college, and later go to the senior colleges if they wanted to, when in many cases, those junior colleges became senior colleges.  And that elevated the educational opportunity for boys and girls in Georgia, to a greater step than they had ever been elevated before.  I put sixty cents out of every dollar of revenue into education.  No Governor has ever done that since, no Governor has ever done that before.  I raised the faculty salaries of the University of Georgia faculty thirty-five percent.  I built more buildings and more brick and mortar in four years, than had been built in the entire previous history of the University of Georgia system.  So, education was primary in my administration.  I was awarded the National Golden Key award, for the best education program in America at that time.  It's in there on my -- in my conference room.  And, of course, I had the privilege of taking my seventh-grade school teacher up to New York with me to receive that award.  But I had been as proud of the education program that we put into effect when I was Governor, as anything that I have ever done.  \r\n We did many other things.  You know, to me -- people ask, \"Well, what does the Governor really do?\"  A Governor takes advantage of the opportunities that come before him while he's Governor of Georgia.  And he either takes advantage of those opportunities and makes things happen, or he let's them go by and doesn't let them happen.  And that's what leadership is all about.  You have leadership, you've got to take some risks and you've got to step forward and take -- take advantage of the opportunities when they come before you, or something's going to go by and it's too late to do it.  I took advantage of every opportunity that I could possibly take advantage of when I was Governor of Georgia.  \r\n Another program that we got a great deal of industrial development out of was the building of airports.  I campaigned in 1962, in a little single-engine Comanche airplane, because I'd been a fighter pilot in the war.  We only had about twenty-five to thirty airports in the entire state of Georgia, and half of those were auxiliary fields in World War II.  I landed on tops of mountains, in cow pastures, in other places that you've never dreamed about.  They'd have to shoo the cows off the pasture for me to be able to take off!  So, I said to myself, when I became Governor, \"I'm going to look into what we can do about airports.\"  I went to the County Commission Association meeting and the I said to the County Commissioners, \"Wouldn't you fellows like to have an airport developing program?\"  They looked at me like I was crazy and said, \"No, we are interested in roads, not airports.\"  And I said, \"Well, thank you very much.\"  So I went back and I checked into the -- the airport funds in Washington, D.C., and I found out I could get a grant for a community airport provided that the state put up half the money, and then the national government would put up half the money, and all the County Commissioner would have to do is provide a strip of land -- three thousand feet long -- to build a community airport.  My administration built seventy-three community airports in the four years that I was Governor.  That was the number one airport development program in America for every one of those four years.  What that did -- that allowed industries who were located -- were looking for locations in Georgia and who lived outside of the state -- to get in their King Air's airplanes, and fly to a community that had an airport.  Probably a rural community that had an industrial site that needed a plant.  They could fly in there, look at this industrial sites, fly back and make a decision.  Before, they would have had to go to Atlanta, get in an automobile, drive two or three hours to the location.  And they wouldn't do that!  So, we brought in more new industry than we could have ever imagined, because we had those airports!  You can't get ten thousand feet in Georgia today, and look around in an airplane, and not see an air strip in Georgia.  We've got more community airstrips than any state that I know of, and -- that was a great program.  We just had a variety of programs. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Well, along with that, you created the Department of Family and Children Services.  From the old welfare system --   \r\n \r\n SANDERS:  I did do that.  I did that because back in those days they'd take kids -- juveniles -- that had gotten into trouble and they'd put them in the common jail for the weekend with the hardened prisoners.  And god knows what they would learn over in that three or four day stay.  We didn't have juvenile detention centers.  But I built juvenile detention centers in every one of the Congressional districts of Georgia, so that it was not a prison, but if a kid got in trouble, they could take him into the juvenile detention centers.  We had psychologists there that could train them and work with them for the weekend.  They weren't thrown into a prison with a common criminal.  And as a result, we saved many -- many of the young people who otherwise would have gone down the road of the criminal life.  But we made them productive and brought them back into our society and gave them an opportunity to become good citizens. \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Another hallmark of your administration was the Governor's Honors Program.  \r\n \r\n SANDERS:  That was another program that we developed.  We took the top students from the high schools around Georgia, and sent them on down to Macon, Georgia -- I think Wesleyan College is where we located it -- and let them learn for the first time.  They were sort of like me when I went to Georgia on a football scholarship.  We had sixty freshmen football players.  I thought, because I'd been an all-state football player, that I was one of the best football players in the state or in the southeast.  When I got up there, I found out that it was -- a lot of them could outrun me, were bigger and stronger than I was, and that I wasn't nearly as invincible as I thought I was when I was playing football at Richmond Academy.  I used that same theory on these high school students.  Kids that thought they were the smartest kid that had ever come down the drain in their particular school went to Wesleyan.  Went down there for eight weeks or ten weeks in the summer, and found out that they weren't nearly as smart as some of the kids in other parts of the state.  They had to work harder, but they went back home with a whole different attitude about what they needed to do to improve their old situation.  That was a very successful program.  \r\n \r\n SHORT:  You had a great administration.  You left office as one of the most popular Governors Georgia has ever had.  But it was rumored at one time that you were considering running for the United States Senate.  \r\n \r\n SANDERS:  That -- that rumor went around.  It was rampant.  It got so hot that President Johnson and Senator Russell called me up to the White House and said to me, \"Would you like to be a judge?\"  This is my last year, I'm getting ready to get out.  And they said, \"How about the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals?\"  I said, \"No, I don't want to be a judge.\"  They said, \"Well, how about being the ambassador to the Philippines?\"  I said, \"What would I do in the Philippines?\"  They said, \"Well, you'd help us get rid of those Communists over there.\" \r\n \r\n SHORT:  *Laughter* \r\n \r\n SANDERS:  I said, \"No, I don't want to do that.\"  And finally, they said, \"What about something like the Secretary of Commerce?\"  And I said, \"No, I'm not interested -- I'm really not interested in coming to Washington.  What I would like is -- I'd like for the next appointment to the federal bench in the northern district of Georgia to go to Hiram Undereofler, who I had taken away from his law practice in Americus to put him as the Revenue Commissioner.  And I knew that after four years he had had difficulty going back home to try to recreate a law practice.  Senator Russell said, \"No problem.  He'll get the next appointment.\"  Well, the next appointment came up, and he didn't get it.  I found out, which most people already know, if you don't get your half of the political deal up front, you better watch out.  \r\n \r\n SHORT:  *Laughter* \r\n \r\n SANDERS:  You may not ever get to the other half!  So, the appointment came up and Neil Redfield got it, who turned out to be a very good judge, and I had no problem with him.  But I had been promised the appointment for Hiram Undereofler.  Fortunately, I had in my coat pocket when that happened, the resignation of one of the justices of the Georgia Supreme Court.  And I was able to put Hiram Undereofler on the Supreme Court.  He later became the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and had an outstanding career.  \r\n But I never really wanted to go to Washington and serve in the Congress.  Most of the Governors that I served with, when I was Governor -- who later went to the United States Senate -- said to me, \"It's different.  You're not in charge of your own decisions.  You can't make the decisions like you made when you were Governor of Georgia.  You sit in there with a body of 110 individuals, and you sit and vegetate for about twelve years before you get enough influence to be effective at all.\"  At that time too, the -- my children were teenagers.  My wife was not anxious to go to Washington.  The hippie movement was moving through the country.  I did not want to take my children and my wife to Washington during that period of time. I -- I didn't know what might happen to them, but I knew that if I stayed home and I looked after them and they looked after me, then I'd have a much better situation than I would if I were sitting in the Senate in Washington, D.C., waiting for my time ten or twelve years later to do something effective for Georgia.  So, I didn't do it.  I've never regretted it.  I  glory in the people who have done it and who have had successful careers in Washington.  I made up my mind when I left the Governor's office, that I would stay in Georgia.  That I would go back to the practice of law.  And that I would look after my family.  \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Well, in the interim between your leaving the office in 1970, you established this law firm.  \r\n \r\n SANDERS:  I started this law firm in 1967 with two lawyers -- Norman Underwood, who you know, and another lawyer who graduated from the University of Georgia named Dale Schwartz.  I moved into the commerce building with the two lawyers, and started to practice law.  I could have gone into any other one of the big law firms in Atlanta, but I would have been just a partner, and I would not have been the originator or the founder.  I chose to build the law firm myself, rather than do that.  Some others have done that, and that's not a bad way to go.  But I've always liked to build things and try to stay in charge of my own destiny.  So, I started with the two lawyers.  I continued to attract more lawyers to the firm.  I was able to increase the business of the firm.  Today, almost forty years later, we have 650 lawyers.  We have offices all over the world.  We're in Hong Kong, Shanghai, London.  We're in New York.  We're in Washington.  We're in Richmond.  We're all over Virginia, North Carolina, and Atlanta.  And the truth of the matter is, it's gotten too big.  I get on the elevator and I don't know whether I'm looking at a partner, an associate, or a client, or some fellow who just got on the elevator by mistake! \r\n \r\n SHORT:  *Laughter* \r\n \r\n SANDERS:  But it's been a wonderful experience to be able to go back to the field of law, the practice of law, and be able to find the heights that I've got now.  And, of course, I'm now at the point in life where I recently told them, \"Make me the Chairman Emeritus, and I will do what I need to do and what I want to do.  And I won't be worried about getting up every morning -- early in the morning, and working till midnight at night.  But I'm going to let the rest of you do that while I try to relax for a while.\"  \r\n \r\n SHORT:  And then we come to the 1970s.  You had made the decision to run again for Governor. \r\n \r\n SANDERS:  Correct.  And I thought that it was a good opportunity because I still had some things in my mind that I hadn't finished, and some things that I thought I might want to do that had come to mind during the time that I was out of the Governor's office.  So, I announced for Governor, and, much to my surprise and my gratitude, I got the endorsements of most of the newspapers in the state.  I got the support of most of the business community in the state.  And, of course, I found my opponent to be Jimmy Carter, who had previously run against Lester Maddox, and who was running again for the Governor's office.  That didn't bother me, because I thought we would have a very solid campaign, and we would discuss the issues -- education, the industry, and things of that kind.  But much to my surprise, we didn't have that type of campaign.  He took the position that I was now an Atlanta lawyer, and that I was a friend of Lyndon Johnson, and I had had something to do with integrating the public schools, and that that was not the kind of things that you wanted in a Governor.  He took the position that he -- that he believed in segregation, that George Wallace was his cousin, and that the segregated type of operation in government was preferred over the kind that I had stood for.  I got positioned and politicked as an Atlanta lawyer, who was a friend of Georgia's integration policy.  He positioned himself as a south Georgia redneck candidate, who didn't believe in that.  But, contrary to everything else, people, when they voted -- because of the race card that they had been played -- voted in favor of his election, and not mine.  I look upon that sometimes, as a disaster.  But, in reality, I look upon it as an opportunity for me to do the other things that I've done in life -- in business and in law.  Ironically, the inaugural address of Governor Carter was that if you've come to him to talk about segregation, you've come to the wrong place.  Integration is here, segregation is over, Martin Luther King, Jr. is the man that I most admire and the things that I told you during the election, you forget about those, and discard those.  They were just campaign opportunities.  I'm a completely different person.  And I think he is.  And I -- as a result of serving as Governor, he didn't have an easy role, because Lester Maddox got elected Lieutenant Governor at the same time he got to be the Governor.  So, everything that he tried to do as Governor was always a fuss and a fight with Lester over whether it could be done.  But later he undertook the campaign for Presidency of this country.  He got elected, much to the surprise of many of us when he first started.  And, of course, he's been -- I think, a better ex-President than he ever was a President.  He has gone out into the world and done some great things.  And I admire the things that he's done.  \r\n I've come to the conclusion that politics, you know, is a tough business.  Sometimes it's dirty.  But, you've got to be willing to take the good with the bad if you want to participate.  And I've had a little bit of all of it.  But, I've come out of it, and in good fashion.  And I've still got my family and I've got my friends and my law practice and I've got my former political career.  I'm not mad at anybody.  I'm not trying to get - trying to take retribution on anybody who didn't support or didn't vote for me.  I'm as happy as a clam can be.  I'm 81 years old.  My health is still good.  My family is in good shape, except for the loss of a grandson a few months ago.  But I thank the lord everyday for what he has provided me with, to do the things that I've done in life.  \r\n \r\n SHORT:  You've been a great public servant.  Now, may I ask you one more question?  What do you think about today's party politics?  \r\n \r\n SANDERS:  Well, it's hard to figure out what party is which party!  When I was in politics, many of the so-called Republican party supporters were Democrats.  Today, the Democratic party in Georgia is not made up of the same types and the same groups that it was made up of when I was in office.  When I was in office, the community leaders  Ivan Allen in Atlanta and a lot of others all through the state -- they ran as Democrats.  Today they would run as Republicans.  I don't know how this thing is going to finally balance itself out.  But, too often, people say, if you're a Democrat, you're a wild-eyed liberal.  If you're a Republican, you're a conservative.  That's a lot of malarky!  People -- good people -- can be found in either one of the parties.  But it looks like Georgia, for the time being, has taken the road that they're going to be Republicans -- for how long, I don't know, over the fact that the Democrats ran and ruled this state for a hundred years.  \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Thank you, Governor.  \r\n \r\n SANDERS:  Amen! \r\n \r\n SHORT:  Amen!  \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n "},{"id":"geh_vacl_70","title":"Willie Ricks interview (Part 2 of 2)","collection_id":"geh_vacl","collection_title":"Voices Across The Color Line Oral History Collection, 2005-2006","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383"],"dcterms_creator":["Ricks, Willie, 1943-","Merritt, Carole"],"dc_date":["2006-03-16"],"dcterms_description":["In his second interview, Willie Ricks expands on his experiences as a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in Lowndes County, Alabama. He explains how he became SNCC’s minister, a field secretary, how he actively organized demonstrations, and how he helped organize the Lowndes County Freedom Organization. Ricks also describes the different positions about nonviolence among the members of the Civil Rights Movement.","Civil Rights activist, Willie Ricks, also known as Mukasa Dada, was a community organizer, leader, and a member of SNCC. Ricks was born and raised in Chattanooga, Tennessee. His parents were born in a plantation area of Alabama near Muscle Shoals, Alabama. He actively planned and organized sit-ins, marches and public demonstrations throughout Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":["VIS 180.025.002"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center, 130 West Paces Ferry RD, Atlanta, GA 30305"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["MSS 990, Voices Across the Color Line oral history transcriptions, Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--History","Civil rights","Racism","Race discrimination","Race relations","African Americans","Police","Police--Georgia","Politics \u0026 government--Georgia","Religion","Education","Transportation","National Association for the Advancement of Colored People","American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia","Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (U.S.)","Southern Christian Leadership Conference","Howard High School (Chattanooga, Tenn.)"],"dcterms_title":["Willie Ricks interview (Part 2 of 2)"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://www.youtube.com/embed/kZpUak4YLyA"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VACL/id/70"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S Code) Permission for use must be cleared through The Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":["02:01:42 hours"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Ricks, Willie, 1943-","Vivian, C. T.","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","Luizzo, Viola","Cooley, John","Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","Bogolman, Dorothy","Bond, Horace Mann, 1904-1972"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vacl_69","title":"Willie Ricks interview (Part 1 of 2)","collection_id":"geh_vacl","collection_title":"Voices Across The Color Line Oral History Collection, 2005-2006","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383"],"dcterms_creator":["Ricks, Willie, 1943-","Merritt, Carole"],"dc_date":["2006-01-24"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, Willie Ricks describes his involvement in the Civil Rights Movement beginning in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He participated in the movement in several southern locations: Albany, Georgia, Lowndes County, Alabama, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Montgomery, Alabama. Ricks also describes the conflict between SCLC and SNCC and the differences between each organization.","Civil Rights activist, Willie Ricks, also known as Mukasa Dada, was a community organizer, leader, and a member of SNCC. Ricks was born and raised in Chattanooga, Tennessee. His parents were born in a plantation area of Alabama near Muscle Shoals, Alabama. He actively planned and organized sit-ins, marches and public demonstrations throughout Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":["VIS 180.025.001"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center, 130 West Paces Ferry RD, Atlanta, GA 30305"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["MSS 990, Voices Across the Color Line oral history transcriptions, Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--History","Civil rights","Racism","Race discrimination","Race relations","African Americans","Police","Police--Georgia","Politics \u0026 government--Georgia","Religion","Education","Transportation","National Association for the Advancement of Colored People","American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia","Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (U.S.)","Southern Christian Leadership Conference","Howard High School (Chattanooga, Tenn.)"],"dcterms_title":["Willie Ricks interview (Part 1 of 2)"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://www.youtube.com/embed/1TaUuj5_XMc"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VACL/id/69"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S Code) Permission for use must be cleared through The Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":["2:02:18 hours"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Ricks, Willie, 1943-","Vivian, C. T.","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","Luizzo, Viola","Cooley, John","Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","Bogolman, Dorothy","Bond, Horace Mann, 1904-1972"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1772","title":"Court filings regarding Joshua's response to court's order, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2006-01/2006-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Education--Finance","Magnet schools","Education--Evaluation","Transportation","Pulaski County Special School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Joshua's response to court's order, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1772"],"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":["51 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Joshua's reply to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply to Joshua's response to court's order of November 8, 2005; District Court, notice of filing, LRSD preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education; District Court, order; District Court, notices of filing, four Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools; District Court, notice of electronic filing, order; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    MAGNET REVIEIAI Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3997 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTIUCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNCSION P. 002/008 LITI1.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW .ITR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERlNE W. KNIGHT, ET AL . DEfEND.ANT INTER VENO RS INTERVENOR$ .JOSHUA S SURREPLY TO LRSD S REPLY TO .JOSHUA S RESPONSE TO COURT s ORDER OF NOVEMBER 8, 200s __ _,.Joshua requests to engage in discovery in anticipation of further proceedings including a possible hearing. Joshua. respectfully responds to the LRSD s reply to the Joshua Intervenors Response to the Court s Order ofNovember 8, 200S: 1 . The special education cost increases are not adequately c,cplained. Careful review of the reply indicates thnt the District did not identify salazyincreases nor employees U\u0026gt; be replaced who arc more senior and better educated. Moreover, of the $114,676.00 increasc'only $S000.00 is explained. The explanation otherwise has to be that each current employee will be give a $5000.00 salary increase. Joshua simply docs not understand this and it makes no sense. Furthermore, teachers and employees elsewhere in the district are not being given similar consideration as that which appears to be proposed. The consequence of disparate treatment would be to favor magnet school srudents and to disfavor regular school students of whom most in the special education curriculum arc African American. MAGNET REVIEW P.003/008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3997 Filed 01/05/2006 . Page 2 of 3 2. During public board meetings Board member Katherine Mitchell complained that students in a number of the regular schools did not have textbooks as of October, 2005. She indicated that the district did not have textbooks purchases for students as a priority. The district does not commit the $239,855.00 for textbooks. It simply says that the increase is related to its adoption of new textbooks in certain subjects. Joshua s concern is that LRSD s material and supply costs favor the students in the magnet schools to the possibl~ comparative detriment of the students in the regular schools, especially those who ore underachieving. 3. The district explains the $258,640.00 indirect costs increase as being for  adminis~ve fees, the percentage rate of which was changed during 2004-2005. A raise of that amount would necessarily mean that the budget is being increased by more than $1. 75 million dollars, i.e., the fee base is more than SI. 75 million dollars. Joshua attaches the MRC minutes of September 20, 2005 which contain Mr. Mark Millhollen s explanation of the budget request. (Joshua Exhibit 1, page 3) In it, Mr. Millhollen indicates that the proposed budget increase is $900,000.00 half of which is for salary increases and the other part is for textbooks. Two things about this: 1) a fee base of 15% would increase the administrative costs amount by $135,000 rather than $258,000; and 2) it materially differs from the rationale submitted bytbe district to the court for the increases. 4. Joshua disputes that the closure of Mitchell and Rightsc:1.1 are unrelated to tbe MRC s proposed budgetS. Those two schools had low enrollments and out dated physical ~1rUcturcs for many years but they were still maintained for use during the student assignment plan. The students in those schools are entitled to equal education and services wherever they were assigned. An assessment of the budget, we believe, will demonstrate that the students in the closed schools have been adversely affected bythcir reassignments while the students in the ' . MAGNET REVIEW P. 004/008 ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3997 Flle.d 01/05/2006 Page 3 of 3 magnet schools have had their education advantages and services enhanced. The district argues that it spends less to operate the stipulation magnets due to contributions from the State and the two other school districts. This misses the point. The question is whether the budget increases are adequately justified irrespective of who is paying the costs. We submit that the district may not advantage the magnet schools more ~y than the regular schools simply because the State, NLRSD and PCS SD are supplemental sources of funding. WHEREFORE. Joshua requC?Sts that the court afford Joshua the opportunity to explore the matter further by way of discovery as authorized by the federal rules; chat after such discovery, Joshua reports to the court its concerns and the evidentiarybasis therefor; and that the court at that time determine whether further proceedings arc necessazy. Respectfully submitted, /s/ John W, Walker _____________ ___,John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-37S8 501-3744187 (fax) Email: jobnwalkeratty@nol.cQID CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing response has been filed -with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system on this Sth day of January, 2005 whae copies are fur.warded to all counsel of record. Isl John W. Walker I I ' MAGNET REVIEW MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES September 20, 2005 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101. North Little Rock, Arkansas, on Tuesday. Scpcember 20, 2005. Members Present: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson - LRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Dr. Marvin Jeter, PCSSD Absent: Guests: Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intc:rvencrs Danny Reed, NLRSD Gene Jones, Associate Monitor- Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mark Milhollen, ChiefFmancial Officer - LRSD Jean Ring, Director ofFmance and Accounting - LRSD Horace Smith, Associate Monitor-Office of Desegregation Monitoring The meeting was called to order at 8:45 a.m. by Chairperson Dr. Sadie .M'itchell. She immediately called for a reading of the minutes of June 29, 2005. Dr. Mitchell asked if there were any corrections or deletions to be made. Marcia Harding made a motion to accept the rmnutes as presented, and Oliver Dillingham seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Donna Grady Creer provided the Executive Director's repolt. She called the Committee's attention to items m correspondence. The first item was a letter to the Court, notifying the Court that the interdistrict magnet schools budget would not be submined by the June 30111 self.:imposed deadline but that. hopefully, the budget process would be completed within the month ofJuly. Copies of the Ietterweregiveri to MR.C members, but no action was required by the MRC.  P.005/008 MAGNET REVIEW  duals in all three school districts to thank them for . ~:i;,w -'~:)~i: _29, 200~ meeting. Copies oftbememoranduin ,,_;.,-,. for their infonnation . . .: ~~~; ... .:~ _ _. \"\"''\" tc, all three school districts' Student Registration Offices were  ,;: . ,, . . This memprandwn suggested dates for the annua! \"swap . . _ , , iPagnet seats a.s possible before the beginning of the new school  ~ ,,, required b the MRC. ljf.\"' y ~~-~~~~t: . . . .. .. ,.,, :- -~-  was sent to John W. Walker, Attorney at Law. in response to a letter ~~    ::: ...  w..a.a:s office requesting copies of all information from the MR.C Office prior t .  ~ MRC meeting. Copies were given to MRC members, but no action was Ttq\\1\\fed' t\u0026gt;jtnc\\Vfit\\:.. A thank-you memorandum was sent to participants at the aruiual \"swap meet\" which was held in the MRC Office. Copies were given to MRC members for their information. Mann Magnet bas been given the opportunity to decorate the tree for the annual CART! Festival of Trees via a memorandum from Ms. Creer. Copies were given to MRC members for their perusal. A letter was sent to the Court to provide information that the imerdistrict magnet schools budget still was not fioaliud. due to teacher contract negotiatiom still in progress. Copies of the letter were given to MRC members, but no action was required by the MRC.  - Copie., of a letter to Lisa Meyer, Director of Mall Marketing. McCain Mall, were given to MRC members. This leaer informed Ms. Meyer that the MRC is happy to be workmg with her again this year to host the Magnet Fair on Jamwy 21, 2006.   A memorandum was sent to magnet school principals providing reauitrnent information for the 2005-06 school year, and of the activities that are being planned. Copies were  given to MRC members, but no action was required on the pan of the MRC. Congramlations memorandums were sent to Diane Barksdale, Principal at Carver . Magnet, and Dr. Cheryl Carson. Principal at Booker Magnet, for hosting successful Open . Houses. Copies were given to MRC members for their information. Bills in the amount of S3, 181. 70 wc:re presented for payment. Oliver Dillirigbam made a . motion to pay the bills, and Marcia Harding seconded the motio.a. The: motion carried unanimously to pay the: bills. -2- P. 006/008 ' MAGNEr REVIEW There were no newspaper articles since the previous Magnet Review Committee meeting that are specifically related to magnet schools. With regard to recruitment, Ms. Creer has bad the opportunity to go to Open Houses. She did go to Booker, Carver, Henderson, and J. A Fair. All of them had a great turnout. Oliver Dillingham said he attended Mann's Open House as a parent, and said it was very nice and had Vt!fr'J good participation. There are no vaca.ocies or new hires at this ti.me in the Little Rocle School District Stipulation magnet schools. Mark Milhollen came before the Magnet Review Committee to present information with regard to the final budget for the 2004-05 school year, and the proposed budget for the Stipulation magnet schools for the 2005-06 school year. Mr, Milhoilcn started his presentation with the information that the final budget for the 2004-0S school year was based on the third quarter ADM of3,S62.90. Actual expenditures included giving a 10% raise. a step incrc:asc in 2004-05, and a raise in insurance contnbutions to $260.00 per month. All this was contained in the 2004-05 school year and still came within the budget. The fin.al budget figure placed the per pupil ex:peuditw-e at $7,235.00, which was $2.00 Jess per pupil than originally budgetecL The 2005-06 budget was established with the $5,400 figure for the funding formula. An agreement was reached for a % raise to the base for all employees and a step increase for all employees. The fringe package was also increased by $3.00, going from $260.0.0 to $263.00. There is also a re.open clause in the bargaining. If the results of the hearing from the Lakeview case are good. the district will r~pen the negotiations and tallc about potential ma-eases for the teachers. Wrth regard to FTE' s, Mr. Milhollen reported that a teaching position was lost at Gibbs Magnet, a choral position was added at Parlcview, and a  Special Education teacher was also added at Parkview. Mr. Milhollen reported that the proposed budget canies an increase ofS900,000 for 2005-06. One-half of that amount is due to the salary increase. Another part of the increase is for textbooks - this is adoption year. . Marcia Harding then made a motion to accept the Stipulation magnet school budget for the 2004-0S schooJ year, as well as the proposed budget for the 2005-06 school year. Dr. Marvin Jeter seconded the motion. The motion curried unanimoualy. -3- P.007/008 MAGNt l REVIEW Dr. Mitchell thanked Mr. Milhollen for coming before tbe MRC and presenting the budget report. Horace Smith, Office of Desegregation Monitoring, came before the Magnet Review Committee to report on the status of the M-to-M Policies and Procedures. He-informed the MRC that a controversy arose last August regarding Majority-to-Minority Transfers. He then met with the parties (Joshua Intervenor.s included) to iron OUt the problems. There is a divergent interest among the- districts, according to Mr. Smith. One district is still in Court regarding student assignment issues - the other two are released from Court. Mr. Smith asked the parties if they wished to continue the M-to-M transfers, and the desire is to do so. The Office ofDesegregatioa Monitoring has now deve!oped an agreement in draft form that, hopefully, all parties will sign. Mr. Smith provided copies to l\\illC members. MT. Smith noted that this really affects the lives of children. Transportation issues are what we are dealing with. There is a reluctance to provide transportation to some M-toM students. Ms. Harding thanked Mr. Smith for his report to the MR.C. She noted that it was a very good report. Ms. Creer and Dr. Mitchell reported that Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus, Magnet ConsuJtant. has been visiting in Little Rock. She necd:i a lot of historical .information about the magnet schoob, and Mark Milhoilen is putting together the information for her. Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Creer also met with Dr. Dreyfus, and she reported to them on the teacher evaluation programs. Dr. Dreyfus will be bade in town again soon, and Ms. Creer and Dr. :M:itchell will keep the MRC updated on the progress. Ms. Creer reminded the MRC that it is time to select our MR.C Chairperson and ViceChair for the 2005-06 year. Marcia Harding made a motion to continue with Dr. Sadie Mitchell as Chairperson, and Danny Recd as Vice-Chair. Oliver Dillingham seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. ' Ms. Creer informed the MR.C that Parkview would like to host the next Magnet Review Committee meeting. It was agreed by consensus to schedule it for Wednesday,  October 12, 2005. When no further business was brought before the MR.C, Oliver Dillingham made a motion to adjourn the meeting. and Dr. Marvin Jeter seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 a.m. P.008/008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED \u0026amp;n~ ,~--;,o~- omceOF DESEGREGATIONYONITORJNG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD hereby gives notice of the filing of the preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education in accordance with the Court's Order of December 17, 2005. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTR\" ICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 13, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: rnark.ha2:erneier@ag .state.ar. us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller 2. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Pag. e 1 of 45 ~ _/ . (D -(J,u,, . { 1 ( 1,,0 RECEIVED OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Extended Year or Year Round Education Program In the Little Rock Arkansas Schools. An Assessment of Educational Effectiveness With a Focus on African American Student Achievement Draft Report for Comments Only January 13, 2006 Rece,veo JAN 17 2006 James S. Catterall DESEGREGjWoiE:bNtrORJNG Professor UCLA Gradu_ate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 Please direct comments to the author at: jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 36 RECEIVED ~ t -- . . - - -- 11 / !J~i- - do~ omceoF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little, Rock, Arkansas Family l\"nterviews Year-round - vs - 9-month Schools UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED JAN 3 O 2006 DFFICEDF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is PCSSD's Motion Respecting the Arkansas School Choice Act (Doc. No. 3911). The motion is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of January, 2006. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 6824475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education January 31, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 RECf f,VED Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III FEB - 2 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG' Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WR W Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of January 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~\"11-o.R Scotts~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr: J anna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair - Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle *' Dr. Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RECialVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAl\"\\JSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB - 2 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for January 2006. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on January 31, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 cottSm1th REC::fVED FEB - 2 2006 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFleE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAl~GAil0NM ONITORING V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. -  IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) forthe current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August- June-. Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education February 28, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED MAR 1 - 2006 . OFFICE.OF DESEGREGATION'MONITORING Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of February 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair- Diane.Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry.Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle or: Calvin King, Marianna *Randy La\".\"son, Bentonville *Mary Jane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer ( . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED MAR 1 - 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for February 2006. Respectfully Submitted, i~fk Scott Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on February 28, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr: M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ . ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation P~ n and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. ARKAN SAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. r. Kenneth James, commissioner .Ed U Cat 1 wn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us March 31 , 2006 SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier RECEIVED APR -.l 2006 CEOF N MONITORING Sl'ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia et Vice Chair: Diane.Tatum-,.Pine Bluff Members:- Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle: .. Dr. CalvirrKing, Marianna .. Randy Lawson; Bentonville. .. Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton .. MaryJanl!!Rebick, UttlecRi\u0026gt;ck. .. Dr. NaccamarrWilllams, Springdale A,r Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR -3 2006  OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-800-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2006. Respectfully Submitted, ~  General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education. #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on March 31, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SrunuelJones,m Mitchell, Williruns, Selig; Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 _Little Rock, AR 72201 ~~1tk Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS RECEIVED APR - 3 2006 . OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINEW. KNIGHT, ETAL INTERVENOR$ ADES PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA . \" (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June . .. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date ... . . Last day of each month, August - June. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF .Educatii'n '--5 Gene s.ei-~ Arkansas Dep , '1 '  n SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071. {501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us ED 6 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Dr: JeannaWestmoreland; Arkadelphia  Vice.Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine-Bluff Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro ., Shelby Hillman, carlisle ., Dr. calvin King, Mariann ., Randy Lawsorr,.Bentonville .. Dr: Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane. Rebick, Little Rock:.   Dr: NaccamanWilliams, Springdale Arr Equal Opportunity employer   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR 2 8 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for April 2006. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, Bar# 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 '1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on April 27, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. Samuel Jones, ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 \u0026lt;~~ttkir- Scott Smith RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ... APR 2 8- 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL OFFICE Of _ DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL Irr compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This. document-describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA  (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average- daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date. Last day of- each month, August--June. 05/11/2006 13:48 5016045321 US DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DJSTRJCT OF ARKANSAS omcE OF THE CLERK 600 WEST CAfflOL A VENUE SUITE402 Ll'ITJ...E ROCK, ARKANSAS 72.201-3325 PAGE 01 ,JAMF..S W. McCORMACK CLD.K ($01)604-5351 F AX(~1)604-S32S TO: 'FROM: DATE: RE: The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ATTN: PoJJy) Tammy Downs, Oeputy Clerk May 11, 2006 Little Rock School District, et al. v. Pulaski County School Distriqt, et al. Case No.: 4:82-cv-00866  I Attached is a copy of the recent text entry order entered by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr. The original will follow by mail. Thank you.  THJS FACSIMILE MESSAGE CONTAINS A TOTAL OF_ PAGES INCLUJDlNG THIS COVER PAGE.  05/11/2006 13:48 5016045321 MJ.ME- Version:l.O f~om:ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov T.o:arecl_ecf@ared . u!.courts.gov Message-Id:\u0026lt;64777l@ared.useourts.gov\u0026gt; Bee: US DISTRICT COURT Subject:~ctivity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pu~.iski Cty School, et al \"Order on Motion to Withdraw\" Content-Type: t~xt/plainNOTE TO PUBLIC ~CC?.SS USERS*** You may view the; filed documents once wit hout ch~ r.ge . To avoid later charges, download a copy of each docUltlent during this first vi,ewing.U.S. District Court Eastern Distr.ict of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 5/2/2006 at 11:54 AM CDT and file~ on 5/2/2006 Case Name: Little ~OCK School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Ca.se Number: 4: 82-cv-866 http://ecf.at'ed. uscourts. gov/cgi.-bin/DktRpt .pl. ?26052 WAAN~NG: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4012 Copy the URL adc:l:r:ess from the line below into the l ocation bar o f. your Neb : browser to view 1:he document: 401.2 Docket Text: PAGE 02 (This is a TeXT ENTRY ONLY. T.here is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER gnnting (4011] LRSO's Motion to Wj_thdraw Objections to ODM Budget. Signed by Judge William R. Wil~on Jr. on 05/02/06. (dmm, ) The followj_ng docurnQnt(sl a~e associated with this transaction: 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailQd to : Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock(!mbbw5 .. com Ma~k Terry Burnette mburn~tte@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendleyl@alltQl.net Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeierear.kansasag.gov, angela.dover@arkansasag.gov Christopher J. Heller he.Uer@fQc.net, brendak@fec.net; tll\\iller@fec.nc.\\t. M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephan w. ~Tones sjone$@jlj.com, lcate.jones@jlj.com; l :i.nda,calloway@jlj.coni Phili? E. Kaplan pkaplan~kbrnlaw.net, nmoler@~bmlaw.net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yaboo.com John W. Walker johnwe.lkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabrielmQil.com 4:82-cv-866 Notic-: will be d~livered by other mQans to: No.t'man J. Chachkin NAACe Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY. 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger ~rkan$aa Attorney General\"s Office Ca~lett- Prten rower Building 323 Center StrcQt St)i.te 200 Little Roe~, AR 72201-2610 , 105/11/2006 13: 48  ' 5016045321 Jame~ M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Stret Post Office Box 918 Fo~t Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 Wast Capitol Suite 1895 Little Roek, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Tho~p5on \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eigh~eenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, 1\\R 72902-0818 US DISTRICT COURT PAGE 03 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4014 Filed 05/11/2006 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. A May 2, 2005 Order reads: ORDER On April 29, 2005, I received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 fiscal years. I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond within five (5) days; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately .1 - On May 9, 2005, LRSD filed objections to the proposed budget.2 However, on May 1, 2006, LRSD filed a Motion to Withdraw its objections to the ODM budget.3 The motion was granted the next day.4 Because there are no longer objections to the proposed ODM budget, it is approved and adopted as presented. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of May, 2006. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1Doc. No. 3914. 2Doc. No. 3917: 3Doc. No. 4011. 4Doc. No. 4012: LRSD ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR 2004-05 and 2005-06 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... (T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor .... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .... 2004-05 Budget 2005-06 Budget 10/1/04, % of 2004-05 2003-04 2004-05 10/1/04 %of 2005-06 2004-05 Enroll- Total Budget Credit Budget Enroll- Total Budget Estimated ment Enroll- Allocation (Budget Payment ment Enroll- Allocation Credit ment not spent) ment (Budget not spent) 25,720 47.93 134,583 4,282 130,301 25,720 47.93 118,262 1,724 9,496 17.69 49,672 1,580 48,092 9,496 17.69 43,648 636 18,449 34.38 96,536 3,072 93,464 18,449 34.38 84,829 1,236 2005-06 Estimated Budget Payment 116,538 43,012 83,593 2005-06: The 2005-06 Budget Allocation, the 2004-05 Estimated Credit, and the 2005-06 Estimated Budget Payment are apportioned among the three school districts according to the October 2004 enrollment numbers. After the final 2005-06 enrollment has been tallied, we will adjust the figures accordingly and notify each district of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's 2005-06 budget. Described below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the chart above, that we use to determine each district's contribution to the ODM budget: 1. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on the previous year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share (or estimated share) ofODM's unspent budget for the previous year: 4. Each district contributes that sum to ODM's budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's budget before the close of the current fiscal year. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING BUDGET: 2004-05 and 2005-06 REVENUE State of Arkansas LRSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals LRSD'!\u0026gt; share of the budget NLRSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals NL RS D's share of the budget PCSSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals PCSSD's share of the budget 2003-04 BUDGET 200,000.00 177,217.00 724.00 176,493.00 61 ,292.00 250.00 2003-04 Actual .................................................. 61,042.00 127,415.00 520.00 126,895.00 f'\\ 2004-05'0 2004-05 2005;,()lf _, BtlDGET Estimated BUDGE.T . 200,000.00 200,000.00 \\ . 1~,583.00 134,583.00 118,262.00 4,282.00 4,282.00 1,724.00 130,301 .00 Note: The sum of the credits in the above chart is the unspent amount of our previous year's budget, including bank interest earned. Every budget cycle, ODM applies this amount toward each school district's budgeted allocation. Both that allocation and the credit are determined for the proposed budget by the previous year's October 1 enrollment numbers, then adjusted accordingly when the enrollment numbers for the current year become available. EXPENDITURES 2003-04 2003-04 ~ .'2004:.c,5,/1~ 2004-05 ,, 2005-0,\u0026amp;f\"1~1 BUDGET Actual : i t,,BUDGErJ; j Estimated .BUD.GEE:,t ~ .. ,:: ., Communications 8,000.00 7,813.33 J!it):9f1_90:0Q~ 9,006.00 ~ r 61000lOdri Dues ahd Fees 735.00 930.00 ',.' 'J\u0026gt;, ' 265:00t,1 265.00 ... ;, ., . .. , r-, ~ '.', \" .. ' j, '.\\l 2:Zo,,0.0;_. ft'}': ,.ii:='.l'o' ;a00;.~ \\ ,' \u0026lt; ,, ,, Equipment 500.00 2,590.99 f ; --~t~t,,;,:r; : . -~ 0.00 f o;oor Food Services 0.00 :--,,, ,.A~ ( O:oo1 ~- ,,, . ', ,.'\u0026lt;.I 0.00 ., 0.00 1, O'.0Q,. Management Services ,. :t  '  ' ' f 5,000.00 0.00 ~ ' ,r.~: o:oo:. 0.00 } O.OOx !I ,ct} J .    ~ Periodicals 121 .00 135.00 .,la(:\",.,:,, . 135.00. 135.00 I 0:0,Q'i.i Printing \u0026amp; Binding 6,000.00 5,033.07 ~ir I. 5;500,00); 5,245.00 i 5,250.oci ' ' ' . ''';; Prof \u0026amp; Tech Services 1,700.00 1,717.50 ' .,,,;t, 7!00.0Q';,\u0026gt;, 1,554.00 t ,700,00,, Rent 48,860.00 48,869.80 J~,; ' so!s9,1:oo;; 50,691.00 1, 52,564;00 Repairs \u0026amp; Maintenance 400.00 434.95 If ' 400.0\u0026lt;r ~, -1;' -'4QQ.OO.\\ 252.00 Resource Library 0.00 0.00 ,\u0026gt;;t!\\'f'Y((\"._'j,~M.  ~ l   .\"+.o:oa~ 0.00 r,. (Yf o~oo! Salaries 405,419.00 405,251.10 f. ,, .3 ' 32.,, 04'2.,. 0'Q\\ ; 332,042.00 t ' ' ~, . ,;,  300,603;00;t Benefits 80,018.00 78,447.40 t ~i:7,~(3'-fr-OO' 75,311 .00 I .742;322.0(( Staff Development 0.00 0.00 F'' .. 0.00,.; 0.00 }. o.oBJ (,.,;.' r, 'p ' Supplies 6,000.00 5,403.11 ~  4',000:0.0.l: 4,000.00 3,500;00J, ,. 1~075:00~ 11 Travel 2,459.00 2,013.54! 1~525',ooH ; 1,066.00 ,, ... ,s1t.om I' Insurance 712.00 572.00 - 572.00 1, 600.00t  ~ =-ig.~:-. .... ~~~-.r ,:, ,'\"' ' 1:,Jotat,Scpe.n difuresj. , \"; II!,@  ' '  :,of.,:. ' ' 1Jif 565';\"~2~oof Y,i,.i;, ' -\";  . i ,if; 559,~;J.1:19'f 7: 480,79;1:0ro- . 480,.,139:00: ~ 446:739.00;\"- Difference (Income minus Expenditures 0.00 8,933.87 0.00 3,596.00 0.00 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. 2003-04 Budget 8,000.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 7,813.33 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 9,006.00 2004-05: The increase in the budget is due to the advertising expense for the vacant position of the Federal Monitor. 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. 2003-04 Budget 735.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 930.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 265.00 2003-04: Over budget due to the registration for an associate to attend the National Counselors' Conference was $45 more than budgeted, and the registration fee for the Federal Monitor to attend the International Association of Facilitators conference was $150 more than budgeted. Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 2003-04 Budget 500.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 2,590.99 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 0.00 2003-04: Over budget because one of the older computers crashed and had to be replaced. The total cost of the computer was $2,108.55. 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 oras a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 2003-04- Budget' 5,000.00 2003-04-Actual Expenditures 0.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 0.00 Page.4 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. 2003--04 Budget 121.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 135.00 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 135.00 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2003--04 Budget 6,000.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 5,033.07 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 5,245.00 Professional and Technical Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 2003--04 Budget 1,700.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 1,717.50 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 1,554.00 Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 2003--04 Budget 48,860.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 48,869.80 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 50,691.00 2005-06: Office space could be reduced and therefore reduce the amount charged for rent by approximately $8,500. 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. 2003--04 Budget 400.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 434.95 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 252.00 Page5 Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 2003-04 Budget 405,419.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 405,251.10 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 332,042.00 Below is a breakdown of each employee's budgeted 2004-05 and 2005-06 salary, reflecting a 3.29% annual base increase, which is equal to or less than the annual step increase on the salary scales of the local districts. Name of 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Employee Salary Salary Salary Ann Marshall 119,022 40,900 0 Gene Jones 1 58,828 61,530 63,438 Margie Powell 70,196 72,505 74,890 Horace Smith 70,196 72,505 74,890 Polly Ramer 52,689 54,422 56,212 Linda Bryant 29,219 30,180 31 ,173 Act 11 of 1999 2 5,269 0 0 1Gene Jones, who works 4/5 time, elected to receive paymentfor annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. 2Act 11 of 1999 allows an employee who completes their 28th year under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System to enter the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan (T-Drop) and receive compensation for unused leave. Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid on behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are' over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 2003-04 Budget 80,018.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 78,447.40 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 75,311 .00 B e1 o w 1s a b re akd own b, yeat egoryof eac h emp ovee ' s 2004 -05 b U dl g ete d frin1 ge b ene fit s: Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. Indemnity Term Benefits Marshall 300.00 2,380.21 411 .99 253.00 2.72 21 .48 5.08 5.24 3,379.72 Jones 960.00 4,780.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,740.38 Powell 1,200.00 5,595.80 10,318.78 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 20,640.46 Smith 1,200.00 5,348.67 10,318.78 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 20,393.33 Ramer 0.00 4,015.33 7,619.02 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 15,160.23 Bryant 0.00 2,258.32 4,225.10 3,106.00 20.40 263.40 60.96 62.88 9,997.06 fiir~''~---,,1: \"?t!J.\"J''''_4:'. ~- il({~.(\"'l\"!-ls' ~~r~'t ::1\u0026lt;z;4,'3,:,7 ,.8 ~11f 1~11 893:s.i ti . .. .,. ' ,. r , '': i rozsfoa~ 1f; I,, ,2~s tf)~~-n ~ ' ~1\"' ~ ;pi~S'i:lj' Tobi ~-...., fl':~~ :ffe)J~ ~~-,- ,,,.j: . ,., \" !i,\u0026gt; if'_ 12;a:m::oo.~- ( 12.t:~ ;:_258,76ll f1l, '-75}3~1~1:,fJ Page6 - - , ., ', ' \\\". - Below is a breakdown b ee's 2005-06 bud benefits: Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital . Short Total Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. Indemnity Term Benefits. Jones 960.00 4,926.45 0.00 0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 5,886.45 Powell 1,200.00 5,820.89 10,652.60 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 21 ,219.01 Smith 1,200.00 5,820.89 10,652.60 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 21 ,219.01 Ramer 0.00 4,300.22 7,869.68 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 15,715.42 Bryant 0.00 2,384.73 4,364.22 3,120.00 20.40 269.04 60.96 62.88 10,282.23 'T,otal' 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. 2003-04 Budget 6,000.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 5,403.11 2004-05' Estimated Expenditures- 4,000.00 Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business, such as parking fees. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 2003-04 Budget 2,459.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 2,013.54 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 1,066.00 2004-05: The budget includes guest parking and reimbursement to support staff for the mileage they drive in their own vehicles on official business, an amount budgeted at $125.00. The remainder ($950.00) is for travel and lodging associated with one-of the monitors attending the National Counselors' Conference, as explained above in the Dues and Fees section. 2005-06: The increase in budget is due an anticipated increase in conference costs. Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance. coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 2003-04 Budget 712.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures. 572.00- 2005~06: The increase in budget is due to a 5% increase irrthe annual premium: 2004-05 estimated expenditures 572.00 P-age:7 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF .EducatiWn May 25, 2006 Gene Arkansas SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner 4 State Capitol Mall  LittJe Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us RECEIVED MAY 2 6 2006 STATE.BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair.- Dr.; Jeanna.Wesbnoreland, Arkadelphia  Vice-Chair: Diane\u0026gt;Tatum,,Pine Bluff Members:: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle. .. Dr. Calvin-King; Marianna: ., Randy lawson; Bentonville~ .. Dr. \u0026amp;'en-Mays; Clinton- .. MaryJane. Rebick, Little Rock; .. Dr. Naccaman-Williams; Springdale. ArrEqua/ Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 2 6 2006 .  omcEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for May 2006. \\ Respectfully Submitted, Je~,i/b Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel _ Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY ,2 6 2006  . . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL . . OFFiCE OF  DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI CpUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,_ ET AL DEFENDANTS  MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progres~ the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2: Actual as of May 31 , 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Lastday of each month, August-June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"geh_vacl_41","title":"Morris Dillard interview","collection_id":"geh_vacl","collection_title":"Voices Across The Color Line Oral History Collection, 2005-2006","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["France, Île-de-France, Paris, 48.85341, 2.3488","United States, Alabama, Crenshaw County, Luverne, 31.71655, -86.26385","United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383"],"dcterms_creator":["Dillard, Morris J.","Merritt, Carole"],"dc_date":["2005-10-11"],"dcterms_description":["In the interview, Morris Dillard discusses his involvement in the Atlanta Student Movement. He discusses his initial limited role and how he eventually became more active as a demonstrator in Atlanta's Terminal Station and later as a Freedom Rider who traveled from Atlanta to Chattanooga, Tennessee. He also discusses some of the conflicts within the black community between the old and new leadership, recalling the tensions over the issue of strategy and tactics among the leaders. He ends the interview with his views about achieving equality.","Mr. Dillard was born in Luverne, Alabama. He attended high school in Alabama and graduated from Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":["VIS 180.007.001"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center, 130 West Paces Ferry RD, Atlanta, GA 30305"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["MSS 990, Voices Across the Color Line oral history transcriptions, Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--History","Civil rights","Racism","Race discrimination","Race relations--Georgia--Atlanta","Education","Politics \u0026 government--Georgia--Atlanta","Transportation","Transportation--Georgia","Morehouse College (Atlanta, Ga.)","F. W. Woolworth Company","Atlanta Terminal Station (Atlanta, Ga.)","Providence Baptist Church (College Park, Ga.)","Rich's (Retail store)","Atlanta University Center (Ga.)","Atlanta Life Insurance Company (Atlanta, Ga.)"],"dcterms_title":["Morris Dillard interview"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://www.youtube.com/embed/boCu_WefWLw"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VACL/id/41"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S Code) Permission for use must be cleared through The Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":["interviews"],"dcterms_extent":["1:00:37 hours"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Dillard, Morris J.","King, Lonnie C., 1936-","Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","Hollowell, Donald L., 1917-2004","Hill, Jesse, 1926-2012","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1768","title":"Court filings regarding the Arkansas School Choice Act, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) budget, and Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-04-18/2005-05-31"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School districts","Pulaski County Special School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","North Little Rock School District","School enrollment","School integration","Transportation","Arkansas. State Board of Education","School boards"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding the Arkansas School Choice Act, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) budget, and Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1768"],"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":["90 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) Motion Respecting the Arkansas School Choice Act; District Court, Findings on the North Little Rock School District's Participation in Arkansas School Choice and its Effect on Schools in Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) Memorandum in Support of Motion Regarding School Choice; District Court, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond; District Court, Order regarding Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) budget; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) objections to Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) proposed budget; District Court, Notice of Filing of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION RESPECTING THE ARKANSAS SCHOOL CHOICE ACT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS  INTER VEN ORS I. The Arkansas School Choice Act was enacted in 1989 and is codified at 6-18-206 - of the Arkansas Code. 2. Certain provisions of the Act permit the cross-district transfer of students under certain specified conditions and pursuant to certain limitations. 3. The North Little Rock School District is currently utilizing the School Choice Act to permit the transfer of substantial numbers of white PCS SD students all as depicted in Exhibit A, an analysis performed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 4. It is the belief of the PCS SD that the volume of these transfers is having a current and will have a negative short-term affect upon its ability to fully desegregate its schools and to attain unitary status. 5. The PCSSD further believes that Section 6-18-206(f)(5) of the School Choice Act prohibits the current operation of the Act as it is currently being applied and implemented. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an Order of this Court suspending the current operation of the School Choice Act between the PCSSD and the NLRSD at least until such time as the PCSSD is declared unitary as to student assignment. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 0) ty Special 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 18, 2005, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General 's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett I 010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 I le I I I I I I I ~ I I  I FINDINGS ON THE NORIB LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PARTICIPATION IN ARKANSAS SCHOOL CHOICE AND ITS EFFECT ON SCHOOLS IN THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 2004-05 February 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas EXHIBIT I /I I  I I I ~ Findings on the North Little Rock School District's Participation in Arkansas School Choice and its Effect on Schools in the Pulaski County Special School District 2004-05 Table of Contents Introduction . . ...... . ....... .. ....... . ..... . ...... . . .. .... . ..... . ... . ..... . ... 1 ADE Rules Governing the Guidelines, Procedures, and Enforcement of the Arkansas Public School Choice Act ..... . .. . . ..... .. . . ... . ...... 3 NLRSD School Choice Students 2004-05 . .... . ........... 1       .                 10 Sources of NLRSD School Choic~ Students Residing in the PCSSD 2004-05 ... . .. . .. . . . . 11 Effect of School Choice Transfers to NLRSD on the Enrollment and Racial Composition of Affected PCSSD Schools 2004-05 . ... . .. ...... . .................. . . 12 Factors Affecting Parents' Decisions to Pursue School Choice . .. . ...... . ........ .. . . .. 13 le INTRODUCTION The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), an arm of the Urrited States District Court, prepared this report. ODM assists the Court in monitoring the compliance of the three Pulaski County school districts with court orders and the desegregation plans that form the substance of their settlement agreements. Key Issues  The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) asserts that its ability to desegregate its schools is impeded by the continued loss of white students from the Sherwood area who transfer to the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) under the provisions of the Arkansas School Choice Act.  The PCS SD further questions the \"propriety\" of the NLRSD enrolling white school choice students from PCSSD in predominantly white schools in the NLRSD. Purpose The PCS SD and NLRSD requested that ODM establish a data profile of the students transferring from the PCS SD to the NLRSD under the School Choice Act and provide data on the demographic effects of school choice transfers on both districts. This data will serve as a reference for the districts to use during discussions the parties scheduled for February 23, 2005. Background on Arkansas School Choice Public school choice in Arkansas allows students to attend a public school in a district other than the one in which they reside. The General Assembly passed the Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 1989 to give parents and guardians greater freedom to determine the most effective school for meeting their children's individual educational needs. Before a student can attend a school in a nonresident district, the student's parent or guardian must complete and submit an application to the nonresident district they desire the student to attend. The application to the nonresident district must be postmarked no later than July 1 of the year the student would begin the fall semester in the nonresident district. Under the Arkansas Public School Choice guidelines, no student may transfer to a nonresident district where the percentage of enro11ment for the student's race exceeds that of the student's resident district. Additionally, no student may transfer under Public School Choice if that transfer would conflict with a district's desegregation court order or a district's court-approved desegregation plan. Since the PCSSD is predominantly white and the NLRSD predominantly African-American, only white students may transfer to NLRSD via school choice. The Public School Choice Act charges the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) with the responsibility of morritoring school districts' compliance with provisions of the law. le I I ~ Information Sources The student enrollment and racial composition figures contained in this report were extracted from ODM's report entitled 2004-05 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District. The data we used to prepare that annual report were furnished to us by the three Pulaski County school districts. We drew our total numbers of school choice students in the NLRSD from a printout of school choice students provided by the NLRSD district. In addition, we used the same information to identify the specific PCSSD school attendance zones in which those students live. In addition to examining enrollment data, ODM monitors interviewed both the principals ofNLRSD schools receiving school choice students and the PCS SD schools most significantly affected by the loss of those students. Finally, we interviewed some of the parents of school choice students to detennine which factors affected parents' decisions to pursue the school choice option for their children. Terminology The Pulaski County desegregation litigation refers to only black and white racial designations. Traditionally,, we have counted students who are of racial or ethnic groups other than white or African-American (such as Hispanic or Asian) along with white students in statistical totals and comparisons in order to remain consistent with the two racial categories identified in the districts' desegregation plans. Page 2 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RULES GOVERNING THE GUIDELINES, P.ROCEDURES,AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE ACT August2003 1.00 PURPOSE 1.01 These rules-shall be known as the Arbnsas Department of-Education Rules Governing the Guidelines, Procedure$, and Enforcement of the Arlcansas Public School ChoiceAct 2.00 AUTHORITY 2.01 The Arkansas State B:aard ofEducatian'sauthority forpromulg~ting these .rules is pursuant to.Ark. Code Ann. \"~11-105,  6-15-429, and .6-18- 206. 3.00 DEFINITIONS 3 .QI Student - for purposcs .. oftbis rule means ~ person legally enrolled or entitled to .be ,enwlled in Ii pilblit .school distriet in Arkansas. \"3 .02 Resident district - for purposes of this rule means the.-ptiblicschool -district wherc .. a studentis considered to reside pursuant IQ Ark. Code:Ann. - 6-l8- 2!)2, 3.03 Ni:m-resident district  for p.urposes_.ofthis rule-means the,pulilic school ,district a student. last made legal application to,attend pursuant\" to the Arkansas :Pubiic School Choice Act:'for:the,currentschool year. 3 .04 -A_.p.plication -.for purposes f;lf tl:iis r-ule. mcans:a request submitted t0 .a non- resident district to transfer from a-student\\s-rcsident district to a nonresident district on the official form approved.'by the Arkansas Department of Education.  J .05 Boar-d - for purposes ofthis rule means.the Arkansas State Board of -Education. 3;06 Depal1ment-for.purposes of this rule means.the Arkansas Department of Education. 3.07 Minority - for purposcs ,of this rule minority includes thefollowing racial ,:groups: African American; Hispanic, Asian .or. Pacific Islander, American .1ndian or Alaskan Native. 3:0$. tv{ajoricy  for pul,'poscs :of this rule majorify includes the following racial group: Caucasian: Page 3- 4.00 PROCESS AND PROCEDURES FOR SCHOOL DISTRJCTPARTICIPATION lN PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM 4.'0 i Each school district sh~II panicipa:te in publ-ic school choice consistent with this section. 4.02 Every.s.chool district must adopt a resolution setting forth specific standards for. acceptance and rejection of applications. 4.02.1 Such standards may include the capacity of .a schoQI program, cla:ss, grade level, or school building. 4.02.2 School districts shall not be required to add teachers, staff, or classrooms or .in any way exceed current requirements or standards established by existing law when considering whether to accept,'an application. 4.02.3 A school district's standards shall include a statement that priority will be given to applications.of siblings or step-siblings residing in the same residence :or household,of students already attending the district l?y-choice where an application has been filed. 4.02.4 A school .district's standar,ds for -a~ptancc and rejection -of applications shalLnot include a student'.s previous academic achie:v.ement, athletic or. extr.acumcular al,ilicy, handicapping cond.iti.ons; English pr.ofitiency lev.el, .or:prcvious rlisciplinary proceedings except that an expulsion from .. 'BDother school dis.trict .may be included as a standard. 4.03 Adistrictshall make public announcements overthe0broadcast media and in print media at such times and in such manner so as to inform parents or guardians ofstudents in agjoining distri:cts of the availability -of the program,'the July 1 application deadline, .and'the-rcq.uirements lind procedure for nonresidentstud~nts to participate in the program. 5.00 PROCESS AND PROCEDURES FOR APPLlCATJONS FOR TRANSFER PURSUANT TO TIIEPUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM 5;01 .Any s.tutlent may make application to enroJI and attend a scihool in a district in which the stdent do.es not reside, subject to the restrictions and procedures, contained in this rule-and regulation and Arkansas law. 5.:01 .1 Before,'2 student may attend a sch.o.ol in a nonresident district, the 'Student's parent or guardian must submit an application on the Page4 fonn approved by and provided by the Department (see attached .application) to the nonresident district. 5:Dl .2 The application to the nonresident district must be postmarked no later than.July 1 of the year the student would begin th.e fall semester in the nonresident school district. 5.02 Any student attending a residentdistrict classified as being. in academic distress shall be el~gible and entitled to apply to transfer to another geograph-ically contiguous nonresident district not in academic distress during the .time period a district .is classified as being in academic distress subject to the restrictions.allow~ in 5.02.1 and 8,0D. 5.02.J Any student submitting an 11pplicatfon under this section shall not be required to file the petition by the July 1 deadline, but.shall meet all other rcquirements:and conditions of this rule. 5 .03 Within thiny (30) days of receipt of.an application for public scho.ol choice transfer from.a nonresident.student, the nonresident district shall notify the parent or guardian and the resident dis.wict in writing . .( via first class United States mail) asto whether the nonresident district.accepted .or rejected.the student's application. 5.03'1 Tfthe application is rejected, the nonresident district must state in the notification letter -the . specific reasons for rejection. 5J'J3.2 Iftbe application is accepJcd, the nonresident district shall state in the notification letter: a. An abspJute-d.cadiine for the student tQ enroll in the .district, or the acceptance notification is mill; and b. Any instructions fQr the renewal procedures established by the district 5.04 Any :student that stibinitted -a valid applfoation -for transfer, which was deriicd a trans(er by the nonresident district, may petition the Board to r.econsider the applicationfor transfer. The petitioning party shall se.t forth its arguments 1l!ld evidence supportin_gthe request for the Board's reconsideration ofthe'11pplicati.on along with a copy of the nonresident district's :riotificatlori of.rejection letter. 5.04.I The_petitiori for reconsideration before the Board shall be .in ,w..iling and shall. be postmadced (via certified first class United States-mail; retum r.ecelpt requested) no later than ten (IO} days after the student or Stlldent'.-s parents or guardian receives notice ,of reject-ion .from1hc nonresidentdistrict. Any request for a hearing :l?cfore 'the lioard must tie made in the petition for. reconsideration. Page5 .5.04.2 The petitioning party must mail or personally file their peiition for reconsideration of the:application to tbe nonresident district with the Office of the Director of the Department 5.04.3 The nonresident district may sqbmit iri writing-additional faformatioq, evidence or arguments supporting its rejection of tbe student's application. 5.04.4 The Board, at its sole discretion, .may grant a .publfo hearing -on the petition for r.eeonsideration or con.sider without n public hearing the pet-ition; briefs and evidence submitted in. Writing before issuing its final decision on the petition for reconsideration of the application. 5.04.5 The Board may requirethe nonresident district .to reconsider its rejection ofthe student iipplicatioil 'by a date.established by the Bo.ard before deciding whether to_,grantthe petition for reconsideration:of the -application. 5;04.6 The Board, at its discretion, shall have the -authority to require any person.associated wjth the .studem application (i.e. student, parent, guardian, etc.), the-nonresident district or,the resident -district to appear iri person .or by _pleiiding before-the Board as .a witness-on the.matter of a.petition for reconsideration,-ofan appJication. 6.00 TRANSPORTATION OF STUD~TS\u0026lt;IN PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM 6.01 Transportation of a ,studcht:from the r.eside.nt district to a -nomesident district is the responsibility of the ~tudent .or the student's parents,or guardians. -6.0l.l When -a student:transfer:s :under section .S,04, .. -the ,cost.of transportationofa student from the,resident district to the no~sident district shall be the responsibility of the resident district. 6.02 The -nonr.esident district may enter into a written agreement with the  ~udent studenfs parents or,guardians, or resident school djstrfot to pr.ci:v1de tr:an~ortation to .er from any place in the resident .district to the nonresident -djstric'~ or both.  6.03 A nonr:esiderjt disefJct $h11U terminate transponlition services toa student .-upon-receiprofwr.itten no:tice (via certified first class United States mail, return T.ece\"i_pt.requested}frorn 1hc-Beyilitmerit to cease and desist transporting a student:fromthe student-'s resident.district. Page 6 I ,_ I I I  I 7 .Ob NONRESIDENT DISTRICT'S RESPONSfBILJTlES 7:01 The nonresident district shall acceptall credits toward graduation of a student that were awarded by another district. 7.02 The nonresident district shall .award a rliploma to a nonresident student accepted for transfer under the Public -School Choice Program if that student meets the nonresident district's graduation requirements. 7.03 The nonresident student accepted far: . iransfer under the Public Scho.ol Choice Program shall be counted as a.part cif the average daily membership of the nonresidentdisirict to which the student transfr;rred. i.oo PROVISIONS FORANDLIMitATIONS ON PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE TRANSFERS 8:02 8.03 No stl.!dentmay transfer to a nonresident districtw.herethe p.ercentage of enrollment for the student's race exceeds that percentage in the student's resident district, except as.provided in 8.01.1 and 8.0i.2. 8.0:l.l A-transfer is permitted if{l)theti:lUlsferis :betwceo distr~cts within the .same county; and{2) ifthe .trailsfei' does. not result in either districtexceedigg,Uie ,acceptable =gc or varil!nce for representation ofaninority/maj.ority~dents. The .acceptable range .of~ariance., is,detCffllined,as provjded ;in .Section 8.02, or R.O 12 A transferis permitted :if each school.:district within the county does.not have:\"a ,.critical mass,of minority percentages of more than ten .percent (JO) ofany single race and the fr.ans fer is between two school tliStricts in the sanie:county. The Depart!J).ent shall each.year compute the minority/majority racial percentage(s}ofthe public sch6.61 population for each cotmty from the October Annual $chooJ Report. School districts may vary jn the underrepresentation or over~representation.cifminority/majbrity students bye maximum of'twcnty-fi:ve.p.ercent (25%) oftl')e difference in majo:rity/rhinoritypercenteges, for the county anletennined by the D~artment, Fpr.-:exa~p;le, when the Department has calculated the county'Hacial balance for eacb student race category, each district is allowed :~n ovcr-'represen.tation or under-representation of minority or ma jor1ty students ofa range, of up to twenty-five (25%) of the county's racial'balance.    No student transfer sha'lrbe permitted under the Public School Choice Program when such.a ,transfer would .conflict with a district's Page 7 I desegregation court order or ad~trict's. court-approved desegregation plan. ' 9.00 REPORTING AND MONITORING OBLIGATIONS 9.;0 I The Department shall monitor schooldistricts for colnplianee with the Public School Choice law (Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-206) and these rules. 9.02 Each school district shall provide to the Department, within thirty (30) working. days. of receipt of a written request from the Department, any information or reports the Department deems necessary for. review and determination of thescho:ol district's compliance with the Public School Choice Jaw and these rules. 9;03 All s.chool dlstricts shaJJ.reporHo the Equity Assistance Center of the Department,on an annual basislhe race, .gender, and o.ther pertinent infonnation needed tl:i properly monitor compliance with theprovisions,.of this section. 9.04 The reports may be on tho.sefor.ms that are prescdbed by the Department, or the data may be submitted electronically :by the district using a format authorized by the Department. 9;05 The Department may withhold state aid from any school district that fails t(l) file its r,epoJt each year or.fails.to file any other information with a published deadline requested from school ,districts by the Equity Assistance Center, so fo~g .~s thircy,(3l\u0026gt;} calendar d~ys are given between the request for the information and the published deadline, except when the requC$t .comes from  a member pr committee of the General Assembly. 10.00 DISPUTES  I 0.01 Any school district rriay petition the .StateBoard of Education to resolve alleged disputes0arising under subsectiens (!:!) - (f) oi'A.rk. Code Ann. ' 6- 18.:206. 10,02 Any,st::.hool district seeking to petition the-Stiite Board of Education must subi:nitwith its pet1.tion pr,o.of ofpublic nofrc~ of th.e. district's intenttq .petition:the State Board. The public notice shall.be piib1ished;.at least -an:ee per weekf or.twq consecutive weeks in a new~aper of general :circulation in ,all the school:distiicts impacted or involved in .the ,aUeted d.isp.ute. Hk03 The school dist:r-ictshall file its written petition with the Office .of the Director .of the Oe,piufunent at least thirty (30) working days prior to the Sta:te Board of.Edwcat10Ii rrieeting where the ~petition will be hear.d. Page 8 ,_ I I 10.04 10.05 The schoel di-striet :s'hair provide_proof in the petitidn that they have served (via certified first lass United'States-mai._, return receipt requested) a copy of their petition,to. the super-intendentc\u0026gt;fa:11 other'scbool districts invoJved in the alleged dispute: The petition shall set forth in writing the,particular issues of dispute under the Public School Ch9ice pr~gram, .the specific relief for whieh the petitio11ii1fparty is requesting the Board to-address; and sha:11 list all school distri.cts and other relevant parties in the dispute, I 0.:06 The petition shall set forth what efforts.have been attempted by ail relevant school boards and superintendents of the involved school districts to resolve the alleged dispute. 10.07 The petition shall state in writing whether the \\petitioning .school district requests A hearing before the Boar:d. I 0.08 The Bpa:rd, in it$ sdle discretion, shall determine whether to grant a pubHc hear.~g -on a.peiition or to take action on the petition and pleadings submitted without granting.:a: public bearing. 10.09 Any si.h00Ldistr,ict that is. listed as.:a party in a pe~ition to resolve a dispute .shall file a wr.itten-,response with tbc 'Officc: -of'the Director of the Deparnnent. The written CC$ponse sha:U be.submitted iorthe Board's consideration al:ong0with the. petition within ten (10)-working days of receipt of noti.ce ofibe p.etition. ro. LO The Board shall ~~e a written decision regarding all issues of alleged disp.ute mentioned in .the petition, anti the written decision shalJ be served on.-an the schooi districts listed as.parties of dispute in the petition (via certified fustc-l~s UniteciStates rnail, .retum receipt requested) within twenty (20) working days oftheiBoard'sfina-1 dec.ision. I OJ 1 Except for the procedures specifically set forth in Ark. Code Ann.  6-18- 20.6 and these ,rules, aHhear,ings conducted by the Board shall be c:.bnducted pursuantt,o,the Ar.kansa.s Administtative,Procedures Act, Ark. Cod.e Ann.  25-15-201 et. seq .. Page 9 ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'School Crestwood Elem Indian Hills Elem Lakewood Elem Meadow Park North Heights NLRHS-West District Totals NLRSD School Choice Students 2004-05 .Tptal l:. ru oll,ne~ \" ... , Sche\u0026gt;ol Phoice l;nrqllment . Data Su~mary I 81, cLI . White \" !Total .'' Grade 'Level  '.Enrollment I 104 I 212 I 376 Kindergarten 13 School choice students comprise 13% of 111 grade 6 the total enrollment and 18% of white students. 2nd grade 6 3rd grade g Crestwood is 72% white with school choice 4\"' grade 10 students and 68% non-black without school choice students. 5\"' grade 6 Total so  I 11a I 390 I 508 Kindergarten 19 School choice students comprise 24% of 111 grade 22 the school's total enrollment and 32% of white students. 2nd grade 18 3rd grade 20 Indian Hills is 77% white with school choice 4\"' grade 16 students and 69% white without them. 5\"' grade 28 Total 123 I 100 I 25s I 361 Kindergarten 5 School choice students comprise 3% of the 11 grade 0 total school enrollment and 4% of white students. 2nd grade 1 3rd grade 2 Lakewood is 71 % white with school choice 4\"' grade 1 students and 70% white without them. 5\"' grade 2 Total 11 I 160 I 35 I 195 Kindergarten 1 Impact of the single school choice student 11 grade is statistically minimal. 2nd grade 3rd grade 4\"' grade 5\"' grade Total 1 I 261 I 203 I 470 Kindergarten 1 Impact of the single school choice student 1st grade is statistically minimal. 2nd grade 3rd grade 4\"' grade 5\"' grade Total 1 I s1s I 631 I 1,309 11 th grade No info Impact of the single school choice student 12th grade available is statistically minimal. Total 1 I s,61s I 3,ss1 I 9,496 Kindergarten 39 School choice students from PCSSD 1st grade 28 comprise 2% of the NLRSD enrollment. The district is 41 % white with the PCSSD 2nd grade 25 school choice students and 40% without 3\"' grade 31 them. 4th grade 27 5th grade 36 No Info 1 Total 187 - - -------------- Sources of NLRSD School Choice Students Residing In the PCSSD 2004-05 PCSSD Schools E E .c a, a, iii j\":' \"O iii a, i ~ CD = :! C :f '\u0026gt; \u0026gt;CD ~ \"O i :E C e 0 I 0 % :E C ::, i C ~ 0 i ! C C 0 0 .s en J C) I .!! J 1 1 J \u0026gt;- i en ~ .5 Q. 'E u .II: ! .! ! ~ ftl ::, ftl ftl ~ Cl m 0 0 0 0 :c -, 0 a: a, ~ a\u0026gt;,- :::, Crestwood 1 5 2 6 2 1 3 7 2 - - 6 7 - 4 4 50 lndlan HIiis - 2 2 15 8 1 - 8 - 1 1 32 42 - 1 10 123 Iii Lakewood Elem 1 2 8 2 - - - 1 - - - - 4 1 - - - 11 .c Meadow Park - - - - - - - u - - - - 1 - - - - 1 a, a0 , North Heights - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 Di: .z.J NLRH-West - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 Totals 2 9 6 21 10 2 4 15 2 1 1 43 51 1 5 14 187  Based on the information prnvided, we could not determine the PCSSD school zones in which these students reside. I The Effect of School Choice Transfers to NLRSD on the Enrollment and Racial Composition of Affected PCSSD Schools 2004-05 le I PCS SD' s Plan 2000 continues the standards for student assignment and guidelines for racial composition established in the district's 1992 desegregation plan. The plan defines a specific range in which the racial composition of each PCS SD school, except Bayou Meto, and the interdistrict schools (Clinton and Crystal Hill) is to fall. The minimum enrollment of African-Americans is to be 20% at each school; the maximum differs between the elementary and secondary organizational levels because the upper limits are based on a variance of 25% from the annual percentage ofblack enrollment at each of these two levels. The racial balance range for PCS SD elementary schools in 2004-05 is 20% to 49% black. The targeted range for secondary schools is 20% to 54% black. I I I I I I I I I I I The ideal compositi_on at the interdistrict schools will be as close to 50%-50% as possible, with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the interdistrict school. Baker Interdistrict School is not subject this requirement. 2004-05 Actual Enrollment 2004-05 Enrollment Schools Wrth the addition of NLRSD school choice students Black White Total Pct. Black White Total Pct. Black Black Bayou Meto 10 383 393 3% 10 385 395 3% Cato 97 264 361 27% 97 273 370 26% Crystal HIii 401 413 814 49% 401 419 820 49% Clinton 337 305 642 52% 337 326 663 51% Dupree 134 1n 311 43% 134 187 321 42% Harris 196 46 242 . 81% 196 48 244 80% Jacksonville 282 263 545 52% 282 267 549 51% Oak Grove Elem. 98 290 388 25% 98 292 390 25% Oakbrooke 108 255 363 30% 108 270 378 29% Pinewood 178 252 430 41% 178 253 431 41% Scott 30 96 126 24% 30 97 127 24% Sherwood 144 248 392 37% 144 291 435 33% Sylvan Hills Elem. 137 237 374 37% 137 288 425 32% Sylvan Hills High 440 610 1,050 42% 440 611 1,051 42% Tolleson 116 189 305 38% 116 121 310 37% Page 12 1. le I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I Factors Affecting Parents' Decisions to Pursue School Choice The following information is based on our conversations with school administrators, parents, and daycare providers regarding some of the reasons PCSSD parents chose to send their children to NLRSD schools under school choice. Convenience Some parents and administrators mentioned that the geographic contiguity of Indian Hills Elementary, Crestwood Elementary, and Lakewood Elementary in the NLRSD to Sherwood neighborhoods of the PCSSD as a factor in school choice transfers. Numerous Sherwood-area parents work in North Little Rock ( e.g. Baptist Memorial Hospital) and find it easier to deliver their children to one of the aforementioned NLRSD schools during the morning commute and make arrangements for them to attend after-school programs located in close proximity to the schools. Proximity of Quality Pre-School Programs and After-School Care Our study shows that 123 school choice students attend Indian Hills Elementary in the NLRSD. This number far exceeds the next highest number of 50 at Crestwood Elementary. Our investigation of the seeming popularity of Indian Hills revealed that the proximity of the well-known First United Methodist Church pre-school and after-school programs is one of the factors leading to Sherwood area parents seeking a placement at Indian Hills. The First United Methodist Church facility is located directly across the street from Indian Hills. According to the assistant director of the First United Methodist pre-school program, numerous parents who reside in the PCS SD enroll their children in the pre-school program at the church. Once those children reach school age, their parents pursue a school choice transfer so their children can attend the church's after-school program. The assistant director cited the proximity of the First United Methodist program to a public school, parents' familiarity with the staff, and a sense of continuity for the children as factors affecting school choice. In 1996, First United Methodist discontinued transportation from the Sherwood area schools to the after-school program, thus making Indian Hills Elementary a more attractive choice for parents whose children had attended the pre-school program. We found that some Sherwood area parents whose children participate in the Lakewood United Methodist Church Mother's Day Out program become interested in the adjacent Lakewood Elementary School as their offspring reach school age. Familiarity with other parents whose children attend Lakewood, in addition to an established routine, tend to attract parents to seek a school choice transfer to Lakewood. Our inquiry revealed that when Sherwood area parents in the PCSSD viewed their area school and an NLRSD school as equal, the availability and convenience of reliable after-school care became the deciding factor in pursuing school choice. Page 13 r  - ' I I I I I I I I I I \"Curb Appeal\" Some PCSSD parents cited what they perceived to be the poor condition of some facilities in the district as a factor as they weighed where to send their children to school. Most educators no doubt view the \"curb appeal\" or attractiveness of a school building to be a shallow basis for selecting or rejecting a school. However, the reality is that to some patrons the building is a reflection of the school and if they don't find the edifice appealing, they won't bother to investigate the program. Page 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION REGARDING SCHOOL CHOICE PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 1989 is codified at ACA 6-18-206. Basically stated, it permits a degree of transfer between school districts under certain prescribed conditions and pursuant to certain statistical measures calculated by the Arkansas Department of Education. Currently, the North Little Rock School District is accepting a substantial number of white PCSSD students to its district, particularly at the elementary level, pursuant to School Choice. These students are being largely drawn from established PCSSD student assignment areas for Sylvan Hills Elementary, Sherwood Elementary, Oakbrook Elementary and Clinton lnterdistrict School. The PCSSD states that these transfers are compromising its ability to maintain the racial balance goals to which it committed in Plan 2000, all of which likewise date from 1989. 6-18-206 (f)(5) provides that: In any instance where the foregoing provisions [the transfer . provisions] would result in a conflict with a desegregation court order or a district's court-approved desegregation plan, the terms of the order or plan shall govern; The Arkansas Department of Education has promulgated rules governing the operation of School Choice. Rule 8.00 is headed Provisions for and Limitations on Public School Choice Transfers. Sub-part 8.03 states: No student transfer shall be permitted under the Public School Choice Program when such a transfer would conflict with a district's desegregation court order or a district's court-approved desegregation plan. 1 The North Little Rock School District is majority black. However, it was declared unitary as to racial balance several years ago. In the meantime, it has somehow managed to reconfigure certain elementary schools, including Indian Hills and Lakewood Elementary so that they are actually whiter than the schools in the PCSSD from which they currently draw School Choice children. (See Exhibits to motion). The PCSSD believes that these circumstances represent a conflict with both the M-to-M stipulation and order as well as Plan 2000. The M-to-M stipulation was agreed to and ordered by the Court during the second half of the 1980s. It sets forth the rules pursuant to which cross-district transfers can be made in this case. The PCSSD submits as a federal court order, it legally trumps the School Choice Act and precludes its operation, at least as it is currently being applied, in these instances. This is true not only because federal law predominates over state law in these circumstances but also because these transfers are artificially increasing both the overall minority population of the PCS SD as well as frustrating the PCSSD's ability to attain unitary status in respect of its overall and individual school racial balance. This Court should rule that the current application of the Arkansas School Choice Act should be suspended until the PCSSD has been adjudicated to be unitary. 1 Although subsection (t)(7)(g) authorizes the State Board of Education to resolve disputes arising under this section, the PCSSD is informed that the State Board has traditionally declined to exercise its discretionary authority for desegregation cases that remain in litigation. 2 Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol A venue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501 ) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 Scho u / , Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 18, 2005, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following : Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. l 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol  Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General 's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett l O l O W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 :t::- FILED ,._.. ~DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT : DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS -. -;. WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 7 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT t:.MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK PLAINTIFFDEP CLERK v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL CASE NO.: 4:82-CV-00866 WRW DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. APR 2 8 2005 INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. OFFICEOF  DESEGREGATION MONI.TORING INTERVENOR$ - - MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND COMES NOW, the Defendant, North Little Rock School District, et al., by and through its attorney, Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A., and for this motion for extension of time to respond to PCSSD's Motion Respecting The Arkansas School Choice Act states as follows: 1. Service was perfected on Defendant April 18, 2005, via U.S. mail. The time to respond within the rules including the additional three days for mailing would be May 2, 2005. 2. We respectfully request an additional seven days in which to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's Motion Respecting The Arkansas School Choice Act. The requested extension would be up to and including May 9, 2005. 3. We have contacted the counsel for Pulaski County Special School District regarding the extension of time to respond. Counsel has no objections to the extension. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the court to extend the time in which to respond up to and including May 9, 2005, and fo'r all other just and proper relief. April 27, 2005 By: Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES. P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Jjttle-ReGk.,..Arkansas 72201 '{:, )7-11. :_2- . -l / ; A,{.lcl-(_,J, ,_---- ~hen W. Jones (7S:08 ) Attorney for North Little ock School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that the foregoing , Motion for Extension of Time to Respond, has been served via United States mail, postage prepaid, this 2th day of April, 2005, to the following : Mr. M. Samuel Jones Ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. 425 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Ave. Lexington, MA 02173 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Horace Smith OOM One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 149 Little fwc-k--;-AR 72201 / ~ ' . ~i .l ,, . \\ ---- /  l.1.{,--L \\ _ :~--. .,.~-- -.-siap;:w Jones :. / '. ,,/ Offices In: Conway, Arkansas Nashvill e, Tennessee JACK, lLYON \u0026amp; JONES. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 3400 425 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 375- 1122 Telecopier: (501) 375-1027 April 27, 2005 James McCormack Court Clerk United States District Court Eastern District Western Division 402 US Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 e-mail: s1ones@1l j.com di rect dial no. : (50 1) 707-5520 APR 2 3 2005 --OF-~ICE-'lf -- RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. Case No. 4:82-CV-00866 WRW Dear Mr. McCormack: Enclosed for filing in the above referenced matter is the original and 10 copies of North Little Rock School District's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond . Please return the extra file stamped copies to the courier. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. /pea enclosures cc: Parties of Record Sincerely, GJodb OdCW114/ Paula Adams Legal Assistant t\" ILt:.U U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS APR 2 8 2005 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ ~=-=-c= EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERK WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEIVED DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. APR 2 9 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONI.TORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Pending is Defendant North Little Rock School District's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond (Doc. No. 3913) to PCCSD's Motion Respecting the Arkansas School Choice Act. There are no objections. For good cause shown and because there are no objections, NLRSD's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond is GRANTED.  Accordingly, NLRSD must file a response by 5 p.m. Monday, May 9, 2005. -If. IT IS SO ORDERED thi.Jff_ d; of April, 2005. THIS DOCUMENT ENTEREDON ~ftlCT JUDGE '::' -::r'.ET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. .iT i RALE 58A~~a)fRCP 4-~?$_-s::; B~,4 -. ;. ,.., ... ~ 3' -,-,, 91 4  ri~9. Arkansas -~-::=-..,,,,_ ~ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ,____- ~,..,~ 4 STATE CAPITOL MAU  UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.v.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education April 29, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III R-ECEIVED MAY 2 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol A venue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General 's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of April 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, , J~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier TATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for April 2005. Respectfully Submitted, Smith, Bar # 9 251 General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on April 29, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 S.cott Smith - - --- ----- - - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED MAY - 3 2005 REOF DESEGREGATION MONLTORING ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT - EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS M,~.Y   2 2005 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ --:::D-:=:EP,,.-:C:;:-L;::-;ER=K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On April 29, 2005, I received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 fiscal years. I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond within five (5) days; otherwise, the OD M's proposed budget will be accepted as p\u0026amp;.ed and become effe~tive immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED_this .. day of May, 2005. TM\u0026amp; DOCUMENT ENTERED ON OOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH~~ 58__.ANm:9(a) FRCP  ON S: ;L,'(}~ BY ~ ae2 ' ; UNITED STATES DISTRJCT JUDGE WM. R. WILSON, JR. Office of Desegregation Monitoring A United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas -------------------- One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 April 29, 2005 The Honorable William R. Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: Attached for your approval are the revised proposed ODM budgets for 2004-05 and 2005-06. The format ofthe_budget document follows that of OD M's previous budgets, including annotations to explain revenue calculations, definitions of budget categories, and the budgeted allocations for the year by category. I will promptly provide any additional information upon request. Sincerely yours, Polly Ramer Office Manager Enc. e. -LRSD NLRSD PCSSD ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR 2004-05 and 2005-06 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... (T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor .... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit OroerofDecemberl2, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .... 2004--05 Budget 2005-06 Budget 10/1/04 %of 2004--05 2003-04 2004--05 10/1/04 %of 2005-06 2004--05 Enroll- Total Budget Credit Budget Enroll- Total Budget Estimated ment Enroll- Allocatlon (Budget Payment ment Enroll- Allocation Credit ment not spent) ment (Budget not spent) 25,720 47.93 134,583 4,282 130,301 25,720 47.93 118,262 1,724 9,496 17.69 49,672 1,580 48,092 9,496 17.69 43,648 636 18,449 34.38 96,536 3,072 93,464 18,449 34.38 84,829 1,236 State of AR NIA NIA 200,000 N/A 200,000 N/A N/A 200,000 N/A 2005-06 Estimated Budget Payment 116,538 43,012 83,593 200,000 2005-06: The 2005-06 Budget Allocation, the 2004-05 Estimated Credit, and the 2005-06 Estimated Budget Payment are apportioned among the three school districts according to the October 2004 enrollment numbers. After the final 2005-06 enrollment has been tallied, we will adjust the figures accordingly and notify each district of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's 2005-06 budget. Described below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the chart above, that we use to determine each district's contribution to the ODM budget: I. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on the previous year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share ( or estimated share) of OD M's unspent budget for the previous year. 4. Each district contributes that sum to ODM's budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's budget before the close of the current fiscal year. - 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. 2003-04 Budget 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 8,000.00 _ 7,813.33 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures __ --_ 9,006.00 2004-05: The increase in the budget is due to the advertising expense for the vacant position of the Federal Monitor. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other brganizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided, such as conference registration fees. 2003-04 Budget 735.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 930.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 265.00 2003-04: Over budget due to the registration for an associate to attend the National Counselors' Conference was $45 more than budgeted, and the registration fee for the Federal Monitor to attend the International Association of Facilitators conference was $150 more than budgeted. Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 2003-04 Budget 500.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 2,590.99 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 0.00 2003-04: Over budget because one of the older computers crashed and had to be replaced. The total cost of the computer was $2,108.55. Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area orin general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 2003-04 Budget 5,000.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 0.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 0.00 Page4 - Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals ofless than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 2003-04 Budget 121 .00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 135.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 135.00 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2003-04 Budget 6,000.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 5,033.07 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 5,245.00 Professional and Technical Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 2003-04 Budget 1,700.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 1,717.50 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 1,554.00 Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 2003-04 Budget 48,860.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 48,869.80 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 50,691 .00 2005-06: Office space could be reduced and therefore reduce the amount charged for rent by approximately $8,500. 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. 2003-04 Budget 400.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 434.95 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 252.00 Page5 - Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 2003-04 Budget 405,419.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 405,251.10 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 332,042.00 Below is a breakdown of each employee's budgeted 2004-05 and 2005-06 salary, reflecting a 3 .29% annual base increase, which is equal to or less than the annual step increase on the salary scales of the local districts. Name of 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Employee Salary Salary Salary Ann Marshall 119,022 40,900 0 Gene Jones 1 58,828 61,530 63,438 Margie Powell 70,196 72,505 74,890 Horace Smith 70,196 72,505 74,890 Polly Ramer 52,689 54,422 56,212 Linda Bryant 29,219 30,180 31,173 Act11 of1999 2 5,269 0 0 1Gene Jones, who works 4/5 time, elected to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. 2Act 11 of 1999 allows an employee who completes their 2at11 year under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System to enter the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan (T-Drop) and receive compensation for unused leave. Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid on behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fiinge benefit payments. 2003-04 Budget 2003-04 Actual 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures Expenditures 80,018.00 78,447.40 75,311 .00 Below is a breakdown b Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. Indemnity Tenn Benefits Marshall 300.00 2,380.21 411 .99 253.00 2.72 21.48 5.08 5.24 3,379.72 Jones 960.00 4,780.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,740.38 Powell 1,200.00 5,595.80 10,318.78 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 20,640.46 Smith 1,200.00 5,348.67 10,318.78 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 20,393.33 Ramer 0.00 4,015.33 7,619.02 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 15,160.23 Bryant 0.00 2,258.32 4,225.10 3,106.00 20.40 263.40 60.96 62.88 9,997.06 Page 6 -Below is a breakdown b cate o Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. Indemnity Tenn Benefits Jones 960.00 4,926.45 0.00 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 5,886.45 Powell 1,200.00 5,820.89 10,652.60 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 21 ,21-9.01 Smith 1,200.00 5,820.89 10,652.60 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 21 ,219.01 Ramer 0.00 4,300.22 7,869.68 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 15,715.42 Bryant 0.00 2,384.73 4,364.22 3, 120.00 20.40 269.04 60.96 62.88 10,282.23 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. 2003-04 Budget 6,000.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 5,403.11 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 4,000.00 - Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business, such as parking fees. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 2003-04 Budget 2,459.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 2,013.54 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 1,066.00 2004-05: The budget includes guest parking and reimbursement to support staff for the mileage they drive in their own vehicles on official business, an amount budgeted at $125.00. The remainder ($950.00) is for travel and lodging associated with one of the monitors attending the National Counselors' Conference, as explained above in the Dues and Fees section. 2005-06: The increase in budget is due an anticipated increase in conference costs. Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 2003-04 Budget 712.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 572.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 572.00 - 2005-06: The increase in budget is due to a 5% increase in the annual premium. Page 7 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING BUDGET: 2004-05 and 2005-06 REVENUE State of Arkansas LRSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals LRSD's share of the budget NLRSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals NLRSD's share of the budget PCSSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals PCSSD's share of the budget 2003-04 BUDGET 200,000.00 177,217.00 724.00 2003-04 Actual  .......................... . 176,493.00 61 ,292.00 250.00 257.66        oooo      uoOoHOO oo 61,042.00 62,864.34 127,415.00 520.00 Note: The sum of the credits in the above chart is the unspent amount of our previous year's budget, including bank interest earned. Every budget cycle, ODM applies this amount toward each school district's budgeted allocation. Both that allocation and the credit are determined for the proposed budget by the previous year's October 1 enrollment numbers, then adjusted accordingly when the enrollment numbers for the current year become available. EXPENDITURES Communications Dues and Fees Equipment Food Services Management Services Periodicals Printing \u0026amp; Binding Prof \u0026amp; Tech Services Rent Repairs \u0026amp; Maintenance Resource Library Salaries Benefits Staff Development Supplies Travel 2003-04 BUDGET 8,000.00 735.00 500.00 0.00 5,000.00 121.00 6,000.00 1,700.00 48,860.00 400.00 0.00 405,419.00 80,018.00 0.00 6,000.00 2,459.00 2003-04 Actual 7,813.33 930.00 2,590.99 0.00 0.00 135.00 5,033.07 1,717.50 .,,_ :t,?PQ.0\u0026lt;:t\\ 434.95 ' . . ,, 400.o~F 0.00 2004-05 Estimated 9,006.00 265.00 i, 0.00 0.00 0.00 135.00 5,245.00 1,554.00 50,691 .00 52,564.og:  252.00 ' '400;9ct; 332,042.00 75,311 .00 0.00 4,000.00 1,066.00 572.00 500:oci;; Jra~Jfo1 ~- 446.739.0Q!; 0.00 F~LED N THE N U.S. DISTRICT COURT I U ITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTER~J DIGrn:cT r.;:::wiSAs EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCO;'.:.:/\\CK, CLERK By LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ----:P=-L=-A-=--=-=-1N- :::T=-=-1F =fDE=.P,... .c,-LE-R- K v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. CASE NO.: 4:82-CV-00866 WRW DEFENDANTS RECEIVED M~Y 10 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGAl\\ON MONllORIMG INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NLRSD RESPONSE TO PCSSD MOTION REGARDING SCHOOL CHOICE The Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 1989, AC.A 6-18-206 sets forth the - public policy of the State of Arkansas in favor of parents and students having \"greater freedom to determine the most effective school for meeting their individual educational needs.\" Id. , 6-18-206(a)(1 )(1999 Repl.) \"The General Assembly further finds that giving more options to parents and students with respect to where they attend public school  will increase the responsiveness and effectiveness of the State's schools .... \" Id., at 6- 18-206(a)(2). As a result, the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas determined that \"[a] public school choice program is hereby established to enable any pupil to attend a school in a district in which the pupil does not reside , subject to the restrictions contained in this section\". Id., at 6-18-206(a)(4) (emphasis supplied). The PCSSD suggests that the NLRSD's acceptance of students transferring pursuant to the School Choice Act is somehow discretionary with the NLRSD. See 1 PCSSD Motion Respecting the School Choice Act, paragraph 3. This is not accurate. - While the Act does permit a receiving district to refuse to accept any school choice transfers at all, AC.A.  6-18-20(b)(3), it does not allow districts to discriminate between students as to who it will accept outside of a specific and limited list of statutory exceptions. Rather, it creates an obligation to accept transfers unless one of the specifically delineated exceptions applies. A fair reading of the Act makes it clear that any \"rights\" it creates attach to the parents and students, not to the district. The latter has only obligations. In fact, parents and students even have a right to appeal the denial of a school choice transfer to the Arkansas Board of Education. Ark. Dept. of Educ. Rules Governing School Choice Act, 5.04 (found at page 5 of Ex. A to PCSSD  Motion). It is noteworthy that the individuals whose \"rights\" will be affected by the decision on this motion, that is, the parents and students, are unrepresented in this proceeding. The PCSSD now invites this Court to disregard summarily the rights of these parents and students and the express public policy of the State of Arkansas by declaring that the School Choice Act is incompatible with the M-to-M Stipulation and the desegregation plan of the PCSSD. This issue arises because of the differing racial restrictions contained in the School Choice Act and the M-to-M Stipulation. The latter requires that a transferring student be in the majority in both his school and his school district and be transferring under circumstances where he will be in a minority in both his new school and his new district. The School Choice Act, on the other hand, requires only that a student be transferring from a district where his race is in a greater proportion to a district where his race is in a lesser proportion. In the present case, the 2 transferring students satisfy the school choice definition but only meet three of the four - requirements of the M-to-M definition since they would be transferring to a school where they would be in a majority status. This does not mean, however, that these transfers do not benefit the NLRSD in its desegregation efforts. These students create an additional pool of white students who may matriculate to the NLRSD's majority black secondary schools. Additionally, it is unknown how many of these students would actually attend schools in the PCSSD if their school choice transfers were denied. After all, 75-80% of them enter the NLRSD in kindergarten and have never been enrolled in the PCSSD. Affidavit of Bobby J. Acklin attached hereto. It is entirely possible that a significant proportion would opt out of the public schools entirely. Such an outcome would not help any district's desegregation efforts. Moreover, to accept the PCSSD's invitation would require this Court to ignore the standards for constitutional and statutory construction which seek to harmonize allegedly conflicting statutes and constitutional provisions. See, e.g., Nordgren v. Burlington Northern RR. Co.;- 101 F.3d 1246, 1253 (8th Cir. 1996) While the Supremacy Clause to the United States Constitution does empower federal courts to override state law, that power is used sparingly, and only when the provisions of federal law and the allegedly offending state law cannot be interpreted to be consistent with one another. See, e.g., DeCanas v. Bicas, 424 U.S. 351, 357 n.5 (1976), citing, Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner \u0026amp; Smith v. Ware, 414 U.S. 717, 127 (1973). In the present case, there is simply no reason for this Court to embark on such a course of action . 3 As the PCSSD notes, the Act provides that school choice transfers will not be - permitted under circumstances where it would \"conflict with a desegregation court order or a districts court-approved desegregation plan .\" AC.A. 6-18-206(9)(5). The PCSSD specifically challenges school choice transfers to the NLRSD's Indian Hills and Lakewood Elementary Schools from the PCSSD's Clinton, Oakbrooke, Sherwood and Sylvan Hills Elementary Schools. However, it fails to specify why these transfers offend the provisions of its desegregation plan or the M-to-M Stipulation. The PCSSD states only that these transfers should be prohibited because they are \"artificially increasing both the overall minority population of the PCSSD as well as frustrating the PCSSD's ability to attain unitary status in respect of its overall and individual school racial balance.\" PCSSD Memorandum in Support of Motion Regarding School Choice, at 2. -\\ It does not explain how these transfers frustrate its ability to attain unitary status. Its suggestion that increasing the overall minority population of the PCSSD is somehow offensive to its plan is baffling . After all, the express purpose of M-to-M transfers is to effectuate the movement of black students from majority black districts to the majority white PCSSD and the movement of white students from the PCSSD to the majority black districts. In other words, they are intended to increase artificially the overall minority population of the PCSSD. To suggest that furthering this goal is now contrary to anyone's desegregation plan defies explanation. Moreover, this position is inconsistent with the PCSSD's past practice and current procedures. When the School Choice Act was initially passed in 1989, Arkansas Acts 1989 No. 609, the resident school district as well as the receiving school district both had to first agree to participate in school choice transfers. All three districts 4 in Pulaski County did so. Subsequently, the Act was amended to eliminate this - affirmative requirement and now only permits a school district to refuse to allow all school choice transfers into that district. There is no corresponding provision permitting a district to refuse to permit transfers out of that district, as the PCSSD seeks to do here. Notably, even when the program was voluntary for the PCSSD and the NLRSD was majority white, these two districts both participated in school choice transfers, specifically of black students from the NLRSD to the PCSSD and of white students from the PCSSD to the NLRSD. See Affidavit of Bobby J. Acklin. While both districts were majority white at that time, the NLRSD's proportion of black students was much greater than the PCSSD's. Allowing these transfers assisted the NLRSD in maintaining racial balance. The same is true today. While the Indian Hills and Lakewood Elementary - Schools are majority white and have a greater proportion of white students than the schools in the PCSSD in question, the additional white students from the PCSSD will later be available to advance to the NLRSD's majority black high schools. Such an outcome is certainly consistent with the NLRSD's desegregation plan as well as the purposes of the M-to-M Stipulation. The PCSSD, without further explanation, contends that these transfers somehow frustrate its ability to attain unitary status. There is no indication regarding why this is true. The NLRSD has already agreed not to accept students from the Clinton Elementary attendance zone since that school is presently majority black and that might imperil its eligibility for M-to-M transfer payments. Affidavit of Bobby J. Acklin. No such circumstances, however, attach to transfers from the Oakbrooke, Sherwood and Sylvan 5 Hills Elementary Schools. All three of those schools are well within the PCSSD's racial balance guidelines which provide that its elementary schools must be between 20% and 49% black. These schools are 30%, 37% and 37% black, respectively, placing all of them comfortably within the attendance guidelines set forth in the PCSSD's desegregation plan . Accordingly, there is no present threat to the PCSSD's plan compliance caused by the NLRSD's receipt of school transfers from these schools. Any suggestion to the contrary is at best convenient speculation without any supporting evidence. As discussed previously, the rules of statutory construction require that federal law, or in this case a desegregation plan , be construed consistently rather than inconsistently with state law. The PCSSD argues without explanation that the transfers in question interfere with its ability to attain unitary status even though it is clear that - they are consistent with the underlying purpose of M-to-M transfers and leave the PCSSD schools in question comfortably within their racial balance guidelines. Accordingly, there is no reason why this Court should apply the heavy hand of federal supremacy to frustrate the clear public policy of the State of Arkansas favoring more educational choices for parents and students. May 9, 2005 Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES. P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock; Arkansas 72201 ,-- (501) 75-1122 ,--, ~, ~' I- - I I / By:. ) c? L.(.. ,~- ~-----Stepnen W. Jones ~78 Attorney for North l:.jtt District 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that the foregoing, NLRSD RESPONSE TO PCSSD MOTION REGARDING SCHOOL CHOICE, has been served via United States mail, postage prepaid, this 9th day of May, 2005, to the following : Mr. M. Samuel Jones Ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. 425 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Ave. Lexington, MA 02173 7 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 ( . / / AFFIDAVIT OF BOBBY J. ACKL.DJ I am Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation for the North Little Rock School District (1\\TLRSD) and state as follows : 1. I was hired as the Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs by the =:--lLRSD beginning the 1989-1990 school-year. In that capacity, I was responsible for student assignments and worked directly with the School Choice Act from its adoption. 2. In 1994 I became the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation in the ::--TLRSD and have served in that capacity to the present date. In that position, I have monitored student assignment inciuding school choice transfers. 3. 'foe NLRSD has participated in the State's School Choice Act since its inception as have the other two school districts in Pulaski County. It is our understanding that the 1'1LRSD is obligated to accept students for School Choice transfers unless we lack teachers or classroom space; the transfer we cause a violation of state educational standards; or it would undermine desegregation. 4. Accepting black students from the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and white students from the Pulaski County School District (PCSSD) is consistent with the :v1\u0026lt;\\iorityto- Minority (M-to-M) program which is a part of all three districts desegregation plans. However, in some cases, a student might not meet the qualifications to participate in the M-to-:vf program but may meet the guidelines set forth in the School Choice .Act. Therefore, NLRSD accepts black students from some schools in the LRSD and non-black students from some schools in the PCSSD under the School Choice Act. \\Ve also accept School Choice students from other sun-ounding school districts. We have done so since the inception of the School Choice Act. 5. The NLRSD is aware of the PCSSD's student assignment plan. Each year we request and receive a list of schools that are not eligible for M-to-M transfers from the PCS SD. Not only do we use this list to assign M-to-M transfer students but also use this list to govern what School Choice applications we approve. If a student does not qualify for an M-to-M transfer from a school in the PCSSD, we will not accept this student on a School Choice transfer. 6. lvfost of the elementary School Choice students enrolled in ?-JLRSD from the PCSSD have never attended school in the PCSSD. Approximately 75% to 80% of the elementary School Choice students enrolled in ~LRSD enter at the kindergarten level. 7. On February 23, 2005 a meeting was held between representatives from the Office of Desegregation \\1onico1ing (ODM), NLRSD, and PCS SD to discuss School Choice transfers. It was called to our attention that we accepted students from the Clinton Elementary attendance zone and should not have. We were not aware that Clinton Elementary was not eligible for School Choice. Once vve became a,vare of this we immediately stopped accepting students from Clinton Elementary attendance zone. We requested a map or other information indicating the Clinton Elementary attendance zone so that this mistake would not happen again, and, we are no longer accepting students from the Clinton Elementary attendance zone. 8. The PCS SD and :::--rLRSD representatives also agreed on the follov.i:ing items: a. That each district would provide and exchange information so that we can accurately calculate racial percentages in schools. b. That each distiict would provide lists of students which show what school attendance zone School Choice students are coming from. c. That we would use the student's current address to determine which school attendance zone students live in and not the last school attended. d. That both districts will adhere to the July 1 School Choice deadline. FURTHER AFFLA.l\\'T SAYETH NOT. DATE: _tJ._-_\u0026lt;j_._O_b _ State of 1\\.rkansas County of Pulaski Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of May, 2005. ~kwt=-=-=-=--AA~\u0026lt;...___~t~ Kotary Public Mv commission expUesc ~ L3 .:J.oo 1 - ~?mm====') ~: Sandra K. CoJlins !\u0026lt; -  ----------- \u0026gt;' Not:iry Public, S!it~ o! A,kunsns { ~~ ~!,~ski Co,wy :\u0026lt; , My Con:m:s~1ori Exp (', !.'lJ/2007 ~ 'J./J.\u0026gt;.l;.J.J.\u0026gt;).l./.,'.l.;;'r,'.llN.1.l '.' ; ;;,:;,.11,, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD OBJECTIONS TO ODM PROPOSED BUDGET RECEIVED MAY 1 0 2005 OFFICOF DESEGREGATION MONLTORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its objections to the budget proposed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) for the 2005-06 school year, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: 1. The ODM budget for 2005-06 continues to allocate costs to LRSD based solely on LRSD's student population with no recognition of the substantial reduction in the number of desegregation requirements left to be monitored with respect to LRSD. 2. Since the ODM formula for allocating costs among the three Pulaski County school districts and the State was developed, LRSD has achieved unitary status in every area except for one remaining requirement to evaluate certain academic programs. 3. The cost of any necessary monitoring of LRSD's compliance with the program evaluation requirement should not be significant since LRSD must submit to the Court \"quarterly 1 - written updates on the status of the work being performed\" with respect to those evaluations. Memorandum Opinion, June 30, 2004, p. 65 . 4. ODM proposes that LRSD pay about 48 percent of the funds required of the three Pulaski County school districts to fund ODM's operation. With only one remaining obligation to be monitored, LRSD should not be required to pay so large a share of the funds contributed by the Pulaski County school districts. 5. LRSD proposes that ODM develop a new budget tailored to the present circumstances which separates the costs of reviewing LRSD 's quarterly status reports and conducting any necessary monitoring to verify the contents of those reports. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD objects to ODM' s proposed budget for 2004-05 and proposes that ODM submit a revised budget which allocates costs to LRSD in - accordance with the actual cost of the monitoring necessary to assure LRSD's compliance with its sole remaining desegregation obligation. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BChristop;Hell ~ ~ 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on the 9th day of May, 2005: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp;WOODYARD 425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner and Ivers 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 05/23/2005 16:54 --- 5016045149 WILSON UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTH:\u0026gt;USE 600W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 Sill. WILSON JUDGE Mr. Sam Jones UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3326 (601) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 May23,200~ LETTER/ORDER VIA FAX MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD 425 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones J A.CK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSDv. PCSSD, 4:82CV00866-WRW LRSD Objections to ODM Budget Dear Counsel: PAGE 02/02 Please let me have your position on the LRSD's objection to the ODM proposed budget (filed May 9, 2005). It seems to me 'that LRSD bas a pretty good point, but I want your written responses, and perhaps we will have a hearing after your responses are filed. Please fax your i:esponse to me no later than 5 p.m., next Wednesday, June 1, 2005. Please file the original with the Clerk and send fax. copies to opposing counsel, the ODM, and to Judge Ray. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: Office of Desegregation Monitoring, The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Other Counsel of Record D!l:?--=--- Wm. R. \\\\ ilson. Jr.  Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  urru ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://ark,du.stat,.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education May 31, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED JUN -1 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONlTORING Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of May 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier T.ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTE!{N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN - 1 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for May 2005. Respectfully Submitted, s\u0026amp;~t.tillfr= General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 - - - - - --------- -------- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on May 31, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 _fl/k Scott Smi IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each. month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2005 silla~~:~,~~'.~~!?~!ii~t!~~.avaU~bl~~~~P.J'.~922.~~~~@~~e.;:aK~~~ifedJti'tr sfate fqunqa~tQ.t:Jl/iuJ1d1r:ig JqtEY.i,Q4/0S;:$UbJe.~t tg .. p_@nQq19.~ijclJysJmeo~ B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD RESPONSE TO LRSD OBJECTIONS TO ODM PROPOSED BUDGET The PCSSD for its response, states: RECEIVED JUN - 2 2005 :nur:~.~t,.l.fJllMO{!NfffItOE OIIf JDIIIG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS I. It admits the accuracy of Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the LRSD objection. 2. It acknowledges the logic of Paragraph 4 and 5 of the LRSD objection, but states that, at the same time, it would be unfair to reallocate costs historically attributed to the LRSD to the PCSSD since nothing about the reduction in monitoring associated with the LRSD increases any monitoring required of or appropriate for the PCSSD. Logically, what is ideal is for the ODM to reduce its overall expenditures to a level corresponding to its reasonably anticipated reduced monitoring activities.1 3. The PCS SD supported the LRSD in its pursuit of unitary status. If the proposed expenditure level of the ODM cannot be immediately adjusted to reflect its reduced responsibilities, then it should continue to absorb the current allocated expenses since its activities and successful claims for relief caused this current issue to arise in the first place. 1 In this regard, the PCSSD is fully aware of the difficulty of shrinking infrastructure as pointed out at page 2 of its reply to NLRSD response to PCSSD motion regarding school choice filed on May 31 , 2005. Stated another way, the PCS SD has done nothing to precipitate the instant objection nor has it done anything to warrant absorbing a greater proportion of the cost of the ODM. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that it not be allocated any greater portion or proportion of the proposed budget than that which it currently absorbs and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 1, 2005, a copy of the foregoing was served via facsimile and U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General 's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 021 73    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"aar_alabamaphoto_34858","title":"Cleveland Avenue bus from the 1955 Montgomery City Lines fleet, parked in front of Union Station in Montgomery, Alabama.","collection_id":"aar_alabamaphoto","collection_title":"Alabama Photographs and Pictures Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005"],"dcterms_description":["The vehicle was restored to resemble the bus Rosa Parks was riding when she was arrested on December 1, 1955."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Alabama Department of Archives and History, 624 Washington Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36130"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Cleveland Avenue bus photographs","SPP151"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Civil rights","Montgomery Bus Boycott, Montgomery, Ala., 1955-1956","Buses","Transportation","Montgomery (Ala.)","Montgomery County (Ala.)"],"dcterms_title":["Cleveland Avenue bus from the 1955 Montgomery City Lines fleet, parked in front of Union Station in Montgomery, Alabama."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Alabama. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.archives.alabama.gov/cdm/ref/collection/photo/id/34858"],"dcterms_temporal":["2000/2009"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material may be protected under U. S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S. Code) which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. Though ADAH h"],"dcterms_medium":["photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aar_alabamaphoto_34855","title":"Cleveland Avenue bus from the 1955 Montgomery City Lines fleet, parked in front of Union Station in Montgomery, Alabama.","collection_id":"aar_alabamaphoto","collection_title":"Alabama Photographs and Pictures Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005"],"dcterms_description":["The vehicle was restored to resemble the bus Rosa Parks was riding when she was arrested on December 1, 1955."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Alabama Department of Archives and History, 624 Washington Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36130"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Cleveland Avenue bus photographs","SPP151"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Civil rights","Montgomery Bus Boycott, Montgomery, Ala., 1955-1956","Buses","Transportation","Montgomery (Ala.)","Montgomery County (Ala.)"],"dcterms_title":["Cleveland Avenue bus from the 1955 Montgomery City Lines fleet, parked in front of Union Station in Montgomery, Alabama."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Alabama. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.archives.alabama.gov/cdm/ref/collection/photo/id/34855"],"dcterms_temporal":["2000/2010"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material may be protected under U. S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S. Code) which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. Though ADAH h"],"dcterms_medium":["photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1777","title":"Court filings concerning Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report and motion for withdrawal and substitution of counsel.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2004-03-02/2004-03-16"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","School integration","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Teachers","Education--Evaluation","School discipline","Discrimination in school discipline","Student activities","Transportation","School improvement programs","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report and motion for withdrawal and substitution of counsel."],"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/1777"],"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":["82 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt of Appeals, ruling; District Court, letter-order; District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report; District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel and for substitution of counsel    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Nos. 02-3867EA, 03-l 147EA Little Rock School District, Appellee, V. * * * * * * * RECEIVED f.;_'.J -J 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Alexa Armstrong; Karlos Armstrong; * On Appeal from the United Khayyam Davis; Alvin Hudson, Tatia * States District Court Hudson, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; * for the Eastern District Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua; Sarah * of Arkansas. Facen; Derrick Miles; Janice Miles; * John M. Miles; NAACP; Joyce Person; * Brian Taylor; Hilton Taylor; Parsha * Taylor; Robert Willingham; and * Tonya Willingham, * * Appellants. * Submitted: September 11, 2003 Filed: March 2, 2004 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. ----- - -------- - I ' I I I ! I This case consolidates two appeals, both arising from the Little Rock School District's request for unitary status. First, the Joshua Intervenors 1 appeal from the District Court's2 denial of their Motion for Recusal of District Judge and Vacating of Orders, Rulings, and Judgments. We review a district court's denial of recusal for abuse of discretion. See In re Hale, 980 F.2d 1176, 1178 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Walker, 920 F.2d 513, 516 (8th Cir. 1990). We conclude that Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Henry Woods at a much earlier stage of the case, and on far different issues, did not involve the same \"matter in controversy\" for purposes of 28 U.S.C.  455(b )(2); thus, we affirm the denial of the Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Recusal. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting the Little Rock School District (LRSD) partial unitary status. The Joshua Intervenors assert: ( 1) that the District Court erred by not requiring and considering additional reports from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM); and (2) that the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was erroneous. We hold that the District Court did not err by failing to require new written reports from the ODM, and that the District Court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous; thus, we affirm the grant of partial unitary status. Because the facts relevant to each issue on appeal are different, we address them separately. In Part I, we address the issue of disqualification. In Part II, we address whether the District Court should have required new written reports from the 1This group of school children and parents are, as a practical matter, the plaintiffs in the case at its present juncture. The Little Rock School District, which actually initiated the case in 1982, is effectively the defendant for purposes of this appeal. 2The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- - ODM. Finally, in Part III, we address whether the District Court erred in finding that LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan in most respects. I. This litigation began in 1982 and has been in and out of this Court and the District Court several times - it is complex to say the least. We briefly highlight the events relevant to the issue of the disqualification of Judge Wilson. In 1987, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors sought to disqualify Judge Henry Woods,3 who was then presiding over the case. The parties asserted as grounds for disqualification that during Judge Woods's private law practice, one of his partners had represented parties who participated as amici curiae in a related case, and that Judge Woods's impartiality was called into question by his comments at a meeting with students. Judge Wilson, then in private practice, represented Judge Woods for the limited purpose of the mandamus proceedings, defending Judge Woods's decision not to recuse himself. 4 In the current proceeding, begun by LRSD's motion that it be released from court supervision, the Joshua Intervenors sought the recusal of Judge Wilson under 28 U.S .C.  455(b)(2), which requires a judge to disqualify himself \"where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy.\" After Judge Wilson entered an order on September 13, 2002, granting LRSD partial unitary status, the 3The Little Rock School District sought a writ of mandamus asking this Court to disqualify Judge Woods, and the Joshua Intervenors appealed a judgment entered by Judge Woods, asserting, among other things, that the judge should be disqualified. 4This Court found that Judge Woods was not disqualified. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F .2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 833 F.2d 112 (8th Cir. 1987). -3- 4t Intervenors filed a Motion for a Hearing Regarding the Relevance of28 U.S.C.  455 to the Present Proceedings. Judge Wilson denied this motion on October 29, 2002. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2002 WL 31465311 (E.D. Ark. 2002). Thereafter, on November 25, 2002, the Joshua Intervenors moved for disqualification of Judge Wilson. Judge Wilson denied this motion because, among other reasons, he had never served, in his view, as a lawyer in the \"matter in controversy.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 4:82CV00866 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 20, 2002). The Joshua Intervenors appeal. We must determine whether Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding in 1987 involved the same \"matter in controversy\" as the present questions before us for purposes of 28 U.S.C.  455(b )(2). Because the mandamus proceeding did not touch upon the merits of the case, we conclude that it was not a part of the same \"matter in controversy.\" The Joshua Intervenors contend that Judge Wilson's participation was part of the same matter in controversy because it was part of a single case. The language chosen by Congress, \"matter in controversy,\" is not defined by the statute. However, Congress easily could have substituted the word \"case\" for the words \"matter in controversy,\" but did not do so. This deliberate choice by Congress demonstrates an intent that the words \"matter in controversy\" mean something other than what we commonly refer to as a \"case.\" In fact, Congress used the words \"proceeding,\" \"case in controversy,\" and \"subject matter in controversy\" in various other subsections of  455(b) to describe situations where a judge must disqualify himself. Thus, we must assume that Congress ascribed a particular meaning to the words \"matter in controversy,\" and we must try to discern that meaning. We note that Judge Wilson represented Judge Woods at the mandamus proceedings, which were given a separate docket number from the rest of the case in this Court. This circumstance, though relevant, is not enough in itself to enable us -4- - to conclude that the disqualification proceeding was not the same \"matter in controversy\" as the present appeal. As we have indicated, the phrase \"matter in controversy\" must mean something other than the word \"case,\" and so we do not rely on this technical distinction. Instead, we look to the substance of the issues argued and decided in the two proceedings. In Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988), we discussed, but did not decide, whether a matter in controversy could extend beyond a single case. Even if a matter in controversy could be more extensive than a single case, we concluded that the facts before us did not support such a conclusion because the cases involved, \"to a large extent, different issues and different remedies.\" Id. at 1302. We think this reasoning is useful in determining whether a matter in controversy may be less extensive than a case. Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Woods was restricted solely to the issue ofrecusal and did not go to the merits of the case. Judge Wilson was involved in the case solely for the mandamus proceedings and, in the course of his representation, never addressed the merits of the case or expressed any opinion about them. The issues before Judge Wilson in the present matter are wholly unrelated to his prior representation of Judge Woods. Although the case law is slim in this area, we find support for our position in In re Apex Oil Co., 981 F.2d 302 (8th Cir. 1992). In Apex Oil. Judge Loken found his recusal unnecessary where he and his former law firm were previously involved with plaintiffs' claim for damages from an oil spill and where, later, his law firm filed claims on behalf of plaintiffs in Apex Oil's bankruptcy proceedings. Id. at 304-05. The question was whether the plaintiffs' claim for damages constituted the same matter in controversy as the later claims in bankruptcy when both resulted from the same oil spill. Id. at 303. Although acknowledging that bankruptcy proceedings are atypical because they are conducted under an umbrella proceeding, Judge Loken -5- - ------ - - - --- --- ----------------- - concluded that the cases were not \"sufficiently related\" so as to constitute the same matter in controversy. Id. at 304. Applying this analysis to our situation, we conclude that there is not a sufficient relationship between the recusal proceedings with respect to Judge Woods and the issues now before us on the merits to make them the same \"matter in controversy.\" Nor do we think that any impartial observer could reasonably think that Judge Wilson's impartiality should be called into question. Not only was his prior representation of Judge Woods wholly distinct; the issues before the Judge in the current proceeding involved the current version of the parties' agreement to settle the underlying case, an agreement that was never before Judge Woods, and that was not even in existence until long after he voluntarily relinquished the case. II. As we have noted, this appeal arises from an interdistrict desegregation case filed by LRSD in 1982. As part of that case, the parties agreed to a settlement plan in 1989. However, as time passed, portions of that plan proved unworkable, and the parties agreed to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. This plan was approved by the District Court and this Court. On March 15, 2001, LRSD asked the District Court to declare it unitary under  11 of the Revised Plan. On July 25, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed an opposition to this request. The opposition, App. of Appellants 185-86, made the following argument, among many others: The Joshua Intervenors believe further that the court must have before it a written response to the district's plan or other written analysis regarding that plan from the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be -6- incomplete and not keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. This opposition was filed while the case was still before Chief Judge Wright (who had taken the case after Judge Woods had removed himself from it). She then conducted five and one-half days of evidentiary hearings, ending on November 20, 2001. On January 3, 2002, Chief Judge Wright withdrew from the case, and it was reassigned to Judge Wilson. He held three additional days of evidentiary hearings on July 22, 23 , and 24, 2002. The Joshua Intervenors' second major argument on appeal is that the District Court erred in making findings and entering judgment without directing ODM to prepare additional monitoring reports on LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. The Joshua Intervenors point out that the ODM was created in the first place at the direction of this Court. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1388 (8th Cir. 1990). The District Court had before it some relevant materials from the ODM: a report on LRSD's preparations for implementation of the Revised Plan, filed August 11, 1999, and a report of disciplinary sanctions in the Little Rock School District, filed on June 14, 2000. As to the first report, the Court observed that it \"indicated that, overall, LRSD was doing a satisfactory job of implementing the Revised Plan.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1048 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The District Court did not view the second report as having much value. The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court should have had the ODM prepare an additional report or reports before making any findings . They point out that \"ODM had gained considerable expertise, preparing at least 49 reports.\" Brief for Appellants 39. -7- In response, LRSD argues that this point was not properly raised in the District Court. Certainly it is true that the Court never entered a written order expressly disposing of the request that additional monitoring reports be prepared. Before the case was transferred to Judge Wilson, however, Chief Judge Wright effectively denied the Intervenors' request, saying: And of course, you are free, Mr. Walker, to call the Office of Desegregation Monitoring as witnesses, as well, I mean, those people as witnesses to the extent you think they have knowledge on the matters at issue. And furthermore, and I talked information with Ms. Marshall [the head of ODM] about this, I don't mind Ms. Marshall telling you, sharing with you the information that she has, but if she does that I want her to share it with everyone else too. Tr. of June 29,2001 , 27-28. The Joshua Intervenors, in response to this invitation or otherwise, did not call anybody from the ODM as a witness. As we have noted, the request that additional monitoring reports be required was not the subject of a separate motion, but rather a matter mentioned, almost in passing, in a pleading filed by the Joshua Intervenors. App. of Appellants 185-86. As far as we can tell, the request was never renewed on the record, either in writing or in open Court, during the days of evidentiary hearings conducted by Judge Wilson, or in any other manner. We nevertheless assume for present purposes that the point is properly before us, and we hold that it is without merit. The ODM, as the Joshua Intervenors point out, was created at the direction of this Court, at the time of our initial approval of the settlement agreement, but the ODM was to be under the supervision of the District Court and to act as an arm of that Court in ensuring that the settlement agreement was followed. It was and remains the job of the District Court, in its discretion, to determine how the ODM should be used. A choice to rely on the existing materials prepared by the ODM, and to eschew the preparation of -8- ---- - - - - ------------~ additional reports, is certainly not an abuse of discretion. Two further points are important. First, the Joshua Intervenors could have, but did not, call someone from the ODM to testify. Second, no offer of proof was made. We do not know what OD M's position would have been if it had been asked. In this situation, it is simply impossible to say that the decision not to request the production of additional papers had any effect on the outcome of this case. III. The Revised Plan \"supersede[s] and extinguish[es] all prior agreements and orders\" in the case, with limited exceptions. App. of Appellants 87. Unlike the previous settlement agreement, the Revised Plan contains a specific procedure by which LRSD can attain unitary status. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provides: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding the LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state ofLRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. Ifno party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. App. of Appellants 110. Although not required by  11 of the Revised Plan, one year before the final report required by  11 was due, LRSD filed an interim report to demonstrate its progress toward compliance. App. of Appellee 71. On March 15, 2001 , as required by the Revised Plan, LRSD filed its final report, which supplemented and updated the -9- information provided in the interim report. App. of Appellee 245 . The Joshua Intervenors filed objections to this report on June 25, 2001 , challenging LRSD's substantial compliance with various sections of the Revised Plan. App. of Appellants 185. After holding evidentiary hearings on the Joshua Intervenors' objections, the District Court issued an order granting LRSD partial unitary status. See Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d 1086. The District Court denied LRSD unitary status under  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan, requiring LRSD to assess annually the academic programs promulgated under 2. 7. Id. at 1081-82. LRSD has not cross-appealed the District Court's ruling on  2. 7 .1, and it is not before us. This issue remains pending in the District Court. On appeal, the Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court erred in granting partial unitary status to LRSD. Specifically, the Joshua Intervenors challenge the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the following sections: (1)  2.1, Good Faith; (2)  2.5-2.5.4, Student Discipline; (3)  2.6, Extracurricular Activities; and (4)  2.6-2.6.2, Advanced Placement Classes. We review the District Court's findings of fact for clear error. See Nash Finch Co. v. Rubloff Hastings, L.L.C., 341 F.3d 846, 850 (8th Cir. 2003). Thus, we must affirm unless the findings are, in our opinion, clearly erroneous, which means that we must have a \"definite and firm conviction\" that the District Court was mistaken. Ibid. If \"there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.\" Id. at 851 ( quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 US. 564, 574 (1985)). We also note that the Joshua Intervenors bear the burden of proof. Under 11 of the Revised Plan, \"[a]ny party who challenges the Little Rock School District's compliance bears the burden of proof.\" App. of Appellants 110. Section 11 of the -10- - Revised Plan also compelled the District Court to enter an order granting unitary status to LRSD unless the Joshua Intervenors met this burden. Ibid. We hold that the District Court did not clearly err in finding that the Joshua Intervenors had not met their burden with respect to the four subject-matter areas on appeal. Thus, we affirm. A. The Joshua Intervenors appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under 2.1 of the Revised Plan, which provides: LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. App. of Appellants 88. This section places an independent duty on LRSD to exercise its \"best efforts\" and to act in \"good faith\" in attempting to remedy the effects of discrimination. The Joshua Intervenors argue that LRSD did not act in good faith. As evidence, they allege that Central High School is still functionally segregated, although the building itself has been integrated. See Brief for Appellants 44-46. Specifically, the Joshua Intervenors argue that the advanced-placement program segregates students into different classrooms, which are the functional equivalent of different schools. Ibid. Moreover, they assert that the teachers are assigned to advanced-placement courses in a racially segregated manner-white teachers teaching advanced-placement classes and African-American teachers teaching regular -11- -------- - classes. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors also suggest that segregation seeps outside of the classroom and into extracurricular activities. Ibid. The obligation of good faith under 2.1 of the Revised Plan is separate from, and independent of, other affirmative obligations undertaken by LRSD pursuant to  2 of the Revised Plan. Thus, it is possible for LRSD to have acted in good faith, meeting its obligation under  2.1 , even though it did not meet other affirmative obligations imposed by the Revised Plan. After the Revised Plan was adopted, the Little Rock School Board enacted fifteen different policies related to its obligation of good faith and took steps to ensure that all administrators and teachers were aware of these new policies. LRSD also hired Dr. Terrence Roberts, Tr. of July 24, 2002, at 615-16, and Dr. Steven Ross, Tr. of July 23, 2002, at 539, as desegregation experts. Dr. Roberts testified that he had been actively involved in reviewing policies and procedures. Tr. of July 24, 2002, at 619-20. He also testified that he had developed training programs for teachers and other staff members. Ibid. Dr. Roberts testified that he told the Board that LRSD had directed much energy and effort toward meeting all the criteria in the Revised Plan and that LRSD had the potential for being a model school district for the nation. Id. at 647. Dr. Roberts criticized LRSD for having a \"compliance mentality\" because some individuals were interested only in meeting the requirements of the Revised Plan. Id. at 630-31. However, as explained by the District Court, compliance was exactly the issue at hand. LRSD was under constant scrutiny and had to be very careful that it met its obligations. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1045. Under 8.2 of the Revised Plan, a detailed procedure for addressing compliance issues was established whereby the parties would attempt to solve compliance issues before submitting them to the District Court for resolution. The Board paid the Joshua Intervenors to monitor LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. During the term of the Revised Plan, the Joshua Intervenors raised only five compliance issues, which -12- ---------- - ----------- ~ - were all resolved without resorting to the District Court. App. of Appellee 415. None of the issues raised in opposition to the final report was previously raised by the Joshua Intervenors. The District Court found that the purpose of the dispute mechanism under 8.2 was to avoid any surprises when LRSD filed the final report, and that LRSD reasonably relied on the Joshua Intervenors to raise any problems in a timely fashion. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. The District Court also found that the interim report placed the Joshua Intervenors on notice of all the problems, but they did not respond. Ibid. Although  11 does not require that any objections be previously raised under 8.2, the District Court found that Intervenors' failure to raise these issues was a factor to consider in deciding whether LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan. Id. at 1043-44. For the reasons stated above, we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with 2.1 of the Revised Plan. B. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under  2.5-2.5.4, relating to student discipline. Although  2.5.1-2.5.4 impose specific obligations with regard to discipline, the Joshua Intervenors assert in particular that LRSD did not meet its obligation under  2.5, which provides: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. App. of Appellants 90. This section requires LRSD to create and implement programs and policies designed to eliminate discriminatory practices from student -13- ___________ _ ___ __________ _. discipline. It does not require, however, that LRSD in fact absolutely eliminate racial disparity from student discipline. The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court improperly found that LRSD had substantially complied with  2.5 because the Court misconstrued the meaning of the words \"to ensure.\" Brief for Appellants 40. Interpretation of the Revised Plan is a question of law, which we review de novo, and we hold that the District Court did not err in construing the obligation imposed by 2.5. The Joshua Intervenors argue that \"to ensure\" means to make sure that racial discrimination does not occur. Ibid. If \"to ensure\" were the only operative phrase in the provision, the argument might be well taken. But 2.5 does not require LRSD to ensure anything. It merely requires that LRSD \"implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure .. .. \" (Emphasis ours.) The thrust of the provision is that certain programs with the purpose of ensuring that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline be instituted. This does not mean that the programs must be perfectly efficacious. In addition, the object is to eradicate discrimination, which is not necessarily the same thing as disparity. Racial disparity may exist without discrimination. Discrimination, of course, can cause disparity, but it is not the only possible cause. Disparity in discipline is a nation-wide problem. The District Court cited something called \"total suspension index.\" The total suspension index demonstrates disparity in discipline and is calculated by dividing the percentage of AfricanAmerican students expelled or suspended by the percentage of African-American students in the population, and comparing this number with that for white students. The District Court found that LRSD's suspension index was between 1.25 - 1.31 for the years 1997-2001. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1054. In other words, to take 1997 as an example, African-American students were 1.25 times as likely, so to speak, to be disciplined or suspended than white students. The national -14- -------- - ---- --- ----------~ index for 1998 was 2.24, and the Arkansas index was 2.16. The District Court specifically found that the Joshua Intervenors did not meet their burden of proving that disproportionate discipline imposed on African-American students was the result of discrimination. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1057. This finding is not clearly erroneous. LRSD enacted several policies to implement its obligations regarding student discipline and created a Compliance Plan, which outlined how LRSD planned to implement the Revised Plan and who bore responsibility for such implementation. Under the Compliance Plan, Junious Babbs was responsible for monitoring student discipline. An ombudsman, James Washington, was appointed pursuant to 2.5.3 to ensure that students were treated fairly throughout the discipline process. The ombudsman was charged with shepherding students through the discipline process, including making students aware of the rules, acting as an advocate for students involved in the disciplinary process, and investigating parental and student complaints of discrimination. The interim and final reports issued by LRSD focused on the decrease in overall suspensions and expulsions, due in part to programs developed by LRSD, such as behavior modification programs and alternative learning centers. App. of Appellee 85-87, 273-74. Although the reduction in suspensions for African-American students was not so large as that of white students, the District Court found that the proportion of suspensions received by African-American students remained the same. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1051. Neither the interim report nor the final report focused on the fact that racial disparity existed among the students who received suspensions or expulsions, and the District Court found that LR.SD could have sorted the data in such a way as to give a more meaningful analysis. Id. at 1051-52. However, the District Court found that the Joshua Intervenors had access to the raw data and never raised the issue. Id. at 1052. -15- ------ - - - More specifically, the District Court found that the reports did not mislead the Joshua Intervenors. Ibid. The ODM produced a Report on Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD, which showed that African-American students received a disproportionate number of suspensions and expulsions. However, the District Court specificaHy found that this report was not intended to address the effectiveness of any programs that were instituted to address fairness in discipline. Id. at 1052-53. The District Court also noted that the report suggested that factors outside of the schools might affect which students receive discipline, such as home environment, family values, and whether the home is a single-parent home. Id. at 1052. The report did not contain a specific analysis of the facts of each suspension or expulsion to help determine whether discrimination occurred. Id. at 1052-53. However, the report did conclude that the racial disparity meant that LRSD \"has certainly not eliminated nor even abated racial discrimination in suspensions . . .. \" Id. at 1053 ( quoting Report on Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD, June 14, 2000). The District Court rejected this conclusion as speculative because it was based on raw statistics. Ibid. Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent for Student Hearings, was responsible for monitoring compliance with the Student Handbook. She reviewed every long-term suspension or expulsion and all appeals from short-term suspensions. Tr. of Nov. 19, 2001, 36-37. If the procedures of the Student Handbook were not followed, Dr. Watson overturned the punishment and removed it from the records. Ibid. Although Dr. Watson acknowledged that African-American students were more frequently suspended than white students, she believed this was due to the fact that they more frequently engaged in conduct prohibited by the Student Handbook. Id. at 83-84. She also testified that she believed this was due primarily to socioeconomic factors. (Some of these factors may be caused by or related to racial discrimination, but they are not the fault of the present administration of LRSD.) The District Court -16- - specifically found that the testimony of all the administrators involved in the disciplinary process was credible. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 23 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1050. For these reasons, we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with 2.5 of the Revised Plan. C. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under  2.6 and 2.6.3, relating to extracurricular activities. Although  2.6.3 imposes a specific obligation with regard to transportation for extracurricular activities, the Joshua Intervenors assert that LRSD did not meet its obligation under  2.6, which provides: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities . . .. App. of Appellants 90-91. The Joshua Intervenors argue that racial discrimination occurred in extracurricular activities, evidenced by the fact that many extracurricular activities did not have a proportionate share of African-American participants. Brief for Appellants 46. Certain activities' participants, such as tennis, swimming, quiz bowl, mock trial, and cheer leading, were predominantly white. The Joshua Intervenors also assert that there were barriers to participation, including costs of participation and lack of transportation. The Joshua Intervenors argue that racial disparities in extracurricular activities are the result of discrimination. However, as noted by the District Court, nothing in -17- - ------- - - - ------ ------~ -  2.6 of the Revised Plan required LRSD to impose quotas on extracurricular activities. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1058. LRSD undertook to promote the participation of African-American students and to eliminate barriers to participation. As we noted above with respect to 2.5, this provision does not make LRSD an insurer. It requires only that the District \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure,\" et cetera. (Emphasis ours.) The final report noted a marked increase m African-American students' participation in extracurricular activities following the enactment of the new policies. App. of Appellee 276-77. The final report also demonstrated that LRSD attempted to eliminate barriers to participation by having buses transport students to and from extracurricular activities. Id. at 278. Although the record does not establish which students took advantage of the extra buses, the final report stated that \"no extracurricular activity transportation request made by an eligible student has been denied.\" Ibid. As noted by the District Court, the Joshua Intervenors bore the burden of proof on this issue, and they did not provide a single witness to testify that African-American students were unable to participate because of a lack of transportation. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1059. The Joshua Intervenors also assert that the costs of certain activities create a barrier to participation. Although there are costs associated with certain activities, Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools, testified that each school had a discretionary fund which could be used to help students pay the costs of extracurricular activities. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 775-76. The District Court also found that the Joshua Intervenors presented no testimony that any student was denied an opportunity to participate because of costs. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 23 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1059-60. -18- The Joshua Intervenors asserted that certain schools, which were primarily African-American, did not have the same extracurricular activities as other schools, and that this violated LRSD's duty to promote participation. However, the District Court found that each school determined which extracurricular activities to offer on the basis of student interest, and if enough interest existed, each school offered a stipend to sponsors of those activ'ities. Id. at 1060. The District Court concluded that certain activities were missing at certain schools not because of discrimination but instead because of lack of student interest. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors presented several students' testimony to support their assertion that African-American students were not encouraged to participate or were prevented from participating in extracurricular activities. The District Court did not find this testimony impressive. Id. at 1061. Questions of credibility and inferences to be drawn from facts must generally be left to the trial court. The Joshua Intervenors bore the burden of proving that LRSD was not implementing programs, policies, or procedures designed to promote participation and ensure there were no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities. We hold that the District Court did not err in determining that the Joshua Intervenors failed to meet this burden. D. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's order granting LRSD unitary status under 2.6-2.6.2, relating to advanced-placement classes and honors programs. While  2.6.1 and 2.6.2 impose specific duties on LRSD to provide training programs for teachers to identify and encourage qualified African-American students to participate in advanced-placement programs and to assist African-American students in being successful in advanced-placement -19- - programs, the Intervenors do not complain that these specific provisions were violated. Instead, they focus on 2.6, which imposes a more general duty: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in . . . advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. App. of Appellants 90-91. The phraseology of this provision is similar to others discussed above. The Joshua Intervenors assert that the District Court erred in finding no barriers to participation in advanced-placement courses. The low number of AfricanAmerican teachers assigned to advanced-placement courses, they say, is a barrier to participation. Brief for Appellants 43-44. The Joshua Intervenors rely primarily on the testimony of Dr. Michael Faucette, an English teacher at Central High School. Dr. Faucette testified that although there were eight African-American teachers and eight white teachers in Central High's English Department, African-American teachers taught only a few of the advanced-placement sections. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 176-80. Dr. Faucette, an African-American teacher, did not teach any of the advanced-placement sections. Id. at 177. The Little Rock School District Board created a regulation setting forth criteria to help teachers identify African-American students for participation in advanced-placement courses. Although this was one factor used in identifying students for participation in advanced-placement courses, enrollment was still open to any student who showed the proper level of motivation and commitment. App. of Appellee 279. Teachers were then required to monitor performance and behavior to ensure that students placed in those courses would remain there. -20- LRSD studied methods to increase enrollment in advanced-placement courses and determined that pre-advanced-placement courses were necessary to prepare students better and earlier. LRSD implemented pre-advanced-placement courses for sixth and seventh-grade students. These programs have been highly successful, and the District Court found that as a result of these programs, LRSD has added over 600 African-American students to its advanced-placement courses for juniors and seniors. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1063. LRSD has also implemented the SMART Program, a summer program designed to teach algebra to students to prepare them for algebra in the eighth grade. App. of Appellee 112. The District Court found that during the term of the Revised Plan, at least 95% of the students attending the SMART Program were African-American. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1063. Evaluations of the SMART Program determined that it was a success. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 678. LRSD also instituted a \"Teachers of Color\" program to increase the number of African-American advanced-placement teachers. Id. at 671 . The principal at each middle school and high school determined who would be assigned to teach each class. However, the principals were constrained by the collective- bargaining agreement, which required consideration of a teacher's experience and seniority. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 90. An advanced-placement teacher also needed to be qualified through the state. Although Dr. Faucette testified about the racial composition of advanced-placement teachers in Central High School's English Department, he did now know about other advanced-placement sections at Central High School. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1065. The District Court found Dr. Faucette's testimony unreliable. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors also point to racial disparity in the Hall High School University Studies program, a program developed in conjunction with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock that provided an opportunity for students to earn college -21- credit for classes taken at Hall High School. Admission requirements were developed by the University of Arkansas. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 727-28. In order to receive college credit for the courses, students were required to pay tuition of approximately $150 per course. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 114. The Joshua Intervenors assert that the tuition payments created a barrier to participation for African-American students. Brief for Appellants 42-43. The District Court found that during the 1999-2000 school year, 58% of the students participating in Hall High School's University Studies Program were African-American, while African-American students comprised 71 % of all students at Hall High School. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1066. During 2000-2001, only 35% of the students in the University Studies program were African-American, while African-American students comprised 72% of all students at Hall High School. Ibid. However, the Court found that the Joshua Intervenors presented no evidence that any student was denied admission to the University Studies Program because of inability to pay. Ibid. Testimony also indicates that the school solicited a donation to cover the cost for at least one African-American student who wished to participate but was unable to pay. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 802. For these reasons, we hold that the District Court did not err in finding that LRSD substantially complied with its obligations under  2.6 of the Revised Plan. * * * * * * The judgment is affirmed. It goes without saying, but we say it anyway, that LRSD remains fully subject to the Constitution and all other applicable laws, and that these obligations are enforceable by appropriate legal action. -22- I I I I I I I I I I I - HEANEY, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur in every aspect of the majority's opinion except insofar as it holds that the LRSD has implemented \"programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline,\" as required by section 2.5 of the Revised Plan. In my view, the LRSD has failed to meet this obligation. It is true that the LRSD has implemented several programs with regard to student discipline: the LRSD provided every student, parent, teacher, and administrator with a copy of the Student Handbook; the LRSD trained students, teachers, and administrators on provisions in the Handbook; the LRSD created the position of Ombudsman to investigate student complaints of race-based mistreatment in student discipline; Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent who was responsible for implementing section 2.5 of the Revised Plan, reviewed every longterm suspension and expulsion, and any short-term suspensions that were appealed; Dr. Watson prepared and reviewed quarterly Discipline Management Reports from each school, used these reports to identify problems, and met with the schools' administrators to discuss solutions; the LRSD established alternative learning environments to allow students with behavioral problems to remain in school; the LRSD offered training in classroom management and effective discipline; and the LRSD followed a progressive discipline approach by imposing lesser sanctions before suspending students. It is also true that the LRSD has reduced the total number of disciplinary sanctions of students during the time of the Revised Plan from 5 ,3 12 total sanctions in 1998, to 5,080 total sanctions in 2001.5 During that same period, however, the 5 All 1998 statistics are from the LRSD' s 1998-1999 Annual Disciplinary Management Report (Ct. Ex. CX679) and the 2001 statistics are from the LRSD's -23- ----- - - - -------------- - number ofblack students receiving disciplinary sanctions actually increased. During the 1998-99 school year, there were 4,470 disciplinary sanctions of black students compared to 842 disciplinary sanctions of white students. Put another way, in the first year of the Revised Plan, 65% of the student population in the LRSD was black, while 84% of the disciplinary sanctions were ofblack students. By 2001, the year the LRSD sought unitary status, the disparity was even greater. In the 2000-01 school year, there were 4,534 disciplinary sanctions of black students compared to 546 disciplinary sanctions of white students. In other words, black students consisted of 68% of the student population, but accounted for 89% of the disciplinary sanctions. Therefore, from 1998 to 2001, disciplinary sanctions ofblack students increased from 84% to 89%. It is undisputed that the programs instituted by the LRSD to address disciplinary issues have had no positive impact on the racial disparity of student discipline in the district. If you compare the discipline statistics in the individual high schools for the same period they track in very similar ways with almost all of the schools experiencing an increase in disparity. It is worth noting, however, that Parkview High School, the most integrated high school in the district, has the lowest racial disparity in student discipline in the district. In 1998-99, Parkview's student population was 51 % black and the percentage of disciplinary sanctions of black students was 49%. In 2000-01, Parkview' s black student population was still 51 %, but the percentage of disciplinary sanctions of black students rose to 66%. Even at 66%, however, Parkview still had the lowest disparity in student discipline in the district that year. I agree that the Revised Plan does not require the LRSD to absolutely eliminate racial disparity from student discipline. The majority and the district court, however, rely heavily on the fact that section 2.5 requires the LRSD to implement programs 2000-2001 Annual Disciplinary Management Report (Ct. Ex. CX681). -24-  - ------ --- - - ----- - ------ \"designed to ensure\" that there is no racial discrimination in student discipline. The implication is that because the LRSD implemented programs which would effect student discipline, the actual impact of those programs does not matter. I disagree. It is not enough for the LRSD to list the programs it implemented to address the disparity in student discipline, when the result of those programs was an increase in the racial disparity in student discipline. The mere implementation of programs, no matter how many or how impressive sounding, that have virtually no impact on the racial disparity in student discipline is not enough to meet the district's obligations under the Revised Plan. This lack of impact on the disparity in discipline is really no surprise when you review the testimony of Dr. Watson. Dr. Watson testified that: she was never instructed that there needed to be a reduction in the racial impact of suspensions in the district; she never prepared a monitoring report with regard to disparities in discipline; she did not prepare any reports which track whether certain teachers or administrators have a pattern of disciplinary actions based on race; nor did she recommend any programs to address the continued disparate impact of discipline. (Nov. 19, 2001, Unitary Status Hr' g Tr. at 25-163 .) Dr. Watson also testified that the percentage of black students being suspended did not decrease, that disparate patterns of discipline still exist based on race, that there are no plans to reduce the disparate impact of student discipline in the district, and that the LRSD is not even looking at student discipline based on race. (Id.) The majority, and the district court, seem to take solace in the fact that racial disparity in student discipline is a national problem. According to the district court, in 1998, the national \"total suspension index\" was 2.24 and the Arkansas \"total suspension index\" was 2.16, whereas the LRSD's \"total suspension index\" remained constant at 1.26 from 1997-2000. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 237 F.Supp. 2d 988, 1054 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The majority and the district court consider the fact that the LRSD' s index is lower than that of the nation -25- ------- - - - - -- ~ - and the state significant, and the fact that the LRSD' s index did not change over the period of the Revised Plan insignificant. I disagree. The Revised Plan said nothing about the LRSD's racial disparity in student discipline in comparison to the state or the nation. The Revised Plan did, however, require the LRSD to implement programs designed to ensure that the racial disparity in student discipline in the district would decrease. This, they failed to do. The majority and the district court also assert that Joshua did not meet its burden in proving that the racial disparity in student discipline was the result of discrimination. This was not Joshua's burden. According to section 11 of the Revised Plan, Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD failed to comply with its obligations as set forth in the plan. Joshua met this burden by showing that the programs the LRSD implemented to address the racial disparity in discipline were ineffective. As I read the Revised Plan, it was the LRSD's obligation to determine whether the continued disparity in discipline was the result of racial discrimination or merely socioeconomic factors as suggested by Dr. Watson. Here again, the LRSD failed to meet its obligation and rested merely on the fact that it implemented programs. Programs that, in the end, had no effect on the racial disparity in student discipline. It is true that Joshua could have done more to raise concerns about the failure of the LRSD's programs earlier, but this does not remove all responsibility from the LRSD. The statistics compiled and reports filed by the LRSD lack valuable data. I have found no useful statistics on recidivism among students to determine how many students, and of what race, are receiving multiple disciplinary sanctions. The record does not contain statistics that separate offenses involving the discretionary judgment of staff from objective offenses. The record lacks any reports which show whether there is a correlation between the race of the teacher administering the discipline and the race of the student receiving it, or whether certain teachers have a higher rate of discipline than others. Dr. Watson testified that she was able to access some of this -26- --------- --- - - ----------~ information and that she knew which schools had high rates of disciplinary sanctions and which teachers issued more suspensions than others, but I cannot agree that her personal, undocumented knowledge was sufficient to meet the court's mandate that the district implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with respect to student discipline. Absent the necessary records, there is no way the district court, or this court, can reach an informed conclusion as to whether blacks are disciplined more frequently for legitimate reasons or because they are judged by different standards than white students, at least by some teachers. I would remand this case to the district court on the disciplinary issue, along with the issue of student achievement retained by the district court, to require the district to comply with our original mandate. -27- March 9, 2004 LETTER-ORDER Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Clay Fendley 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Froachell 11800 Pleasant !Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. John Walker Mr. Samuel Jones, Ill 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 172 . is Hansen Mr. Stephen W. Jones 1 Ce r Street, Suite 1200 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 L le Rock, AR 72201 little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Dear Counsel: 4:82CV00866 Q As you know the September 11 , 20 emorandum Order requires that the LRSD file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with the obligc1tions under  2. 7. 1 on or before the 15th of this month. Then, Joshua, or any other party, has thirty days {until April 15, 2004) within which to file objections to LRSD report. This mis:;ive is simply to notify all counsel that a request for any extension will likely be denied. If there are objections, they will be heard on April 26 and 27, 2004. cc: Original: The Honorable Thomas Ray Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Cordially, Wm. A. Wilson, Jr. Mr. James W. McCormack, Clerk March 5, 2004 ------ - - --- --------- --- RECEIVED 4t MAR 11 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAlVSAS Telephone 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 DATE: J .. I ) .. otj FAX NO.: There are Z-pages, including this Cover Sheet, bein1~ sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: A;~~~ Office of Judge Wm. ll W~Jr. U. S. District Coun 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Direct Phone Numbers: Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk Janet Pulliarn, Law Clerk (odd case numbers) Caf'oline Curry, (even case numbers) Macy Johnson, Courtroom Deputy Ch.-ista Newburg, Court Reporter 604-5141 604-5142 604-5148 604-5144 604-5145 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO.1,ETAL. RECEIVED {i,,, h'trWJt-lf/t1 {/) h /J.o/ MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MAR 1 ' 2004 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORlNG MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER ORDER u.fo1\\kif J?uRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 12004 JAM5S W McCORMACK, CLERK ~y: -----D=-=E=p....,_C ~LE_ A _K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. I have received a copy of Mr. Walker's March 10, 2004 letter to Ms. Ann S. Marshall. A copy of the letter is attached to this Order. The letter appears to be an anticipatory objection to a report that has not been filed; and a request for \"facilitation\" by Ms. Marshall as the Director of the ODM. ,, .. . 2. When the LRSD report is filed, in the next few days, if Joshua perceives deficiencies in it, I would anticipate that, at that time, appropriate objections would be made, which might or might not include the points mentioned in the March 10 letter. 3. I note parenthetically that the meeting in Ms. Marshall's office, referenced in the first paragraph of the March 10 letter, does not give a date of the meeting, and does not mention what compliance issues were discussed, nor does it identify the \"numerous areas of disagreement.\" Any objections filed after the LRSD report is in existence should be shot through with specificity and precision. \"'.;.,?.' 6 '\\~'\u0026lt;{).1-t \u0026lt; -~j 1  .. 4. Any suggestion of \"facilitating\" at this point, if there is such a suggestion to be read into the letter, is late -- far too late. I am going to take the LRSD report, the objections, if any, by Joshua, and decide the issues presented on April 27, or soon thereafter. 5. Consistent with the specific directions given to the ODM, I would expect that office to file a report on the progress under 2.7.1. soon, so that the parties will have ample time to study it, and determine whether they want to rely on it at the April 26 - 27 hearing, or want to object to it or parts of it. 6. As I think can be discerned from the above, I expect reports and objections from the parties and the ODM to be timely filed , so that we can wrap the matter up during the April hearing. To this end, I invite your keen attention to my letter dated March 9, 2004. I point out that this letter contains directives, not goals or suggestions. IT IS SO ORDERED this / [71f day of March, 2004. WM. R. WILSON, JR. / i / I . I ,I.e JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATI'ORNEY kr LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 _FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. Ms. Ann S. Marshall, Monitor Office of Desegregation monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Ms. Marshall: DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITTLE ROCK, AllKANsAS 72210 PHONE: {501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net Now that we have the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the court is concerned, as we are, about improving the academic achievement of African American students. Our beliefis that all of the components of the Plan were intended to work 'hand in glove' to that end. When we last met with your office after having invoked the process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the District's obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all programs as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very purposes of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the District's representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose offollowup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004, I received two lengthy reports from the District entitled: 1) Little Rock Literacy Program Evaluation; and 2) An Evaluation of Mathematics \u0026amp; Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. Mr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process outlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Little Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as you have monitored LRSD's program evaluation. 1 We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter alia, the evaluations are keyed to ''No Child Left Behind\" mandates or State accountability mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the explicit outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its compliance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programs would be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is t hat achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the District's use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Court's Order of September 13, 2002, page 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the District's intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for African American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of African American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5th grade, for example. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the 'surprising' notation that substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion is, in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have not successfully addressed African American student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossible to attain. 2 5) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated from the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her findings in that approximately half of the African American students during 2002-2003 in 4th grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4th graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesley's data. I read that the Court's Order, Page 170, paragraph A, contemplates the use ofthis data, i.e., \"LRSD now has over three years of testing data ..... \" 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the District's ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding the. participation of African American students in Pre-AP and AP courses which were allegedly instituted to address African American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the District's tutoring programs or other programs aimed at improving African American performance. I 0) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for African American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement of Benchmark exams of 4th or 8th grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA).  12) The evaluation reports discussed professional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. 3 The foregoing list is merely suggestive; it is not exhaustive. Because of your designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wtlson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the District's compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for ODM by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you ldndly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. JWW:js cc: Honorable Judge William R. Wilson Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Robert Pressman All Other Counsel Sincerely, ,.. / ,,. -- / _ -,  I , --\": /_.,,  ,:1,: - . i ? / // c . ~ V\"'--'\"'--c/r .. \u0026gt;-i,-v L-\\... ((__, \\ ,, . ~f-  I \\ ,__.,, fohn W. Walker  4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 :; 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception of Revised Plan  2. 7. 1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2. 7 .1. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD' s Board of Directors (\"Board\") adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25, 2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6 as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set for in Revised Plan  8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003 . At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshua's concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph \"D\" of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04; (2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; (3) maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process; and ( 4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6 plan. To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-RI when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation ILRl set forth the written procedures for evaluating the 2.7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results - of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District 's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through Page 3 of 6 a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Court's Compliance Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any \"questions or concerns\" about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Boardapproved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan  2. 7 .1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy; that the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations; and that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 12, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Banlc Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 HERSCHEL H. Fa.lDAY (lf7219'4) WIWAM K. Stn\"TON, P.A. BYJ.ON M. EISEMA)(, JL. P.A. ,o~ D. BELL r .A. J~ UTTI.Y, P.A. PU S. UI.SER.Y, P.A. O AVIS. JL. P.A. JAM . LARX.. JL, P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P.A. LA,IJ.Y W. BUIX.S, P.A. A. WYCKl.lPP NISBET, JR.., P.A. JA.Mf.S EDWAJtD HAJt.11S, P.A. J. PKIWP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SKEPHEltD 1.USSEU 111. P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WIWAM THOMAS BAXTER. f\".A. IJCHAJlD D. TA YLOll. P.A. JOSEPH 8 . HUUT, JL, P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MUUAY, P.A. CHRJSTOPHER KELLER.. P.A. LAUR.A HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERTS. SHAPER.. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAELS. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MAO.EV, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL 111. P.A. UVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WtU.IAM A. WADDELL JJL, P.A. SCOTT J. LA}ICA.STER.. P.A. I.OBERT B. BEACH. JR.., P.A. J. LEE Bl.OWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAUR.. Ul.. P.A. HAJUt.Y A. LIOKT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PR.ICE C. GARDNER.. P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0 . WIUON. P.A. JEFPR.EY H. MOOR.E, P.A. DAVID M. GR.AF, P.A. ( By Hand Delivery) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP WNW.frldayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703,.C811 TELEPHONE 47$-.895-2011 FAX .C7$-.H521'7 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 170.7822198 FAX 170.782, 2911 October 25, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery ) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: CAJlLA Gl.JN'NELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOKN C. FDIDLEY. Jk., P.A. JOHANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. R. CHIUSTOPKER LAWSON, P.A. FRANC. HICK.MAH. P.A. BETTY J. DEMOkY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMJTtl P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DA.NIEL L. HEJUUNGTOH, P.A. MAI.VIN L CHILDEJt.S K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. COI.HWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON 8 . HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. K.A.JtN'EY KELLY MUI.PHY MCQUEDI JOSEPH P. MCUY ALEXANDR.A A. IPR.AH JAY T. TAYLOR MA.Jl TIN A. KASTEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W. OUX.E JOSEPH G. HlCHOU ROBEJ.T T. SMITH I.YAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTifY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR LU.ENS. HALBERT SAi.AH M. COTTON PHILIP 8 . MONTGOMERY C.IJSTEH S. RJGGIHS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY WITCH.AM SLOAN lKAYYAM M. EDDJ'NGS JOKN F. PEISUJCH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BR.ANDON J. ttA.R.RJSON orCOUNsu D.S. a..u..r. WIWAMLTEUY WlWAM L PATTON. JR.. tl T. LARZELU.E. P.A. JOHN C. EOfOLS. P.A. A.D. MCAUJSTER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501J70.JS2l FAX 50124'5$41 f  ndleyOf c . net Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 In our letter dated October 11, 2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21, 2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walker's comments will be addressed in turn. EXHIBIT A I All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as \"implementat[ ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ... \", which are to be subjected to \"comprehensive program evaluation . .. \" Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ \"scaffolding\" - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-Amen.can students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted some assurance that the comprehensive program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24, 2002, the Board approved the Division of Instruction's \"Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools,\" a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Court's remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen, Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was \"inadequate.\" Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation \"completed\" by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 3 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-RI. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-RI. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshua's appeal of the District Court's September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that \"Conflict of Interest\" must be avoided. LRSD RESPONSE: Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The primary purpose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate success of the LRSD's early literacy program will - --- - - - ------ - ------ All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page4 be judged by performance on the State's Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA and Observation Surveys. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the \"team\" process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of\"conflict of interest.\" In order to insure that \"conflict of interest\" is avoided, the \"external consultant\" needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the \"Program Evaluation Procedures\" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSD's commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSD's best interest to effectively evaluate its programs. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the State's Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see \"Accuracy Standards,\" para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto. ------ All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Board's approval ofIL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all ofJoshua's concerns. Ifany party has any questions about the LRSD's responses to Joshua's comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD's written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days ofreceipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery) PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Elementary Literacy Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy-Team Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,;Literacy Specialist Melinda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi Davis-Director of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Specialist Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eunice Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver-Team Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Marcelline Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator ~  EXH 18 IT I B - ---- - ------ - - --- - I I I I I I I I I I I Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02  An item analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 reveals that students perform lowest on the geometry strand. (Note-The State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense, geometry, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item, ranking the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data.  Program modifications made based on the low performance on geometry items was:  Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools.  Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the specific geometry items (the released items were available for review).  Develop strategies for increasing the focus on geometry in the elementary mathematics curriculum.  School by school analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that were demographically similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum was different from school to school. Schools with a higher level of implementation were having higher student achievement than schools who were not implementing the curriculum at that high level.  A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to receive intensive and sustained training to serve as a \"coach\" for other teachers (See list of Math Support Personnel for LRSD).  Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilized to provide monthly \"coaches\" training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg, much of it directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing our elementary mathematics curriculum.  Another program modification made as a result of uneven achievement among schools was to begin a process of changing the way professional development for teachers is structured. In the past most professional development for elementary mathematics has been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led training on the 3rd grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been to shift more focus on site-based professional development. The \"Lesson Study\" and \"Study Group\" approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers to allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs. 2002-03      The same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4th grade Benchmark Data . Results of this analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry . The lowest strands were probability and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on those strands on the Benchmark Exam. The curriculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted in low performance on certain items on the exam. Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determine the \"big ideas\" or concepts students need to have a deep understanding about in grades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands listed in NCTM Standards and the State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade will do similar work during the summer of 2004. Curriculum resources in grades 1-4 were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the curriculum at certain grade levels. Internet resources, Marilyn Burns and Associates materials, and other materials were identified and compiled into a notebook for use by teachers.  Benchmark results show that district students generally perform less well on the open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items.  Program modifications based on this data were:  Developed packets of open-response items for teachers to use with students.  Trained teachers to score open-response items using a rubric.  Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter or end-ofsemester exams that included open-response items.  4th grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three years caused some schools to be given \"School Improvement\" status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, African-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status.  A thorough and detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process). The schools that were audited were Fair Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary, Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School).  A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School Improvement as a result of the audit findings .  One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made was to bring in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannel-author of Highly - -------- --- --- Effective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to lead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04  All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculum resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003 , preschool conference.  Item analyses of the 4th Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students.  A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in probability by added a replacement unit on probability from Marilyn Burns' s materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Burns materials.  Three elementary schools on School hnprovement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools.  Dr. Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals.  21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools.  Additional schools received School Support Audits-Chicot, Bale, Mitchell.  Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum.  Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4th Grade Benchmark Exam.  A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results of this alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum. Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02              Item analyses of 6th , 8th , Algebra Land Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001-02 Continued District-wide end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus District-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8 TI-83 plus calculator training provided for all secondary math teachers Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math for all students in grades K-12 District leveraged support of professional development for all math teachers by providing funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers receiving trainings Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the classroom by conducting professional development workshops and classroom observations; Continued partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR.) to develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District. The following course was developed and offered during the 2001-02 SY: o Strategies for Teaching Geometry Developed and distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and courses to address the issue of student mobility within the District High school mathematics courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and :frameworks; The SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) program is an academic student support program for students who will be enrolled in Algebra I the upcoming fall semester. Project THRIVE, the follow-up component of SMART, is a Saturday academy for students currently enrolled in Algebra I. These programs are aligned with the State Goals for Algebra I. Algebra I EOC results of students who participate in these programs are compared with the overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra The agendas for horizontal team meetings (each grade/subject level 6th gradeCalculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark exams. Teachers concentrate on areas of weakness for students and work on modifications in instructional strategies to improve those areas. In addition, trends and patterns are studied to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom. Implemented instruction in Algebra I through Riverdeep software in all high schools 2002-03  Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doing presentations on standards-based activities;  Purchased Texas Instruments APPs Suite for Algebra I for all middle and high schools; - - --- - ------ ----- - -    -  : ..   Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were trained  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter test for 6th grade - Calculus;  Continued to provide professional development for all secondary math teachers on topics including: o Riverdeep Interactive Software o TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses  Strategies for Teaching Algebra  Integrating the Graphing Calculator  Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD;  Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics;  Continued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers  Held horizontal team meetings (one per semester) for each secondary math course; 2003-04  Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I- Calculus teachers;  Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the Mathematics Classroom- used the TI-Navigator system;  Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6th -8th  Workshop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus;  Continued end-of-quarter tests;  6th -8th grade curriculum revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks; Marcelline Carr and Vanessa Cleaver FY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation The LRSD Elementary Literacy Department continued to provide professional development (ELLA, EFFECTIVE LITERACY, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools to support implementation of the LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. The Elementary Literacy Department examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most in need of assistance in the area ofliteracy with particular attention to the academic achievement of African American students and their needs. The data indicated that the writing program was the weak component of the literacy instructional program. The Elementary Literacy Department provided staff development related to writing instruction, and the writing programs in schools were modified to include \"best practices.\" The Spring 2003 CRT Literacy data from several schools reflected the schools' efforts to improve their students' academic achievement in writing. The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the opportunity to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded, provides significant funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies. Twelve schools chose to participate in the project to begin in the fall of 2003 . The project requires the schools to follow an assessment schedule related to program improvement. Because of lack of movement in student achievement in literacy, three schools on school improvement decided to move from the Success for All program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation The Elementary Literacy Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by Dr. Ross and developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following:   Continue the use of focus groups for each of the professional development programs (ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success for All) and develop a table of the most and least effective elements. The information from the focus groups will then be used to modify the District's professional development plan. Compare student data from the CRT and District assessments in each school to compare the academic achievement of African-American students with others as related to the instructional program and provide specific professional development based on the identified needs of the students. ...  EXHIBIT ID The staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development:  Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small group instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students.  Provided a diverse collection of books to low perfonning schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading.  Modified the testing schedule ( except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Williams met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American students as compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. The Elementary Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examining their data and using it to make program modifications or changes. After the consultant's visit, the staff developed a plan for working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the principal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on content area reading and writing. In addition to the professional development being offered on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5th grade teachers to integrate reading and social studies instruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools The Reading First Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) by the LSRD Reading First Coordinator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. The purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Monitoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following:  Classroom demonstrations  Classroom observations with post observation conference  Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms  Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program L 3 - The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification; first grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests; and the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation; first grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading fluency test; and second and third grade students were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in January 2004. The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools' data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly African American, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools when the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it was determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the lowperforming schools: phonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language, and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation In response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of - \"Writing On Demand\" and \"Constructed Response\" . Technical Assistance Technical Assistance in Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools identified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the particular needs of each teacher related to instruction during the 2  hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study. Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher. The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs from the following areas:  Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing Strategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Comers Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Comers, rearranging classrooms, organizing and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both whole and small group, modeling instructional approaches, demonstrating the use of materials, assessing students and developing instructional plans. Professional books, independent reading books and sets of books for guided reading, as well as organizational materials and center supplies are also provided. Approximately 20 of the schools have employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area of literacy. ---- - - - - - - --------- 4 2001-2002 Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 1. Teachers attended after school meetings with director to examine data and conduct analysis of scores of ACT AAP tests. 2. English faculty of each school spent a day together with English director and building principa,I in session devoted to best practices for improvement of Ii teracy program. January - March 2002. 3. All building assistant principals at middle school were inserviced by director in literacy program in order to provide for more consistent supervision and coordination by including all administrators in literacy program. 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all middle schools, taking turns hosting, with dedicated topics related to modifying literacy program and practices. 5. Recognizing that secondary teachers have never been trained in the teaching of reading, Dee Bench, consultant from Denver Coalition of Business and Education was employed to lead staff development during summer of '02 for teachers to modify reading strategies and instruction. Four weeks of training took place with teachers (approximately 75) from all four core subjects in attendance. This summer inservice was a modification to include all cross curricular teachers in literacy program. 2002-2003 1. Teachers met with director to assist in production of curriculum for writing in order to be able to consistently deliver quality program elements. Evaluation of current practice and focus on optimum results were goals. Spring - Summer '02. New Writing Curriculum was put into use 02-03. Teachers were inserviced school by school during preschool work days on use of new curriculum. Committee of teachers for curriculum development: Brenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofner, McClellan High School 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions to introduce new curriculum for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom instruction and to provide basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall '02. 3. Analysis of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on the ~  EXHIBIT I F mechanics and usage areas while the writing in content areas is weaker. Strategies were developed to practice and teach these skills. 4. Practice kits were developed by the English office and distributed to every middle school teacher for use in modification of literacy program in terms of test preparation. 5. Consultation with outside expert in reading comprehension for older readers to evaluate next steps and current status of lowest achieving students. Summer '02- ' 03 . (Need for literacy coaches in high school was determined and, as a result, three are now in place at three lo:west performing high schools , based on ACT AAP.) 6. Teachers met during swnmer 2003 to evaluate and modify urriculum producing an amending document. Survey given to all English teachers prior to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee to revise English Curriculum: Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program's effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners. Materials were purchased for these students as a result. Summer '03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for one week of further training in reading instruction strategies for secondary students. 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list, Associate Superintendent and director met to discuss literacy program at low performing middle school and to write plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high school principals separately to discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness of program and greater achievement of lower-achieving students. . September '03 . 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice principal to evaluate literacy program and discuss focus for improving student achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate on strategies for improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. Five meetings held, August - October '03 . 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school and teacher by teacher - for recent performances on SAT 9 and ACT AAP to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools. August - September '03. - ---- - ---------- ---- 6. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for middle school to evaluate successes and denote areas needing improvement in program. Sept. '03 . 7. SREB consultant meeting with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness of test preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. '03 . 8. In response to data, sessions have been held at most schools with some or all of faculty in open-ended responses. Teachers have made many modifications to classroom instruction based on the experiential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric. 9. Implem~tation ofreading intervention for lowest performing ninth and eighth graders at three high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school uses same intervention for sixth and seventh as well. 10. Information and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and key administrators on reading intervention with proposals for expansion of program in 04-05 . 11 . All middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April - May 04. On-going 1. Director and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate progress, problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress . Attention to both lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions. Calendars are aligned and coordinated at these meetings. 2. Director and Middle School Specialist meet after school visits to evaluate implementation of literacy program strategies and content and to determine plans for improvement, especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly, at least. 3. Director communicates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildings with principals and teachers. 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with new teachers to improve implementation of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in preparing teachers in ACTAAP open-ended responses. 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies department in providing literacy best practice training to assist in reading in social studies content. 7. Participation in faculty meetings by director and specialist to modify program implementation across curriculum. 8. Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools. 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June 04) 10. Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers Spring 2004. 11. Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, issues, celebrations, and to communicate openly about the literacy programs. These meetings are separate for middle school and high school. These meetings serve as a means of communicating curriculum items, special events, new developments, and reminders to all English teachers from the district office as well as collaboration. Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Prograi Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report  Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACT AAP open-ended responses and rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004  continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops  Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program. January,2004  Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools  Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey.  All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the Read/Write Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004  Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers. Spring 2004 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE March 16, 2004 RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the State's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel which we filed today. 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of2 March 16, 2004 MAH Enclosures ~~-~  MARK A. HAGEMEIER r Assistant Attorney General - - - - _ _ ___________ ___ __. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2004 . OfflCE DF ~ nrm fdDN!fOfl:Ji'J:G PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education, by and through their attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for their Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, state: 1. Chief Deputy Attorney General Dennis Hansen is no longer actively participating in day-to-day litigation at the Attorney General's office. 2. This matter has been reassigned to Assistant Attorney General Mark A. Hagemeier, who now represents the Arkansas Department of Education and should be substituted as counsel of record. 3. Defendant requests that the Court and parties direct all future services and correspondence to Mark A. Hagemeier. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel and that Mark A. Hagemeier be substituted as their counsel of record. By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Assistant Attorney Gen 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, this _J_.b_ day of March 2004, addressed to: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Ann Brown Marshall  ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 - - - - - - - ------------------~    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1619","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellees and cross appellants, Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and Joshua intervenors","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":["1995-06-30"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","Employee rights","School enrollment","Transportation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellees and cross appellants, Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and Joshua intervenors"],"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/1619"],"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":["55 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1611","title":"Court filings concerning Incentive school programs, student transportation, and William Jefferson Clinton Interdistrict magnet school designation.","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":["1994-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","William Jefferson Clinton Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School (Sherwood, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education, Elementary","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School buses","Student assistance programs","Magnet schools","Arkansas. Department of Education","Transportation"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Incentive school programs, student transportation, and William Jefferson Clinton Interdistrict magnet school designation."],"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/1611"],"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":["66 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_712","title":"Transportation","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":["1994/1996"],"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","School management and organization","School buses","Transportation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Transportation"],"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/712"],"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":["78 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\n  \n\nSECTION I. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS Request for Proposal (RFP95-014) Student Transportation Services Little Rock School District Issued: March 31, 1995 INCLUDES Appendix A: School Bus Fleet Data (6 PAGES) Appendix B: School Bus Run Data (8 PAGES) LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0)LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (LRSD) BACKGROUND INFORMATION In order to facilitate a better understanding of current District operations and help a potential contractor respond to this request for proposal more accmately, the District has included information describing its current operations and budget as well as the major issues/challenges facing the transportation organization within the District. Summary of LRSD Unit Responsibilities The Transportation Department of the Little Rock School District provides the District with transportation services for over 14,000 regular and special education students. From its 16-acre terminal on Murray street it operates a fleet of over 300 buses that make over 11,000 stops daily and travel close to 5 million miles each year'. Specifically this department is responsible for planning how transportation requirements are met, recruiting and training staff to support those plans, managing the day-to-day activities of the departments resources, and maintenance of all vehicles. I LRSD Facilities/Locations The entire operation (storage, maintenance, refueling, and dispatching) is conducted from the 16 acre depot located at: Transportation Department 5400 Murray St. Little Rock, AR 72209 Telephone: (501) 570-4000 This facility has: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 13 phone lines + two (2) pay phones 12,000 gallon diesel fuel tank with pump Two 10,000 gallon gas fuel tanks with pump 2812 sq. ft. of Office/Administrative Space 3000 sq. ft. Auditorium 2239 sq. ft. Drivers Lounge/Dispatch Area 9300 sq. ft. Maintenance Shop having 8 bays + Parts Room + Foreman s Office 2423 sq. ft. in covered storage 11 acres for parking buses Radio base station One (1) acre additional unused land 'Special Ed transportation will not be outsourced. I I LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) If REASON FOR OUTSOURCING The primary motivation for outsourcing is to obtain operational efficiency of our student transportation responsibility\nhowever, other critical factors are also motivating this request for proposal. We Want To Improve Service Service in the Little Rock School District has been the subject of much debate. This school year, according to a recent study, only 74.9 % of the buses are \"on-time\" in picking-up our students. Parent complaints have increased significantly. The District is very much interested in soliciting proposals from firms who believe they can perform the student transportation function better than the District. At this time the District is not sure if they are employing the best state-of-the-art techniques for managing and providing student transportation services. Outsourcing is seen as an opportunity to inject new, cost effective ideas and technologies into this area that in turn may improve service significantly. We Want To Improve the Focus on Educating Students Another reason beyond improved service that motivates outsourcing is the desire to focus District energies more on pupil education as opposed to support services like transportation. The Little Rock School District's transportation operation has been in the paper several times. It was even the lead article on the front page of the November 7, 1993 Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Much of these stories have revolved around labor issues and poor performance. The same issues continue to plague the administration today. Whether or not the stories are accurate is not all that important. What is important is that these \"crises\" are draining management's attention away from the primary goal of educating children. We Want To Save Money The Little Rock School District is facing a greater than 2 million dollar budget deficit for the 95-96 academic year. Management in the LRSD Transportation Department is concerned that the fleet is aging and projected funding for replacement buses must compete for scarce dollars with other essential programs. For the last couple of years, the District has been unable to meet its targeted goal for replacing its buses. As a result replacing the aged fleet now is a sizable expenditure which LRSD cannot hope to take on all at once. The Bottom Line The bottom line is that any firm who hopes to obtain this business will have to contain costs and be able to guarantee a much higher level of performance. I LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 2General Information The Little Rock School District is looking to engage an outside contractor to meet a large proportion of its pupil transportation needs. Specifically, the District is soliciting proposals on two different \"blocks\" of the regular busing operations (The District will retain special education busing). These blocks are titled Little Rock and State Magnet/M- to-M. Together these blocks represent over 500 regular daily runs and involve over 225 concurrently operated buses. The reason for maintaining separation of the Transportation operation in two (2) elements is because the State Magnet/M-to-M fleet is owned by the State, and the State reimburses the District for maintenance and operating expenses. However, the successful contractor will operate both blocks as one, but must keep the costs separated. Proposers should calculate their costs and rates based on the operation as whole. The State has agreed that they will concur or accept outsourcing anangements on the same basis and terms as the LRSD. However, separate agreement documents may a have to be prepared. Block Little Rock State Magnet/ M-to-M # of Runs 264 116 Annual Regular Route Mileage' 1,292,735 910,430 Annual Non-Conflicting Trip Mileage Annual Conflicting Trip Mileage Block #Of Runs 292,945 72,505 Total Block Mileage 1,585,680 982,935 Little Rock State Magnet/ M-to-M 264 116 Total Buses Required For Block 140 65 0 0 * All mileage in the above table is non-deadhead mileage. Of particular note to prospective contractors is the fact that the District: 1) will require that a contractor for the next three (3) years provide resources for fleet maintenance, operations management, hiring and training personnel, routing, dispatching buses, and driving buses required to transport designated students\nhowever, routing will continue to be a District performed function for year one of ______________nii nn Tiilv 1995. School begins on or the contract. Contractor operations will start on July 1 of about August 21. 2) has an option to renew the agreement which may be exercised by the District at the conclusion of the initial term of this agreement. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 33) will require that the contractor hire all qualified existing District drivers and that the contractor pay those drivers the same base -wage rate and comparable benefits that they currently are receiving from the District for as long as a driver remains an employee of the contractor. All other drivers may be paid whatever the contractor feels the market may bear. 4) will provide some of the buses needed to satisfy the requirements of the contract. These buses will be leased to the contractor for $l/bus/academic year. The contractor will have to provide the balance of buses required if additional buses are needed. 5) will require all contractor supplied equipment to meet the following criteria/or the duration of the contract. In other words, if the contractor employs a seven (7) year old gas engine bus at the start of the contract in the second year this bus would have to be replaced with a less elderly bus meeting the criteria in section II, paragraph 2.5.2.3. The District requires a (8) year old or younger gas bus and a ten (10) year old or younger diesel bus. See section II, paragraph 2.5.2.3. for details related to the mileage on the bus. 6) will allow the contractor to deliver and employ its new equipment later in the contract because the implementation time frame is so short. Until these buses are delivered, the contractor will be permitted to operate with the existing fleet. All contractor supplied vehicles must be delivered and in operation no later than March 1,1996. 7) will require that modifications which must be made to either contractor supplied vehicles or District supplied vehicles to enable a vehicle to conform to the requirements specified in this agreement will be paid for by the contractor. This would include installing strobe lights and crossing arms or gates by school year 1997-98 as mandated by Arkansas State Law. 8) will require that a contractor maintain all vehicles that the District and the contractor supplies to meet the requirements of this agreement. 9) will provide facilities from which a contractor may operate at a cost of $l/site/academic year. All facilities, repairs, maintenance, and up-keep will be the responsibility of the contractor. Any modifications to these facilities/properties to conform to the requirements of the contract such as installing fuel tanks, constructing buildings, and so forth would be borne by the contractor. A lease agreement will be executed to cover this arrangement. (Sample lease agreement at Appendix D, Section II) 10) will pay the contractor based on a flat bus/day rate for regular service. A different rate will be used for District versus contractor provided vehicles. This rate will cover regular service only. The Districts will not pay for spares used to supplement daily capacity or to cover buses that have broken down. LRSD RFP95-0t4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.6) 411) will pay the contractor an hourly rate for extra services such as field trips, transporting teams to sporting events, and so forth. A separate rate schedule will be filed for non-conflicting extra service and conflicting extra service. The District will only pay for time from the moment that the first child is picked up to the moment that the last child is dropped off a bus. The District will not pay for deadhead time. 12) will draw up a separate contract for each block, Little Rock and State Magnet M-to- M. That contract will comprise an agreement for service between a contractor and the District (as it stands now, the District will act as the contract administrator for the State portion). \\ 13) asks that the contractor provide transportation for remote students who live in the Little Rock School District currently and are taking cabs to and from school. While the mode of transportation that the contractor uses to carry these students to and from school is up to the contractor, the Little Rock School District suspects that cabs will be the most cost-effective, so the contractor may need to make arrangements with a local firm to subcontract this part of the agreement much like the District currently uses. The only block that has this type of requirement is the State Magnet/M-to-M block since students who take cabs are exclusively enrolled in the M-to-M program. 14) asks that the contractor assume the responsibility for routing vehicles begirming in the second year of the agreement. Any savings in the second year uncovered by the contractor through the elimination of buses in the District supplied routing plan at the start of the second year will be split with the contractor according to the contractor's terms in the proposal forms. This savings will only be split with the contractor for a period of one (1) year. No savings identified afterwards will be rewarded, but considered an inherent part of the efficiencies attained by the professional management of this service contract with accrued savings realized by the District by reduced operating cost charged by the contractor. 15) will require the contractor to reserve appropriate office space in the facility leased from the District for the District Contract Administrator and one clerical person. 16) will assess a penalty for early, late and/or missed runs. See Section II, 2.9.5.1. 17) will require that the successful contractor will take affirmative action in compliance with all federal and state requirements concerning fair employment, employment of the handicapped, and concerning treatment of all employees without regard or discrimination by reason of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, and/or physical handicap. LRSD RFP95-0U FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 5Additional Information Scope of Work LRSD Routes Served The LRSD Transportation Department provides several different types of transportation services. The table below breaks out those services by type of runs. Type of Runs Regular LRSD State Magnet State M-to-M Extended Day' New Futures Alternative School Metro Total Runs 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 296 62 6 0 0 2 5 171 272 83 26 21 10 3 10 425 263 84 27 25 9 4 11 423 251 85 31 41 11 3 11 433 246 91 45 19 17 4 16 438 264 58 58 41 31 4 16 472  For the purposes of the agreement Extended Day, New Futures, Alternative School, and Metro runs are treated as non-conflicting trips. Regular Routes include runs that are operated every day between the homes of students and schools. Regular State Magnet routes are runs that operate between homes and the District's State Magnet schools. The Regular-M-to-M routes are nms used to carry students involved in desegregation who attend school in the North Little Rock School District or the Pulaski County Special School District. Regular-LRSD routes are runs operated every day that are neither M-to-M or State Magnet routes. The District provides runs that support special programs such as Extended Day and New Futures. Most of these runs are operated three or four times a week, and they are only broken out from regular runs in the above table because they are paid from state and federal funds. Those special program runs that are operated regularly have been included in the annual non-conflicting trip estimates. Those runs which are not regular through out the year such as those to support athletics have been included in the annual non-conflicting or conflicting trip estimates made by the District. Other than these runs, only the Regular/LRSD, Regular/State Magnet, and Regular/M-to-M routes are being offered out. I I LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) 6The District also provides transportation services to students in the community during the summer. Summer school, commimity outreach programs, and other activities require that the District supply school buses for children. The table below lists the history of summer activity. Most of these runs last the duration of the summer, but some do not. Summer Activity Parks \u0026amp; Recreation JTPA M-to-M Runs New Futures Summer School Incentive School Prog Homeless Programs Philander Smith Field Trips Aerospace Center Total 1991-92 4 6 5 3 5 4 0 1 2 NA 30 1992-93 5 6 6 3 5 4 1 1 2 NA 33 1993-94 5 6 6 3 5 4 1 1 2 NA 33 1994-95 5 5 5 3 30 4 1 2 2 2 59 \\ For the purpose of this proposal, the District considers all the summer activity nonconflicting service. Consequently we have included it in our estimates of armual non- conflicting service required from the contractor. Students Transported By Cabs As mentioned in the introduction, the Little Rock School District has several students within its boundaries that participate in M-to-M programs that are no where near to where they live. Furthermore, these students are not surrounded by enough students traveling to the same school to justify sending a 65 passenger bus out to pick them up. Instead, the District has formd that subcontracting the transportation of these students in cabs is more cost effective. The contractor will assume responsibility for the transportation of these students. I In the 93-94 school year 105 students were transported by the department using local cab companies for $l/mile and $1.00 per pick-up and drop-off. This year $309,000 is budgeted for this activity. While the State of Arkansas pays for this expense, they would prefer that buses be used to transport these children. The District so far has found it more cost effective to use cabs, but the contractor may transport these children in a manner he deems is most cost effective and safe for the duration of the agreement. In January 1995, the number of students transported by cab was reduced to approximately 40 students. Staggered School Openings It's important to point out that LRSD has attempted to better utilize its fleet and thus keep costs down by staggering school openings. Elementary schools start at 7:50, Junior high schools start at 8:45 and Senior high schools start at 8:50. This allows the District to use one bus for two separate runs\ni.e., an elementary and then a Jr/Sr High run. LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 7 1LRSD Fleet LRSD and the State currently have a fleet of over 200 buses with different kinds of equipment being operated. The tables below break out these buses by type: LRSD Transportation Fleet Body Buses Total # of Buses = Capacity 65| Total 197 197 State Magnet/M- to- M Fleet Body Buses Buses Total # of Buses = Capacity 35 65 Total 20 47 67 The fleet is aging. Because the District has been unable to implement an annual fleet replacement program, the average age of Regular Buses is now just under seven (7) years. The State has provided 32 new additional buses (Twelve - 65 and Twenty - 35 passenger buses) since December 1994. The Little Rock School District has ordered twenty-three 65 passenger buses which should be delivered before August 15.1995. LRSD RFP95-OI4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) sLRSD Organization/Activities LRSD Organization Chart The LRSD Transportation Department is described in the following chart: LRSD Transportation Department \\ Transportation Department Director I SecretaQ^ Executive Administrative Assistant Driver Supervisors (3) Routing Supervisors (2) Operations Manager Shop Foreman Regular Drivers Regular Drivers Dispatchers (3) Mechanics (7) Special Ed Drivers Administrative Coordinator Service Technician Driver Aides Custodian (0.8) LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) 9I LRSD Employees/Staffing: 1. ------------------Position/Title________ Director of Transportation Department Number 1 2. Special Education Driver Supervisor 1 3. Regular Route Driver Supervisor 2 4. Operations Manager 1 5. Department Secretary 1 6. Maintenance Foreman 1 7. Routing Supervisors 2 8. Dispatchers 3 9. Service Technician 1 10. Mechanic 7 11. Regular Route Drivers 222 12. Special Ed Drivers 33 13. Special Ed Driver's Aides 33 14. Driver Substitutes 23 15. Administrative Coordinator 1 16. Executive Administrative Assistant 1 17. Custodian 1\u0026gt;  These numbers reflect the number of people currently employed doing this jobs, h ..ui rciieci u Full-Time-Equivalents required to accomplish the jobs. For example, the custodian's job is only 0.8. It does not reflect the LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) 10LRSD Functional Position Descriptions The specific fiinctions performed by the above employees in addition to their salaries/cost are detailed in the following Functional Position Descriptions: ACTIVITY  Administer the Transportation Department  Monitor the on-time performance of drivers  Develop and participate in the annual budgeting process as it relates to the transportation department  Participate in the development of labor contracts  Authorize department purchases  Serve as Designee of Superintendent in grievances and discipline related matters  Handle outgoing mail and correspondence  Answer phone calls and take messages for the director of the department  Maintain department files  Type department reports and correspondence  Select Drivers \u0026amp; Drivers Aides  Train Drivers  Supervise Drivers  Visit schools  Investigate and document accidents  Investigate student, teacher, \u0026amp; parent complaints  Conduct Driver workshops  Develop initial bus routings  Oversee proper billing of the state for certain programs such as M-to-M  Investigate and document accidents  Investigate complaints  Visit schools  Handle parent and school complaints  Research policy questions  Assist the Director in preparing reports  Assist in resolving payroll problems  Answer calls from patrons  Manages and coordinates payroll  Oversee the department's A/P and A/R  Verifies employment infomiation  Maintains personnel files  Administers employee benefits, workman's compensation, and sick leave  Advise the director on department financial matters  Manage the dispatchers  Develop the daily plan for how all runs will be serviced within the personnel and vehicle constraints associated with a particular shift  Assign bus to runs and routes to drivers daily  Maintain up-to-date route and driver attendance information  Direct drivers in route  Coordinate and schedule vehicles to support special field trips or athletic events with District personnel  Assist in preparation of terminal payroll PROVIDER Director of Transportation Department Secretary Driver Supervisor Routing Supervisor Executive Administrative Assistant Operations Manager Dispatcher LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) RESOURCE One FTE^ 40+ Hrs/Wk One FTE 37.5 Hrs/Wk Three FTE's 37.5 Hrs/Wk each Two FTEs 37.5 Hrs/Wk each One FTE 37.5 Hrs/WK One FTE 37.5 Hrs/Wk (10 months) Three FTE's 37.5 Hrs/Wk II WAGES $65,020^ $20,972 $99,909 $50,149 $29,207 $24,690 $55,561Functional Position Descriptions(Continueil) ________ ACTIVITY_____________  Select mechanics to work in the shop  Supervise mechanics working in the shop  Order and manage the inventory of spare parts within the shop  Schedule the maintenance activity of the shop  Order and manage the inventory of fuel on hand at the terminal  Perform bus maintenance as needed  Supervise the driver's pre-trip checkouts  Prepare RFP's for shop equipment and contracted maintenance services  Maintain all bus service files  Participate in driver training as it relates to proper equipment care and operation  Participate in the budgeting of new equipment  Perform regular and preventive maintenance on buses and other school vehicles  Collect daily work requests from drivers  Assist in the tiling of all maintenance documentation  Performs the daily lubrication of vehicles  Assists the mechanics and shop foreman as needed  Inspect buses before leaving terminal  Operate buses in a safe and efficient manner for school and extra curricular activities  Document problems with vehicles  Participate in driver training and certification  Document discipline problems on buses  Inspect buses before leaving terminal  Operate buses in a safe and efficient manner for school and extra curricular activities  Document problems with vehicles  Participate in driver training and certification  Document discipline problems on buses  Inspect buses before leaving terminal  Operate buses in a safe and efficient manner transporting special ed students to and from their homes  Document problems with vehicles  Participate in driver training and certification  Assist the driver in operating the school bus  Drive the bus when directed to do so  Maintain lists of students \u0026amp; their needs  Responsible for all payroll information  Maintain the cleanliness of the depot and the grounds PROVIDER Shop Foreman Shop Mechanic Senzice Technician Regular Route Bus Driver Regular Route Substitutes Special Ed Drivers Special Ed Driver Aides Administrative Coordinator Custodian RESOURCE One FTE 37.5 Hrs/Wk Seven FTE's 37.5 HrsA/Vk Each 1 FTE 37.5 Hrs/Wk 161 FTE's 30 Hrs/Wk Each 18 FTE's 30 Hrs/Wk Each 31 FTE's 30 HrsA/Vk Each 31 FTE's 30 Hrs/Wk Each 1 FTE 40+ Hrs/Wk 10 months 0.8 FTE's 32 Hrs/Wk Each WAGES $36,666 $198,098 $18,603 See Schedule on the following page See Schedule on the following page See Schedule on the following page See Schedule on the following page $16,211 $14,534 ' An FTE is defined as a person who works 40 hours a week. For example, there are 138,75 FTE's 2 performing the Regular Route Bus Driver function. In actuality 222 drivers are doing this every day but they only work 5 hours/day. This equates to full-time-equivalents working 8 hours a day. Salaries include educational stipends and car allowances, if applicable. LRSD RFP95-0U FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) 12 LRSD Driver Compensation Driver base wages are determined by a graded, daily flat-rate scale\nhowever, they can make additional money by carrying students on field trips and performing other extra services. In February 1995 the drivers voted to be represented by the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association. Contract negotiations have not begun at this time. Daily Base Wage Rate Drivers receive a daily wage based on driving two (2) runs in the morning (A.M.) and two (2) runs in the afternoon (P.M.) which equates to any five (5) hours worth of work. This wage is graded based on service to the District. An experienced driver will be promoted to the next pay grade/step at the beginning of the academic year. This promotion will occur even if the driver only drove for more than half the previous year according to the previous labor agreement. \\ LRSD Driver Daily Base Wage Rate Pay Scale Step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Grade 1 One-Run Drivers $27.90 29.28 Grade 2 Driver Aides $37.36 39.94 42.54 45.12 47.72 50.16 Grade 3 Bus Drivers $42.54 45.12 47.72 50.37 53.06 55.50 56.61 Grade 4 Full-Time Subs $57.16 The following table breaks out the number of drivers fitting into each pay category. # of LRSD Drivers By Daily Base Wage Rate By Grade Pay Scale Step i 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 Grade 1 One-Run Drivers Grade 2 Driver Aides 1 6 6 3 10 7 Grade 3 Bus Drivers 70 49 26 14 41 26 22 Grade 4 Full-Time Subs 22 1 1 LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 13LRSD Driver Compensation(Continued) LRSD Driver Benefits The drivers receive the following fringe benefits: Dental Insurance Short Term Disability Long Term Disability Life Insurance Health Hospital Indemnity All of the above are provided at no cost to the driver as long as he or she works more than 25 hours per week. To pay for these benefits, LRSD contributes the following amounts annually to each driver's benefits: Health : Dental Plan: Hospital Indemnity: Short Term Disability: Life Insurance: Long Term Disability: $610.56 \u0026gt; $I88.64A^r $ 60.96/Yr $ 58.80/Yr $ 27.60/Yr $.0049/$ of driver income w/ a cap of $ 176.40 a month, if individual pays extra - up to $36,000 yearly based on salary. As mentioned before, the contractor will be required to offer jobs to ALL qualified LRSD drivers and to provide those employees with benefits comparable to what they receive from the District currently for as long they remain employees of the contractor. If the employee leaves in the middle of an academic year and then returns, he or she will not be entitled to the same level of benefits. For all such drivers and any drivers not employed with the District just prior to the new agreement's start, the contractor is free to provide whatever benefits the firm deems proper and the market will bear. ' In addition to the $610.56 contributed by the District, the State contributes an additional $1188 towards the driver's health insurance which brings the total cost to the public up to $1798.56/Yr. 1 LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPOR TA TION (VERSION 7.0) 14 1 ILRSD Transportation Department Budget The Little Rock Block and the State Magnet/M-to-M Block combined budget for the LRSD transportation department for 1994-95 school year is broken out below: Major Category 1994-95 Budget Amount Percent of Budget Upkeep of Facility Service Area Vehicle Operation DriverA^ ehicle Monitoring Vehicle Maintenance Other Support Services Workers Comp Fleet Insurance $48,300 $14,644 $2,556,439 $238,797 $2,869,703 $1,248 $193,126 $483,625 0.8% 0.3% 39.9% 3.8% 44.8% 0.1% 3.1% 7.6% Transportation Budget $6,405,882 \\ The budget chart above does not include $1,839,652 which represents the Special Education Transportation budget. It does include in the Vehicle Maintenance line item $832,000 of the $1,000,000 spent on replacement buses for 1994 - 95. The difference is in the Special Education Budget. LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) ISLRSD Performance Measures/Operating Statistics (Data is current as of March 1995) Safety Total Accidents/100k Driven Miles: $250+ Accidents/100k Driven Miles: Workmens' Compensation Claims: Student Discipline Problems and/or V iolence/Driver/Day: 2.96/100k accidents for current school year n/a 132 claims were paid for a total of $145,210 for 93-94 10/Driver/Day' Violence against buses are reported almost daily. Student disciplinary problems are growing. We do have camera boxes/cameras on some buses to discourage inappropriate behavior. Service % of Runs On-time:^ 74.9% % of Runs Late: 19.6% % of Runs Early: 5.7% 2 This is based on reports from schools taken during 8/22/94 to 2/24/95. This survey covers all regular runs for which data was available/supplied. A late bus was defined as a regular route bus which arrived 10 minutes or more past its scheduled arrival time. Maintenance Average Fleet Age: Equipment Availability: Equipment Breakdowns: % of Fleet Which Are Spares: 6.3 years as of 15 Mar 95 1995 89% of all non-spare buses are available on average n/a 10% = 30 spare buses for a fleet of 301 vehicles Human Resources Driver Absenteeism\nUnfilled Driver Positions: 3 9% was the average in March of 1994 and is the typical percent absent. 4.75% was achieved in Nov/Dec of 1993^ 20 Drivers are needed cunently, but 15 is more like the average The 4.75% was achieved during a month where incentives were to be received by drivers who were absent less often. The 9% figure is more typical. Route Efficiency: Service Radius: Avg Children/Stop: Avg Utilization of Regular Route Buses: All children outside a 2 mile radius of a school 2.35 / Regular Stop 54.9 % for 65 Passenger Bus Runs Average Driver Turnover: Between 30 - 40% annually each of the last two (2) years LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) 16ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS: A. Schedule of Events Event Pate  Request for Proposals Issued 3/31/95 \\  Beginning Inspection of Terminal and Vehicles 4/10/95  Pre-RFP Conference, (1:00 P.M.) ....4/14/95  Proposals Due. .(2:00 P.M.) ....5/03/95  Contract Award, (NET), 5/25/95  Contract Start Date .7/01/95 B. Proposal Content and Deadline A complete proposal will consist of the following dociunents: a) Bid Security or bond b) Seven (7) copies of the completed proposal forms c) Seven (7) copies of the completed Qualification Questionnaire d) Any proposed changes to the contract (If no proposed changes are submitted, the District will assume that the Proposer is committed to providing service exactly as described within the contract. Proposed additions should be highlighted, and proposed deletions should be lined out.) e) A workers' compensation certificate f) Evidence of insurability or insurance The above documents should be placed in an envelope completely and properly identified with the name of the proposer, RFP number (RFP95-014), RFP title (LRSD Student Transportation Services), and opening date/time (5/3/95 @2:00 P.M.) identified on the outside of the envelope. These documents should arrive at the office of: Director of Procurement and Materials Management Little Rock School District 1800 East 6th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 BY THE DEADLINE: 2:00 P.M. Central Time on Wednesday, May 3,1995 LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 17THE DEADLINE: 2:00 P.M. Central Time on Wednesday, May 3,1995 The District will not accept proposals after the above-noted time and date. Proposals received after that time and date will be returned to the Proposer unopened without exception. C. Security A Bond shall be included in the sealed envelope and it shall be five percent (5%) of the projected FIRST YEAR contract value. The District service requirement projections may be found on the proposal forms, but they shall not in any way be construed to bind the Distnct A check IS not acceptable for security. Bonds of contending proposers will be returned after initial consideration of the proposals within 30 days after a Proposer is eliminated from consideration. Note that the sample agreement at Section II. also includes a performance bond requirement, renewable aimually. D. Withdrawal or Modification of Proposals Any Proposer may withdraw by written request at any time prior to the deadline time for receipt of proposals or modify his or her proposal either in person (by initialing any ... * * -------------------- UUMOHUK dJly changes m a written proposal or by making written changes to and then resealing the proposal). Any modification to a proposal must be sealed separately from original or mn/lttiAd ________1_______X 1 . ,  modified written proposals and must be marked  ... .  -----as were the original proposals, except for the word modification. No oral or telephonic modifications to any part of a proposal will be accepted at any time. E. Erasures or Corrections to Proposals Any erasures and/or corrections to proposals, whether executed prior to or subsequent to the original proposal submittal, shall be authenticated by affixing in the margin immediately opposite the correction the initials of the proposal. person or persons signing the LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) ISF. Award of Contract The District intends to award the contract on or before 5/25/95. The award shall be made to that proposer judged to be the most responsible and responsive and presenting the proposal most advantageous to the District. The District reserves the right not to award any contracts if they find none of the proposals acceptable. An intent to award notice will be issued. As noted elsewhere in this document, failure or refusal to execute or commit to an agreement within seven (7) days of the award will render the proposal bond forfeited. In such a case the District will enter negotiations with the next most highly rated proposer. This RFP does not commit the District to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal or response to this RFP. \\ G. Examination of Contract Documents Proposers shall thoroughly examine and be familiar with the proposal package documents. The failure or neglect of any Proposer to receive or examine any contract document, form, addendum, or other document shall in no way relieve any Proposer from obligations with respect to his or her proposal. The submission of a proposal shall be taken as prima facie evidence of compliance with this section. H. Proposers Conference and Vehicle, Facility, and Equipment Inspection A MANDATORY proposers' conference has been scheduled for the following time and place: 1:00 P.M. Central Time QN 4/14/95 Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Management Department Little Rock School District 1800 East 6th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 (501) 324-2230 Additionally, proposers are encouraged to call or write the District to arrange a visit to the District's terminal and to inspect the District's vehicles and terminal facility. Such a visit should be arranged to take place at any time on or before 4/14/95. Be reminded that the mandatory pre-bid meeting is at 1:00 P.M. on 4/14/95. Proposers may submit questions with respect to any part of this proposal package or with respect to the proposal process in writing NO LATER THAN 2:00 P.M., MONDAY, 5/1/95 (48 Hours prior to RFP opening). Written questions and questions asked orally at the conference will be answered in writing by the District, and copies of the questions and answers will be forwarded to all proposers who attend the conference. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 19I. Interpretation of Contract Documents If any Proposer finds discrepancies in, or omissions from, the proposal specifications or contract documents, he or she may submit to the District a written request for clarification or correction thereof. A copy of the request for clarification and the response thereto will be mailed to all proposers. Conections will be made by addendum issued to each Proposer. J. Contract Specification Response Proposers shall submit with their proposals the contract document that they are prepared to execute if awarded the contract. The contract must include all numbered paragraphs portrayed in the included specimen or sample contract, modified by the Proposer only the extent deemed necessary to be acceptable to the Proposer. Failure to submit a modified contract document with a proposal shall be infened to mean that the Proposer IS committed to providing transportation service to the District exactly as specified in the i as to sample contract included in these proposal specifications. In the event the contract document submitted contains terms and conditions different from those set forth in the contract included with these proposal specifications, whether by addition, modification, or omission, the District shall consider changed terms during ns proposal evaluation process. The District reserves the right to reject any proposal that includes changes to the sample agreement (Section II.) which has been included in this proposal package. K. Evidence of Overall Qualifications Proposers responses to questions included in the Qualification Questionnaire will be used to evaluate each Proposer's capability to perform proper and satisfactory transportation services as required pursuant to this Request for Proposal. Upon request of the District, a Proposer whose proposal is under consideration for award of a contract may be required to submit additional information to support information previously provided. Proposers will also be prepared to conduct briefings/presentetions if requested. L. Business Experience Proposers must have at least five (5) years experience in the pupil transportation business in providing regular home-to-school transportation. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) 20M. Workers' Compensation Certificate In accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code, the Proposer shall sign and file with the District the following certificate prior to performing any work under this contract: \\ \"I am aware of the provision of Section 3700 of the Labor Code that requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing any work under a contract with the District.\" The form of said certificate is included in Section IV, Proposal Forms. N. Evidence of Insurance or Insurability The proposal shall include a copy of one or more insurance certificates (currently held by your firm) which include liability coverage, and collision, property, casualty, theft, and fire coverage. An insurance carrier as described in Section II, 1.4.3 of the sample agreement shall certify its willingness to insure the District, the District's Board of Trustees, Superintendent, officers, staff, and employees as described in Section II, 1.4.3 of the sample agreement. (A separate insurance certificate naming the State of Arkansas as an additional insured may be required after execution of the agreement). O. Contractor's Response to the Qualification Questionnaire Each Proposer must submit seven (7) copies of the Qualification Questionnaire with all questions answered. This questionnaire will be used by the District (as described in part K.) during the evaluation and selection process. Organizations cited as references may be contacted by the District to determine if the level of service provided to the organization by the Proposer is satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The District may also contact other organizations cited, such as banks, to verify the Proposer's statements. Proposers are hereby advised that the District maintains the sole and exclusive right to determine whether or not any Proposer is responsible and responsive\nand will exercise the appropriate judgments concerning the proposers capability to provide proper and satisfactory transportation services as defined herein. LRSD RFP9S-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 21P. Forfeiture for Failure to Execute Contract In the event that a Proposer is awarded the contract but fails or refuses to execute the T of notification comrS7'''  to'o .oa, awaro me not efiXted f proposal not eliminated from consideration after the initial evaluation. The Disin Its discretion, may call for new proposals or may decline to award the of award, the District and may award the was The District, alternatively contract. Q. District Contact Personnel f for proposals must be submitted in writing to the  nubfist:d'T d rospecive should be add^d l\"     despondence Charles A. Neal as soon Director, Procurement and Materials Management 1800 East 6th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 (501)324-2230 AU Proposals should be sent to Charles A. Neal at the above address. Telephone questions concerning the technical and/or operational include current transportation matters, should be directed Mary Jane Cheatham Director, Transportation 5400 Murray Little Rock, AR 72209 (501) 570-4000 or 570-4010 LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) aspects of this RFP to to the official indicated below\nI 22APPENDICES START HERE \\ LRSD RFP9S-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 23Appendix A (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Fleet Data I Bus# 73 88 36 55 11 17 14 1 71 54 23 32 3 5 66 26 65 68 67 30 29 164 141 131 27 129 15 146 130 56 125 69 135 61 62 126 64 12 154 140 176 178 137 160 22 Model 83 83 85 85 85 85 85 85 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 Make CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV GMC GMC GMC CHV GMC CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV GMC CHV GMC GMC GMC CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC Body BlueBird Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Engine Gas Gas Gas 92-93 93-94 Mar-95 To Date Reading Reading Reading MIs/Yr Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas 120,741 140,744 100,400 120,070 113,302 112,019 127,416 128,921 97,054 97,083 98,262 110,872 112,149 116,320 119,784 114,763 125,819 128,215 151,259 113,298 124,959 122,434 127,734 136,692 139,857 111,070 110,990 118,449 120,225 123,289 127,018 134,681 133,749 146,082 131,794 7,474 157,516 10,515 122,710 12,898 128,542 129,961 4,889 9,132 141,090 15,715 145,637 9.276 148,655 10,936 121,483 14,016 124,785 13,907 127,069 20,187 130,153 9,353 Page 1 of 6 132,968 144,126 138,785 63,118 75,838 75,148 79,347 78,710 76,949 87,606 91,858 94,606 89,168 91,258 94,510 93,512 90,342 99,673 100,867 92,764 95,119 92,885 94,169 98,181 100,256 96,373 110,811 100,591 109,326 161,580 75,472 85,978 87,669 86,725 90,045 96,119 101,049 103,315 106,096 103,935 105,064 106,265 104,815 105,008 112,791 114,232 109,262 108,764 109,747 109,540 113,163 114,088 107,889 114,732 114,124 114,921 134,092 11,140 137,426 10,698 144,627 14,897 144,853 18,986 149,626 20,263 152,340 11,158 172,281 22,795 83,926 12,354 93,619 10,140 95,712 12,521 97,044 7,378 98,577 11,335 105,444 19,170 109,633 13,443 112,632 11,457 112,690 11.490 114.054 14.767 114.325 13,806 114.853 11,755 115,230 11,303 117,632 14,666 118,974 13,118 119,579 13,365 119,729 16,498 119,781 120,551 13,645 16,862 120,793 15,371 120,815 14,982 122,102 13,832 122,293 11,516 123,041 3,921 123,158 13,533 123,279 5,595Appendix A (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Fleet Data 92-93 Bus # 128 159 63 148 21 7 139 152 147 132 46 143 151 165 161 127 145 155 142 43 49 150 25 91 156 51 134 179 136 2 31 58 52 153 163 158 44 167 6 16 157 60 20 133 177 93-94 Model 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 Make GMC GMC CHV GMC CHV CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV GMC GMC CHV GMC GMC Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Mar-95 To Date Type Engine Reading Reading Reading MIsZYr C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas 98,239 96,601 104,265 103,323 98,154 103,442 99,765 99,268 106,368 104,963 100,884 101,768 100,170 102,425 98,688 99,425 102,115 102,182 99,845 101,784 104,491 105,399 101,999 100,110 102,933 101,439 101,120 101,973 101,107 105,122 110,730 99,427 102,555 109,640 107,575 100,056 105,101 109,534 110,660 110,343 99,655 106,917 106,074 112,893 107,074 112,758 112,798 116,082 121,170 114,669 116,489 114,579 113,560 118,435 119,349 118,586 115,050 118,617 114,631 114,900 113,975 116,278 116,343 116,293 116,198 117,466 117,204 117,874 116,777 119,041 117,830 120,712 118,595 117,724 117,629 120,063 114,693 121,835 119,928 119,766 120,024 118,331 121,624 124,025 123,766 116,022 121,898 122,611 124,247 122,382 123,891 124,001 124,194 124,391 124,631 124,763 124,809 125,069 125,129 125,567 125,663 125,980 126,075 126,205 126,452 126,588 126,591 126,720 126,812 127,208 127,393 128,001 128,056 128,409 128,471 128,852 129,311 129,346 129,511 129,690 129,888 129,902 129,944 130,478 130,513 130,697 130,751 131,293 131,579 131,832 131,860 131,915 132,296 132,914 133,146 14,519 16,197 11,817 17,847 16,515 13,047 14,814 14,292 12,067 14,386 17,702 13,282 18,447 12,206 16,212 14,550 14,163 14,161 16,448 14,414 12,975 11,805 15,875 16,667 16,108 16,391 19,592 16,622 16,617 12,507 9,333 15,266 19,280 10,288 12,191 19,968 13,230 12,090 13,365 13,423 16,367 14,981 16,537 11,354 15,308 Page 2 of 6Appendix A (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Fleet Data Bus # 144 181 149 70 42 48 94 4 33 138 57 41 93 8 180 92 96 166 95 162 182 196 187 203 199 202 194 185 201 186 188 191 183 184 193 200 204 189 205 190 192 198 34M 26M 31M Model 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 ' 87 87 87 87 87 87 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 89 89 89 Make GMC GMC GMC CHV GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV GMC GMC CHV GMC CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV GMC GMC GMC Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward 92-93 93-94 Mar-95 To Date Type Engine Reading Reading Reading MIs/Yr C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas 109,242 108,903 103,555 109,008 102,195 105,710 113,780 106,799 106,351 109,333 121,201 109,319 115,199 114,468 112,930 118,115 121,780 128,300 126,569 53,520 57,262 63,625 82,212 86,719 84,330 90,937 89,582 92,989 96,221 93,936 94,272 96,609 109,874 86,892 98,276 97,274 92,128 102,213 105,869 114,852 106,542 131,952 21,258 44,406 46,945 123,532 122,351 118,058 124,660 122,904 124,187 129,058 121,106 131,044 127,106 129,686 128,529 129,967 133,188 131,328 137,987 141,483 146,190 147,946 167,986 66,881 77,511 90,776 97,332 99,903 104,452 105,730 107,370 108,481 107,371 117,840 113,820 120,151 103,493 113,946 114,891 108,580 117,840 125,877 136,302 127,862 142,028 37,043 61,399 66,643 134,199 14,290 134,403 13,448 135,517 14,503 136,228 15,652 136,697 20,709 138,306 18,477 138,452 15,278 139,401 14,307 140,099 24,693 140,173 17,773 140,371 8,485 141,390 19,210 142,632 14,768 142,726 18,720 146,568 18,398 146,741 19,872 157,056 19,703 159,237 17,890 162,994 21,377 177,534 114,466 76,958 9,619 86,102 13,886 99,207 8,564 105,226 10,613 109,925 15,573 113,726 13,515 114,178 16,148 118,490 14,381 118,885 12,260 120,707 13,435 121,143 23,568 121,713 17,211 122,597 10,277 122,678 16,601 125,110 15,670 125,590 17,617 126,230 16,452 126,533 15,627 135,932 20,008 136,673 21,450 137,280 21,320 149,823 10,076 59,285 15,785 72,588 16,993 75,857 19,698 Page 3 of 6Appendix A (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Fleet Data 92-93 93-94 Mar-95 To Date Bus # 35M 14M 27M 32M 08M 29M 03M 10M 30M 13M 07M 09M 15M 16M 20M 06M 04M 11M 22M 05M 24M 18M 28M 02M 12M 23M 01M 21M 17M 33M 25M 19M 218 212 207 210 239 214 227 206 215 241 208 238 235 Model 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Make GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type Engine Reading Reading Reading MIs/Yr C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas 50,567 30,233 58,937 60,501 63,123 68,500 65,913 60,298 73,495 67,393 67,587 82,684 78,761 68,048 75,997 73,457 77,189 78,915 71,350 77,466 81,680 83,609 80,079 82,394 77,672 82,149 85,302 85,023 75,887 110,656 104,895 124,362 45,428 36,863 47,445 44,205 46,896 44,212 45,639 46,647 46,263 47,425 45,349 46,039 49,904 60,675 40,540 74,014 75,169 82,198 84,845 81,516 78,185 87,034 87,527 86,042 95,373 89,264 81,952 87,159 89,134 92,837 96,235 87,903 93,232 95,651 97,197 98,792 99,332 99,460 99,464 105,031 104,892 92,888 129,994 123,198 142,665 52,808 52,220 58,979 59,411 58,572 58,266 58,998 60,360 61,110 61,848 62,671 60,150 65,600 76,006 81,288 83,403 86,137 93,284 94,071 94,195 94,840 97,325 97,482 98,145 98,502 98,665 99,045 99,145 100,392 100,662 101,288 101,457 104,625 108,688 110,690 111,474 111,557 111,578 113,365 113,926 117,088 128,577 138,034 140,241 152,310 55,702 64,140 65,806 65,830 66,466 68,236 68,725 69,610 71,556 71,789 71,991 72,038 72,904 10,108 10,307 15,077 14,668 19,075 16,345 15,603 17,887 13,539 20,134 18,455 12,689 10,503 13,904 11,162 15,677 15,648 17,320 16,553 15,766 13,971 13,588 18,713 16,938 21,788 17,315 19,729 19,869 17,001 19,338 18,303 18,303 7,380 15,357 11,534 15,206 11,676 14,054 13,359 13,713 14,847 14,423 17,322 14,111 15,696 \\ Page 4 of 6Appendix A (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Fleet Data Bus # 216 242 234 220 221 217 237 236 209 45 229 224 228 231 226 24 223 232 233 240 225 222 230 213 211 90 219 260 261 271 274 273 268 265 277 257 278 269 281 258 264 263 275 259 270 Model 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Make CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward 92-93 93-94 Mar-95 To Date Type Engine Reading Reading Reading MIsZYr C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel 45,328 48,183 64,457 57,330 48,005 49,085 51,005 48,713 51,981 49,457 52,092 54,982 57,391 55,476 52,926 52,721 62,737 52,476 47,643 61,876 63,570 58,931 61,818 64,937 48,017 70,442 67,751 10,885 9,798 10,242 8,881 8,178 8,382 11,030 13,121 13,278 13,635 10,059 12,638 16,755 15,785 14,202 16,668 14.197 12.817 61.273 64.452 76.124 68.667 63.449 65.992 65.418 67.424 71.744 68.301 71.844 72.663 72.762 73.794 72.740 71.532 76.619 74.793 69.694 75.100 77.890 77.891 78.631 82.598 66.564 90,939 97,230 26,413 27,180 25,530 22,897 22,548 28,023 29,729 30,891 31,467 32,604 33,592 32,339 37,384 39,114 36,870 35,038 37,220 36,471 73.299 15.945 73.328 16.269 74.780 11.667 76.836 11.337 77.577 15.444 77,761 16,907 79,234 14,413 80,157 18,711 83,018 19,763 83,024 18,844 83,411 19,752 84,580 17,681 85,025 15,371 85,303 18,318 86,679 19,814 86,779 18,811 86,840 13,882 87,927 22,317 88,020 22,051 89,238 13,224 89,630 14,320 90,249 18,960 90,826 16,813 95,371 17,661 103,055 18,547 105,206 20,497 111,827 29,479 37,279 15,528 38,368 17,382 38,805 15,288 40,644 14,016 41,958 14,370 42,579 19.641 42,871 18,699 42,929 17,770 44,409 18,189 45,749 18,969 48,327 23,533 48,984 19,701 49,653 20,629 51,254 23,329 51,822 22,668 52,595 18,370 54,445 23,023 56,411 23,654 Page 5 of 6Appendix A (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Fleet Data 92-93 93-94 Mar-95 To Date b?7 Bus# 280 276 272 266 262 279 267 56M 57M 58M 59M 60M 61M 62M 63M 64M 65M 66M 67M 39M 52M 50M 55M 47M 53M 46M 54M 44M 48M 42M 45M 51M 38M 40M 43M 36M 37M 49M 41M Model 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Make INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type Engine Reading Reading Reading MIs/Yr C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c c c c c c c c c c c c Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel 19,278 10,526 8,693 16,091 23,870 25,254 27,683 42,125 37,749 36,567 44,893 52,261 49,376 60,182 59,088 59,461 60,252 65,557 70,533 71,275 75,850 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1,425 2,022 2,158 2,167 3,201 3,441 3,505 3,676 3,691 3,763 3,953 4,387 4,458 4,753 5,274 5,651 6,126 7,582 7,648 7,798 22,847 27,223 27,874 28,802 28,391 24,122 32,499 \\ I 5 I s K I I el I ! i I s i f 1 Page 6 of 6Appendix B (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Schcx\u0026gt;l Bus Run Data ____ Mar-95 Bus # 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 12 12 14 14 15 15 16 16 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 25 25 26 26 27 27 29 29 30 30 31 31___ 32 32 33 33 36 36 42 42 44 44 45 45 Model 86 86 87 87 86 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 85 85 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 86 86 87 87 86 86 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 86 86 87 87 85 85 87 87 87 87 90 90 Make GMC GMC CHV CHV GMC CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV GMC GMC CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV GMC GMC CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV GMC GMC CHV CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV Body Type Engine Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward C C C C C C C C C C C Z Z Z C Z C C C C Z C C C Z Z C z c z c c c c c c c c c z z c z z c c c z z c c Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Reading 134,092 134,092 139,401 139,401 137,426 131,579 131,579 124,763 124,763 142,726 142,726 120,551 120,551 145,637 145,637 112,632 112,632 131,832 131,832 132,296 132,296 124,631 124,631 123,279 123,279 127,069 127,069 \" 128,056  128,056 \" 144,853  144,853 105,444 105,444 93,619 93,619 83,926 83,926 129,888 129,888 130,153 130,153 140,099 140,099 122,710 122,710 136,697 136,697 130,751 130,751 83,024 83,024 Run # 021 46C 07M 44C 32C 02G 46D lie 42F 13H 42J 07B 51B OOH 42H OIK 51C 10M 52A 02A 23B* 15E 25B 15A 28G 07N 37C 01D 30C 16F 35B 10D 35C 13A 24B 10K 33C OU 31C 08K 33B 15C 17C 11D 35D 08J 46A 02F 24G 08M 28E TIME 59.9 34.5 42.2 46.7 46.5 23 43 38.3 49.2 39.3 49.9 37 46.6 41.7 47.5 37.3 25.8 44 38.2 45.4 39.3 28.7 43.1 41.3 29.2 38.2 52 37.2 27.8 40.4 55.4 46.4 40.3 46.2 43.8 50.4 26.8 42.7 47.6 46.8 43.4 45.3 42.1 27 55.1 56.6 54.7 40.9 21.4 28.1 25.9 Miles LR/State 22.4 10.79 13.37 14.18 16.73 6.46 14.68 11.62 19.2 14.88 16.08 12.56 15.44 14.03 15.38 14.55 10.1 17.04 15.17 13.28 14.3 8.94 16.6 14.7 14.33 10.74 18.61 12.39 9.05 15.62 27.66 15.63 14.1 15.41 15.11 17.27 8.58 12.64 17.79 16.31 15.03 26.46 13.78 7.48 21.02 21.48 21.6 14.37 16.23 9.66 13.48 LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR Page 1Appendix B (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Run Data Mar-95 Bus # 46 46 48 48 49 49 51 51 54 54 56 56 57 57 58 58 60 60 62 62 63 63 64 64 68 68 69 69 70 70 91 91 93 93 94 94 95 95 96 96 125 125 126 126 127 128 128 129 129 130 130 Model 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 86 86 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 86 86 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 Make GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV CHV CHV GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c A A c c c c c c c c c Engine Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Reading Run # 125,663 125,663 138,306 138,306 127,393 127,393 128,852 128,852 124,785 124,785 114,325 114,325 140,371 140,371 129,902 129,902 131,915 131,915 119,579 119,579 124,194 124,194 119,781 119,781 152,340 152,340 115,230 115,230 136,228 136,228 128,409 128,409 142,632 142,632 138,452 138,452 162,994 162,994 157,056 157,056 114,853 114,853 119,729 119,729 126,588 123,891 123,891 109,633 109,633 114,054 114,054 11B 35A* 10F 23C QIS* 28A 13E 44B 10L 48H 01E 32A* 07G 18A 08C 45C 07D 28D 12H 38B 16H 51A 13F 52B* OIF 26A 12A* 31A 071 18B 15D 39B 01N 22A 08G 28C 13D 18E IOC 30F 13L 42D 12C 25A 130* 10J 36D 16D 22B 02C 33D TIME 27.4 26.2 49.3 50 14.5 57.2 37.9 47 48.3 44.3 34 30.4 50.4 47.3 47.5 34.1 46.4 36.1 35.9 42.8 26.3 51 41.8 47.8 44 41.9 26.3 24.7 42.7 45.5 35.5 54.8 15.6 56 40 47.7 49.8 58.2 49.5 49.2 19.2 31 42.3 29.5 11.4 36.2 49.6 26.2 47.3 53.9 22 Miles LR/State 9.09 10.05 15.9 17.52 4.04 17.64 11.7 15.36 15.4 13.29 10.46 10.64 17.83 15.46 19.67 12.78 12.67 11.3 9.77 14.29 7.56 15.83 13.48 18.36 14.49 15.87 8.52 10.13 14.03 15.56 13.85 19.77 5.57 23.54 12.36 20.05 15.26 20.02 17.14 15.37 6.38 10.26 15.54 10.9 3.16 12.28 18.96 7.24 14.97 18.11 6.66 LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR \\ Page 2Appendix B (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Run Data ____ Mar-95 Bus # 131 131 133 133 135 135 136 136 137 137 138 138 139 140 140 141 141 142 142 143 143 144 144 145 145 147 147 149 150 150 152 152 153 153 154 154 155 155 156 156 157 157 158 158 159 159 160 160 161 163 163 Model 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 Make GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward - Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c_ c c_ c c c c_ c c__ c__ c c__ c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c___ c c c c c c c c c Engine Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Reading 98,577 98,577 132,914 132,914 117,632 117,632 129,51 1 129,511 123,041 123,041 140,173 140,173 \" 124,809 \" 120,815 \" 120,815 \" 97,044 97,044 126,812 126,812 125,980 125,980 134,199 _ 134,199 _ 126,591 126,591 125,129 125,129 _ 135,517 3 128,001 128,001 125,069 125,069 130,478 130,478 120,793 120,793 126,720 126,720 128,471 128,471 131,860 131,860 130,697 130,697 124,001 124,001 123,158 123,158 126,452 130,513 130,513 Run# 02J 25C 10G 421 11G 45B 07E 47E 11H 45A 09F 32E 30H 07C 17B 10A 47D 15G 28F 11F 34C* 02B 19B 11E 44A 09K 28B II METRO 07A 42E 101 40A* 10H 24F 16E 29C* 161 36A 01H 50A 13G 32D 16K 35E 02H 33A 11A 18D 01 METRO 08D I 31B I Page 3 TIME 26.2 38.9 27.3 31.5 35.7 47.1 50.6 50.2 26.8 38.5 45.4 44.3 26.8 23 29 46.4 37.7 20.7 29.6 43 37.9 51.7 31 33.6 48.9 24.1 34.9 35 46.3 47.2 25.4 32.4 19 39.5 39.9 26.2 53.2 44.4 51.1 39.9 42.9 33.3 53.9 56.3 45.6 38 39.4 30 25.2 Miles LR/State 7.31 12.49 7.72 11.64 11.77 17.61 16.93 16.18 8.61 12.7 16.65 13.4 10.54 6 10.86 13.22 10.05 6.41 13.61 15.34 12.19 17.37 10.03 11.47 15.7 7.65 12.64 13.75 17.2 17.01 14.05 8.81 5.76 11.45 15.43 7.23 17.53 14.49 18.59 13.62 13.9 11.28 19.13 18.39 15.85 12.36 11.63 12.38 7.51 LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LRAppendix B (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Run Data Mar-95 Bus # 165 165 167 167 176 176 177 177 178 179 179 180 180 181 181 182 182 184 185 185 186 186 187 189 189 191 191 193 193 196 196 200 201 201 202 202 206 206 207 207 208 208 209 209 210 210 211 211 213 213 214 Modei 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Make GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type Engine C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Reading Run # Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Page 4 126,205 126,205 131,293 131,293 122,102 122,102 133,146 133,146 122,293 129,346 129,346 146,568 146,568 134,403 134,403 76,958 76,958 122,678 118,490 118,490 120,707 120,707 99,207 126,533 126,533 121,713 121,713 125,110 125,110 86,102 86,102 125,590 118,885 118,885 113,726 113,726 69,610 69,610 65,806 65,806 71,991 71,991 83,018 83,018 65,830 65,830 103,055 103,055 95,371 95,371 68,236 12D 36E 10E 40C 081 29A 09A 30A dETROEV 13C 50D 13K 46E 07H 24C 12B 47A VIETROEV 16B 24A 13M 20G 12METRO 13J 39A 02D 18F 10B 30D OIL 29B 46F* 12E 19A OOE 47F 20D Al 07J 18C 08B 23A 07F 33E 12F 37B Oil 32B OSH 30G 30B TiME 41.6 51.6 23.1 29.7 41.4 35.5 39.8 30.3 49.8 39 51.4 49.1 35.2 45.5 47.8 36.9 46.8 40.9 52.2 40 57.1 35 31.7 41.9 29.9 42.6 37.2 21.8 47.3 27.4 12.7 41.5 41.8 56.7 52.7 32 37.4 39.2 31.7 47.3 37.9 27.8 47.6 48.8 34.7 53.5 31.2 Miles LR/State 15.59 17.09 7.11 13.34 12.22 13.13 11.45 7.39 16.35 18.16 14.16 20.02 16.69 11.71 17.32 17.73 14.08 18.53 10.53 17.05 13.59 21.39 11.23 11.32 13.38 11.64 13.81 12.12 6.28 16.81 9.77 3.39 13.84 14.27 19.06 19.02 11.05 14.17 12.11 9.51 17.26 12.48 8.48 17.38 19.34 11.95 16.55 9.83 LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR \\Appendix B (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Run Data ________ Mar-95 Bus # 215 215 216 216 218 218 220 220 221 222 222 223 223 224 224 225 225 226 226 227 227 228 228 229 230 230 231 232 232 234 234 236 236 237 238 238 239 239 240 240 241 242 242 257 257 258 258 259 259 260 260 Model 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Make CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT Body Type Engine Reading Run# I Ward I Ward I Ward I Ward I Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward [ Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward  Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward I Ward I Ward I Ward I __C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c I Gas I Gas I Gas I Gas I Gas I Gas I Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel 71,5561 71.556 73,299 73,299 55,702 55702 76,836l ' 76,836| 77,577| 90749I 90749I 86,840l 86,840| 84,5801 84,580| 89,630| 89,630j 86,679| 86,679| 68725| 68725| 85,0251 85,025| 83,4111 90,8261 90,826l 85703I 87,927l 87,927| 74,78o! 74780| 80,157l 80,157| 01G 20E 09D 44D 131 37A 09B 20B 20A 09C 48C 091 48B 010 48E 08L 48A 02E 48F 09M 30E 13B 20c 38A 01M 42A 16C 01c 48D 16J 34B 08E 34A 79,234112METW 72,038|01 METRO 72,0381 66,4661 66,4661 48G 16G 42C 89,238|02METRO 89,238l 71,789 73,328 73,328 44,409 44,409 49,653 49,653 54,445! 54,445! 37,279| 37279! 20F 29D 01R 38C 12G 50B 08F 42B 09J 47C 02L 24D Page 5 TIME 52.1 38.9 42.6 52.7 27.5 43.8 48.3 23.9 50 43.1 46.7 29.7 26.3 48.9 26.3 32.6 29.1 46.8 43.7 11.8 42.8 40.8 47.9 49.3 40.7 A5.7 27.5 46.6 27.4 39.2 45.1 48 44.7 54.5 35.6 43 31.9 37.8 20.9 41.8 296 44.6 25.7 34.7 16.6 52.4 21.7 31.7 Miles LR/State 14.4 13.14 14.12 19.79 9.16 15.28 14.52 8.01 16.38 13.51 12.78 13.27 9.4 17.01 9.72 9.35 8.3 13.33 16.44 3.75 13.14 12.81 14.02 16.47 12.32 17.74 12.31 17.33 7.94 14.91 18.26 16.23 19.28 19.04 15.07 15.36 9.23 12.76 6.3 15.79 8.07 14.26 8.5 14.9 3.5 13.1 6.04 10.19 LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR__ LR__ LR__ LR__ LR__ LR__ LR__ LR LR__ LR___ LRAppendix B (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Run Data Mar-95 Bus # 261 261 264 264 265 265 269 269 271 271 274 274 275 277 277 278 . 278 280 12M 19M 23M 24M 25M 26M 29M 31M 34M 41M 1 5 17 17 43 65 67 127 148 149 161 162 166 178 184 187 200 204 217 217 229 231 235 Model 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 95 85 86 85 85 87 86 86 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 88 88 88 88 90 90 90 90 90 Make INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT INT GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC Ford GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV CHV Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Engine Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Diesel Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Reading Run # 38,368 38,368 51,254 51,254 42,871 42,871 48,327 48,327 38,805 38,805 40,644 40,644 15F I 42G I D8METRO 47B 121 40B 02K 36B 12J 24E 12METRO TIME 21.6 34.8 39 20.8 39.4 36.7 44.2 39.4 39.5 17A I 40.7 52,595 32METRO 42,929 42,929 45,749 45,749 59,088 111,578 152,310 113,365 108,688 140,241 72,588 94,071 75,857 59,285 16A 50C 08A 46B VIETROEV 02M 01Q 01P 09G 09L 15B 07K 13N 07L 53.9 19.97 42.4 40.4 32.6 17 34 46.8 42 31.2 17.9 29.2 44.7 7,798 31 METRO 148,655 137,426 MM30PIVL 03D 123.8 49 141,090 35METRO 141,090 127,208 149,626 172,281 126,588 124,391 135,517 126,452 177,534 159,237 122,293 122,678 99,207 125,590 126,230 77,761 77,761 83,411 85,303 72,904 MM38 MM05 MM21 MM35 MM04 MM07 MM29 MM03 MM58 MM34 MM43 MM44 MM16 03H MM08 MM06 MM46 03B 27F 03A 63.2 43.6 60.4 53 51.1 63.4 78.8 48.1 70 49.2 58.5 40.1 90.4 53.1 72 61 60.1 56.5 34.7 52.9 Miles LR/State 5.55 12.87 10.82 5.35 15.63 10.71 17.13 16.23 11.84 13.49 14.77 38.6 14.16 11.25 10.64 4.48 10.84 14.5 15.44 11.39 7.56 10.97 19.01 61.34 15.43 28.22 15.6 25.42 23.99 21.61 25.12 36.5 28.41 39.3 22.18 15.74 17.57 44.66 19.25 32.04 26.78 25.95 19.1 17.74 20.13 LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST Page 6Appendix B (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Run Data _____ Mar-95 Bus # 235 237 241 266 270 272 273 275 279 280 01M 02M 02M 03M 03M 04M 04M 05M 05M 06M 06M 07M 07M 08M 08M 09M 09M 10M 10M 11M 11M 11M 12M 13M 13M 14M 14M 15M 15M 15M 16M 16M 17M 17M 18M 18M 18M 19M 20M 20M 21M Model 90 90 90 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Make CHV CHV CHV INT INT INT INT INT INT INT GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward ' Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward  Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c_ c c c c c c c c__ c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c___ c c c c c c c c Engine Gas Gas Gas Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Reading 72,904 79,234 71,789 65,557 56,411 60,252 41,958 52,595 71,275 59,088 113,926 Run # 43B MM17 MM25 MM22 MM01 MM45 MM42 MM36 MM28 MM41 MM57 111,557 35METRO TIME 53.7 78.1 44.7 66 53 69.8 59 68 74 53.9 51.3 Miles LR/State 16.81 41.15 16.55 24.96 20.98 35.06 22.55 27.65 33.35 20.31 25.55 Page 7 111,557 94,195 94,195 100,662 100,662 104,625 104,625 100,392 100,392 98,145 98,145 93,284 93,284 98,502 98,502 94,840 94,840 101,288 101,288 101,288 111,578 97,482 97,482 81,288 81,288 98,665 98,665 98,665 99,045 99,045 128,577 128,577 110,690 110,690 110,690 152,310 99,145 99,145 117,088 43E 05E 06B 03J* 06A 05A 431 43H MM31 05G 43F 03K 06G 43G MM24 03G 21B 031 43A MM49 21H 05C 27A 051 21F 05J 06K MM48 05B 43D 05D 27D 03F 43C MM47 06F 03E 27G 03C 49.2 42.3 44.7 43.2 50 33.4 50.6 39.2 25.4 43.3 43.2 52.4 43.1 49.1 28.9 35.4 47.9 47.9 41.7 89.5 54.9 48.1 38.6 50.4 40.1 32.8 44.9 68.9 49.9 44.4 38.2 32.9 52.1 44.4 65.5 48.3 47.7 29.6 45.8 16.18 14.29 16.87 15.93 19.71 11.19 18.66 15.7 25.4 13.59 14.2 16.25 16.75 18.61 10.85 13.48 21.33 16.16 15.2 37.87 20.13 12.61 12.13 17.29 15.35 11.77 15.17 31.15 16.85 13.65 13.64 12.66 18.94 14.33 31.26 15.05 14.25 11.18 14.51 ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST STAppendix B (RFP95-014) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT School Bus Run Data Mar-95 Bus # 21M 22M 22M 23M 24M 25M 26M 27M 27M 28M 28M 29M 30M 30M 31M 32M 32M 33M 33M 34M 35M 35M 36M 37M 38M 40M 41M 42M 43M 43M 43M 44M 45M 46M 47M 48M 49M 50M 51M 52M 53M 54M 55M Model 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Make GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC GMC Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Body Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Ward Type Engine Reading Run # C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Page 8 117,088 101,457 101,457 113,365 108,688 140,241 72,588 83,403 83,403 111,474 111,474 94,071 97,325 97,325 75,857 86,137 86,137 061* 05F 21E 27B 27C 21D 21C 03L 06E 27E MM18 21A 21G MM27 211 06C MM19 138,034 35METRO 138,034 59,285 76,006 76,006 6,126 7,582 4,753 5,274 7,798 3,953 5,651 5,651 5,651 3,691 4,387 3,505 3,201 3,763 7,648 2,158 4,458 2,022 3,441 3,676 2,167 06D 06H OSH 06J MM20 MM02 MM33 MM37 MM23 MM39PM| MM40Pm' MM50 MM51 MM09 MM10 MM11 MM12 MM13 MM14 MM26 MM56 MM52 MM53 MM54 MM55 TIME 33.3 35.6 45.6 45.8 49.6 36.1 56.9 43.7 49.4 49.6 44.4 49 44.6 39.4 51.2 36.4 41.1 35.8 40.7 29.2 50.5 57.3 45.9 60 85.8 63.8 87.3 44.2 20.8 61.6 85 79.9 71.5 87.3 91 85.1 67.1 75.5 75.7 71.1 60.5 49 Miles LR/State 11.94 14.8 17.74 15.82 17.44 17 18.25 18.33 16.53 14.17 21.87 18.45 18.75 14.42 16.53 16.95 19.55 11.34 14.88 11.87 16.69 20.95 17.83 24.88 27.06 24.87 33.03 22.24 11.01 25.37 38.37 33.49 44.14 40.63 44.67 43.88 24.48 36.38 41.44 39.51 36.42 31.95 ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST \\I 1 )* ^55 SECTION II. SAMPLE AGREEMENT/CONTRACT ha Request For Proposal (RFP95-014) Student Transportation Services Little Rock School District I S I Issued: March 31, 1995 * LRSD RFP95-014 FOR mJ DENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7 0)TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Topic Page 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1. CONTRACT DURATION AND CHARACTERISTICS 1.1.1. 1.1.2. 1.1.3. 1.1.4. Term Renewal Provisions Cost Indexing Unusual Cost Increases or Decreases 1 1.2. OWNER - CONTRACTOR COMMUNICATION AND BILLING .3 1.3. 1.2.1. 1.2.2. 1.2.3. 1.2.4. 1.2.5. 1.2.6. Owner Contractor Liaison Provision for Notice Bill Format 1.2.3.1 1.2.3.2 1.2.3.3 1.2.3.4 Charges for Regular Route Service Regular Route Flat Bus/Day Rate Charges for Non-Conflicting Trip Service Charges for Conflicting Trip Service Invoice Documentation and Exceptions Billing Frequency / Time For Payment! Discount for Prompt Payment Total Consideration for this Agreement LEGAL INTERPRETATION PROVISIONS .6 1.3.1. 1.3.2. 1.3.3. 1.3.4. 1.3.5. 1.3.6. Incorporation by Reference Failure to Enforce a Default or Other Right Definitions Contract Interpretation Severability Amendments to this Agreement \\ 1.4. CONTRACTOR STATUS...... 1.4.1. Performance Bond 1.4.2. Permits and Licenses 1.4.3. Insurance Requirements 9 1.4.3.1 Public Liability Insurance 1.4.3.2 Workers' Compensation Insurance 1.4.3.3 Property Insurance 1.4.3.4 Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance 1.4.4. Hold Harmless / Indemnification Agreement 1.4.4.1 Injury to the Contractor, or to Direct or Indirect Contractors Employees 1.4.4.2 Injury Caused by the Contractors Employees or by Direct or Indirect Contractors Employees LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 1TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Topic Page 1.4.5. Force Majeure 1.4.5.1 Acts of God 1.4.5.2 Labor Disturbances 1.4.6. Permissibility of Subcontracts 1.4.6.1 Subcontractor Experience 1.4.6.2 Subcontractor Liability Insurance 1.4.6.3 Continued Contractor Responsibility 1.4.7. Assignment of the Contract 1.4.8. Contractor Independence 1.4.9. Covenant Against Contingent Fees 1.4.10. Penalty for Collusion 1.4.11. Conflict of Interest 1.5. ETHICS PROVISIONS....................................................................... 1.5.1. Non-Discrimination 1.5.2. Civil Rights Act Compliance 1.5.3. Hiring District Employees Involved in Proposal Evaluation 1.6. TERMINATION............................................................................ 1.6.1. Criteria 1.6.1.1 Revoked or Suspended Contractor Licenses 1.6.1.2 Incomplete or Inadequate Service by Contractor 1.6.1.3 Contractor Bankruptcy 1.6.1.4 Poor Operational Safety 1.6.1.5 Improperly Maintained Vehicles 1.6.1.6 Improperly Maintained Facilities 1.6.1.7 Failure to Follow Runs \u0026amp; Schedules 1.6.1.8 Failure to Obey Laws and/or Ordinances 1.6.1.9 Failure to Provide Agreed Upon Data 1.6.1.10 Owners Right to Termination 1.6.2. Advance Notice 1.6.3. Damage Provisions 2. CONTRACTOR OBLIGATIONS 2.1. MANAGEMENT......................................................... 2.1.1. Hours of Office Operation 2.1.2. Emergency Situations 2.1.3. Certified School Bus Driver Instructors 2.1.4. Routine Communications with the District 2.2. OPERATIONS, ROUTING, AND DISPATCHING 13 14 16 17 LKSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 11TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Topic Page 2.2.1. General Operating Requirements 2.2.1.1 2.2.1.2 2.2.1.3 2.2.1.4 2.2.1.5 Regular Run Service Non-conflicting Extra Service Conflicting Extra Service Public Communications \u0026amp; Complaint Management Remote Student Transportation \\ 2.2.2. Driver Management Requirements 2.2.2.1. Employing Existing District Drivers 2.2.2.2 Regular Driver Assignments 2.2.2.3 Substitute/Spare Drivers 2.2.3. Routing And Scheduling 2.2.3.1 2.2.3.2 2.2.3.3 2.2.3.4 2.2.3.5 Contractor Published Regular Routes Dry-runs and Driver Orientation Changes in Established Runs or Stops New Regular Service Routes Changes in School Schedules 2.2.4. Dispatching 2.2.4.1 Assigning Appropriate Vehicles to Routes 2.2.4.2 Driver Assignment to Routes 2.2.5 Extra Service Transportation 2.2.5.1 Non-Conflicting Trips 2.2.5.2 Conflicting Trips 2.2.5.3 Option to Cancel Trips 2.2.5.4 Limitation of District Obligations 2.2.5.5 District Right to Contract Separately 2.3. SCHOOL BUS DRIVER REQUIREMENTS 2.3.1. District Philosophy 2.3.2. Pre-Employment Screening 2.3.3. Credentials and Related Requirements I 1 ,23 2.3.3.1. Driver Age 2.3.3.2. Licenses and Permits 2.3.3.3. Driver Health Requirements 2.3.3.4 District Approval 2.3.4. Drug Use Prevention 2.3.4.1 Grounds for Testing 2.3.4.2 Grounds for Removal from Service 2.3.5. Criminal Background Checks for Drivers 2.3.5.1 Action on Criminal Background Results 2.3.5.2 Access to Criminal Background Check Results by the District LttSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 111TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Topic Page 2.4. SCHOOL BUS DRIVER TRAINING REQUIREMENTS 2.4.1. Original Training 2.4.2. In-Service Training 2.4.2.1 T-01 Training Card Training 2.4.2.2 Safety Training 2.4.3. Retraining 2.4.4. Evaluation .27 2.5. OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLES............... 2.5.1. Vehicles Leased From the District 30 2.5.1.1 2.5.1.2 2.5.1.3 2.5.1.4 2.5.1.5 Cost to the Contractor Use of Owner Vehicles Maintenance of Owner Vehicles Owner Vehicle Insurance Two-Way Radios 2.5.2. Vehicle Management and Standards 2.5.2.1 2.5.2.2 2.5.2.3 2.5.2.4 Number of Contractor Supplied Vehicles Contractor Supplied Vehicles Age and Condition of Contractor Provided Vehicles Accessories Required for Contractor-Supplied Vehicles 2.5.3. Mandated and Requested Vehicle Modifications 2.5.4. Physical Location and Control of Buses 2.5.5. Purchasing/Leasing Contractor Supplied Vehicles Upon Termination 2.5.5.1 2.5.5.2 2.5.5.3 2.5.5.4 2.5.5.5 2.5.5.6 Purchasing Contractor Vehicles if Termination for Cause Purchasing Contractor Vehicles Upon Contract Expiration Vehicle Purchasing Options Duration of Open to Purchase' Determining a Fair Price of the Vehicles Interest Rate Cap on Purchases/Leases 2.6. MAINTENANCE................................................................... 2.6.1. Maintenance Standards 2.6.2. Removal From Service 2.6.2.1 District Fleet Inspections 2.6.2.2 Grounds for Removal 2.6.3. Responsible Party 2.6.4. Prioritization of Repairs 2.6.4.1 Listing Preventive Maintenance to be Done 2.6.4.2 Listing Repairs to be Done 2.6.4.3 Prioritization of Maintenance Work 2.6.5. Fleet Management Software 36 LSSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7 0) IVTABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Topic Page 2.7. 2.6.6. Purchase of Fuel 2.6.6.1 Using Federal Tax Exempt Fuel 2.6.6.2 Fuel Storage Responsibility 2.6.6.3 Monthly Fuel Usage Reports 2.6.7 Contractor Purchase of Existing District Parts Inventories FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND SUPPLIES 2.7.1. Facilities 2.7.1.1. District Supplied Facilities 2.7.1.2. Contractor Furnished Facilities 2.7.2. Required Facility Equipment 2.7.2.1. Maintenance Tools 2.7.2.2. Two Way Radio Base Station(s) 2.7.2.3. Phone System 2.7.2.4 Fuel Storage 2.7.3. Supplies .40 2.8. CONTRACTOR RECORDS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 2.8.1. Records to be Maintained by Contractor 2.8.1.1. Daily Activity Records 2.8.1.2. Personnel Records 2.8.1.3. Electronic Fleet Records 2.8.1.4. Paper Fleet Records 2.8.2. Contractor's Monthly Status Report .42 2.8.2.1 2.8.2.2 2.8.2.3 2.8.2.4 2.8.2.5 2.8.2.6 Daily Vehicle Unavailability for the Month Monthly Vehicle Breakdowns Daily Absenteeism for the Month Staffing Changes for the Month Student Discipline Incidents/Violence for the Month Explanations for Early/Late/Missed Buses During the Week Extra Trips or Missed Stops Per Month 2.8.3. Miscellaneous Required Communications From the Contractor 2.8.3.1 2.8.3.2 2.8.3.3 2.8.3.4 2.8.3.5 Driver Assignment Changes Student Discipline Problems/Violence on Buses Inspection Reports Use of Subcontractor Accident Reports tRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) \\ VTABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Topic Page 2.9. DISTRICT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES .47 2.9.1. Discipline on the School Bus 2.9.2. Bus Availability for Inspection Purposes 2.9.3. Authority to Remove Buses From Service 2.9.4. Authority to Approve, to Reject, and to Require Removal of Drivers From District Service 2.9.5. Liquidated Damages 2.9.5.1. Early, Late, and Missed Runs 2.9.5.2. Operation of a Unfit Bus for Service 2.9.5.3. Due Process 2.9.6. Release of Responsibility 2.9.7. Services Provided by the District APPENDICES START HERE. 50 Appendix A Monthly Status Report Example Appendix B Example of Invoice Detail Spreadsheet Appendix C Records/Data to Be Maintained by Contractor Appendix D Sample lease Agreement iiKSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) viCONTRACT The located at: (Owner), and the successful proposer, located at: .(Contractor), mutually agree as follows: 1.1. CONTRACT DURATION AND CHARACTERISTICS 1.1.1. Term The term of this Agreement shall be for the three year period beginning July 1, 1995 and ending June 30, 1998. This contract is to cover services for Little Rock School District (LRSD) and State Magnet/M-to-M student transportation, except that all special education busing shall be retained and operated by LRSD. 1.1.2. Renewal Provisions This agreement may be renewed at the completion of the initial term by one (1) year increments for an additional two (2) years upon mutual agreement of the Owner and Contractor as authorized by law. 1.1.3. Cost Indexing Each component of the successful vendor's proposal on the proposal forms may be adjusted annually by the change in the \"Consumer Price Index(CPI) for Urban Earners and Clerical Workers for the United States for the preceding aimual period and by mutual consent of both parties. Local business conditions and other contractual considerations that may need addressing will also determine the agenda for this annual adjustment negotiations. Such annual adjustment shall be effective on July 1 of each year. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 11.1.4. Unusual Cost Increases or Decreases In the event of any unusual circumstances, such as an unforeseen change in local, state, or federal taxes, laws, regulations, or policy, then the parties to this agreement shall negotiate a reasonable and just amount to cover such increase or to create savings for the owner from any decrease, and the rates set in the successful proposal and contract agreement shall be accordingly adjusted. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 21.2. OWNER - CONTRACTOR COMMUNICATION AND BILLING 1.2.1. Owner Contractor Liaison A Contract Manager or Administrator shall be appointed by the District Superintendent and shall be the Districts primary liaison with the Contractor. 1.2.2. Provision for Notice All notices to be given by the parties hereto shall be in writing and served by depositing same in the United States Post Office, postage prepaid and registered. Notices to the Owner shall be sent to: Little Rock School District 1800 East 6th Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Attn: The Procurement Director Notices to the Contractor shall be addressed to: (Provide proper legal address) 1.2.3. Bill Format 1.2.3.1 - Charges for Regular Route Service Charges for regular home-to-school transportation service(Regular Routes) shall be based upon the proposed price schedules submitted by the Contractor for Owner supplied vehicles and Contractor supplied vehicles. Charges shall be made based on the number of non-spare buses employed each day to service the regular routes. The District agrees that none of the routes will require more than 8 non-dead head hours to complete\nthis includes both morning and afternoon service. Charges shall only be made for service on school days or other days specifically authorized by the District. LRSD RFP9S-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 31.2.3.2 - Regular Route Flat Bus/Day Rate The District reserves the right not to pay more than the fiat bus/day rate for performing a given regular route. Standards for each route will be determined and maintained by the owner and/or Contractor using a computer routing software package. It is likely that the District will ask the Contractor to provide service for additional extra routes during the life of this contract. New regular routes will be communicated to the Contractor at least 1 month in advance by the District, and the Contractor will provide service to the District for these new routes at the same flat bus/day rate as it does for existing regular routes. 1.2.3.3 - Charges for Non-Conflicting Trip Service Charges for Non-Conflicting Extra transportation service shall be based upon the proposed price schedules submitted by the Contractor. Charges for each NonConflicting trip shall be based on an hourly charge. The hourly charge associated with the trip will be based upon the time when the driver picks up the first student on his or her trip and the time that the last student is dropped off on that trip. 1.2.3.4 - Charges for Conflicting Trip Service Charges for Conflicting Extra transportation service shall be based upon the proposed price schedules submitted by the Contractor. Charges for each Conflicting trip shall be based on an hourly charge. The hourly charge associated with the trip will be based upon the time the driver picks up the first student on his or her trip and the time the last student is dropped off on that trip. Furthermore, the District reserves the right to refuse any invoices for Conflicting Trips if the Contractor cannot show written permission from both District principal and the Districts Contract Administrator or his/her designee. a 1.2.4. Invoice Documentation and Exceptions A properly documented invoice must be supported by summaries of regular routes operated, by run number, and by day. The invoice will also detail any charges for Extra Service trips as well. The Contractor will list the time required for those trips in hours and minutes. This information should be submitted on diskette in addition to on paper. LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 41.2.5. Billing Frequency / Time For Payment! Discount for Prompt Payment The District shall pay the Contractor for services provided hereunder on a monthly basis. Payment shall be made within 30 calendar days of receipt of a properly documented invoice. Payment shall be adjusted by any incentives, liquidated damage assessments, and discounts for prompt payment as provided for elsewhere within this Agreement or within the Contractor's Proposal. \\ 1.2.6. Total Consideration for this Agreement Total consideration for this Agreement includes payment at rates contained on the Contractor's proposal forms, the lease to the Contractor at a cost $1/academic year/bus of Owner buses, and the lease to the Contractor at a cost of $l/year/site of the Little Rock School District-owned facilities as described in the Facility Lease Agreement. I LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 51.3. LEGAL INTERPRETATION PROVISIONS 1.3.1 Incorporation by Reference The entirety of this Agreement shall be made up of a number of documents. The following documents are therefore hereby incorporated into this Agreement:  Text of this Agreement\n Proposal submitted by the Contractor, Section I of this RFP, the completed proposal forms (Section IV) and the complete qualification questionnaire (Section III.)\n Terms, conditions and instructions contained in this RFP document\nand  Worker's Compensation, Insurability Certificates, and associated property lease agreements (see sample at Appendix D). 1.3.2. Failure to Enforce a Default or Other Right The omission by either party at any time to enforce any default or right reserved to it, or to require performance of any of the terms, covenants or provisions hereof by the other party at the time designated shall not be a waiver of any such default or right to which the party is entitled, nor shall it in any way affect the right of the party to enforce such provisions thereafter. 1.3.3. Definitions Conflicting\" Trip: A trip shall be defined to \"conflict\" with Regular Home-to-School service if: The trip requires travel at times during which all suitable Owner buses are performing home-to-school routes\nand/or The trip lasts so late at night that a driver could not perform regular home-to-school service and the trip without exceeding the legal maximum of 16 hours on duty\nand/or The trip lasts so late at night that a driver could not spend the legally required minimum 8 hour uninterrupted period off duty before starting a home-to-school route the next day. Non-Conflicting Trio: All trips that do not fall within the above definition. District: As used in this Agreement, \"District\" shall be construed to be the Little Rock School District Governing Board, the Superintendent of Schools, and all officers, agents and employees of the Board and Superintendent. LRSD RFP95-0N FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 6Owner\nAs used in this Agreement, \"Owner II Driver: Route: Run\nshall be construed to be the District or the Department of Education of the State of Arkansas. A \"regular\" driver is one who is assigned to a daily route. A \"standby' driver is one who is paid to report to work daily, but who is not assigned to a route, e.g.: one who regularly covers runs for absent drivers. An \"on-call\" driver is one who does not report to work each day, but who may be called to drive on short notice. \"Substitute drivers\" refer to all non-regularly assigned drivers, e.g.\nboth standby and on-call drivers. The complete daily assignment of a single bus, made up of one or several runs. The picking up of pupils at their designated home bus stops and delivering them to the school, or the picking up of pupils at their schools and returning them to their home bus stops. For example, a single bus may make several runs in conveying students to and from school during the course of a day. These several runs comprise a single route. NOTE: Federal Court mandates that in Little Rock Block, no student should be subject to a bus ride that exceeds forty- five (45) minutes. 1.3.4. Contract Interpretation Should any questions arise as to the meaning and intent of this Agreement which cannot be settled within 30 calendar days, the matter shall be submitted for resolution to a committee made up of one person selected by the District and one person selected by the Contractor. If the persons so selected are unable to agree upon a resolution within 15 calendar days following such selection and appointment, said persons shall agree upon a third person whose decision will be final and binding on all parties to the dispute. The decision of the impartial arbitrator shall be rendered within 20 calendar days from the date of submission. The costs of arbitration shall be borne by both parties equally. 1.3,5. Severability \\ a third person Should any part of this Agreement be struck down or found illegal or impermissible for any reason, that part alone shall be severed, and the remainder of this Agreement shall remain m force. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 7T 1.3.6. Amendments to this Agreement This Agreement may be amended by mutual Agreement of both parties. Amendments may be proposed in writing by either party, delivered to the address provided for notices elsewhere in this Agreement. Such amendments shall take effect upon signature by the original signatories to this Agreement or their designees. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 81.4. CONTRACTOR STATUS 1.4.1. Performance Bond The successful Proposer shall furnish within five (5) work days from receipt of notification of intent to award, a standing Surety Bond from a bonding agent acceptable to the District in the amount of 100 percent of the expected annual billing under this Agreement forecast by the District. This performance bond shall be renewable annually. as \\ 1.4.2. Permits and Licenses The Contractor shall secure and maintain in force such licenses and permits as are required by law for furnishing the service herein specified and shall comply with and observe -J lavv ivi luiuibiiiiig inc service nerem specitied and shall comply with and observe all provisions of state law, including but not limited to provisions of: the Arkansas Department of Education Code and Standard 17 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard\nand directives and regulations of the State Board of Education, the Office of the County Superintendent of Schools, and any other governmental agency, relative to the transportation of pupils. 1.4.3. Insurance Requirements The Contractor shall maintain insurance satisfactory to the Little Rock School District and as set forth below during the term of the Agreement. Contractor shall furnish evidence thereof to the District not less than thirty (30) calendar days before new or renewed coverage is required. Such evidence shall be in the form of a certificate of insurance issued to the District, shall include a minimum sixty (60) day notification to certificate holders of cancellation or change in the policy, and shall be extended to include as additional insureds the Little Rock School District, and the Little Rock School District Governing Board, Superintendent and all officers and employees of the District, Board, or Superintendent (The State of Arkansas may also require being named as an additional insured for State M- to-M buses). 1.4.3.1 - Public Liability Insurance The Contractor shall maintain such public liability insurance as will protect the Contractor from any claims for damages for personal injury, including death, and damage to property, which may arise from operations under Agreement. Such liability insurance shall: or about this  Be maintained in the amount of $5,000,000 combined single limit\n Specify that its coverage is primary\nand  Be underwritten by a carrier acceptable to the District. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 91.4.3.2 - Worker's Compensation Insurance The Contractor shall maintain such Workers' Compensation insurance as will protect the Contractor from claims which may arise from operations under the Agreement with the School District. 1.4.3.3 - Property Insurance The Contractor shall maintain such property insurance covering vehicles, the terminal and shop buildings and land and related personal and real property. Such insurance shall be sufficient at minimum to repair or pay the depreciated value of the damaged property. 1.4.3.4 - Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance The Contractor shall maintain comprehensive automobile insurance including owned. Owner-leased, and hired vehicles(including buses). This coverage shall cover $ 1,000,000 per occurrence, no annual aggregate, single limit, covering bodily injuries and property damage. 1.4.4. Hold Harmless / Indemnification Agreement The Contractor shall hold harmless and indemnify the Owner, the District, the Governing Board, the Superintendent, and their officers and employees from every claim or demand, including the costs of legal defense, by reason of: 1.4.4.1 Injury to the Contractors Employees, or to Direct or Indirect Contractors Employees. Any injury to person or property sustained by the Contractor or by any person, firm, or corporation employed directly or indirectly by the Contractor upon or in connection with the Contractor's performance under this Agreement, however caused. 1.4.4.2 Injury Caused by the Contractors Employees or by Direct or Indirect Contractors Employees Any injury to person or property sustained by any person, firm or corporation, caused by any act, neglect, default, or omission of the Contractor, or by any person, firm or corporation directly or indirectly employed by the Contractor upon or in connection with the Contractor's performance under this Agreement. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 101.4.5. Force Majeure 1.4.5.1 - Acts of God The Contractor shall be excused from performance hereunder during the time and . Mimi uc CACUSCU irom penormance nereunder during the time and to the extent that he is prevented from performing in the customary manner by acts of God, loss of transportation facilities, commandeering of materials, products, plants, or facilities by the government, when satisfactory evidence thereof is presented to  the District. 1.4.5.2 - Labor Disturbances In the event of a strike, lockout, or other labor disturbance which interrupts service, the Contractor shall be excused from performance hereunder only if the Contractor reasonably utilizes its management and other personnel to satisfy the requirements of this Agreement and demonstrates to the District that the Contractor exercised reasonable and good faith efforts to avert the labor action and settle the dispute(s) as to prevent any service interruption. so 1.4.6. Permissibility of Subcontracts Contractor may subcontract with other qualified transportation firms to provide a portion of the transportation service required hereunder only with prior written approval from the District. 1.4.6.1 - Subcontractor Experience The Contractor will provide evidence to the District for any subcontractor employed which documents the experience of the subcontractor(s). No subcontractor will ' have less than 3 years experience providing services as described in this document to public school districts with budgetary operations and requirements comparable those of the Little Rock School District. to 1.4.6.2 - Subcontractor Liability Insurance If a Contractor proposes to subcontract, a certificate of insurance evidencing the required liability coverage shall be provided for each subcontractor. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 11 1.4.6.3 - Continued Contractor Responsibility The Contractor shall be responsible for all activities related to this Agreement. whether the Contractor or a subcontractor performs them, including but not limited to, monitoring of adherence to routing and scheduling requirements, safety programs, driver education, reporting requirements, insurance requirements, invoice preparation, and payments to subcontractors. The Contractor is expressly responsible for all facets of the operations and performance by any subcontractors. 1.4.7. Assignment of the Contract Contractor shall not assign or transfer its rights, burdens, duties, or obligations under this Agreement without the prior express written permission of the District. 1.4.8. Contractor Independence While performing services hereunder. Contractor is an independent Contractor and not officer, agent, or employee of the District. Further, Contractor employees, expressly an including but not limited to drivers, are employees of the Contractor, and are not employees of the District. 1.4.9. Covenant Against Contingent Fees The Contractor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Agreement upon an agreement or understanding for a commission. percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, excepting bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Contractor for the purpose of securing business. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Owner shall have the right to terminate any Agreement that may be entered into with the Contractor and, in its sole discretion, to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full ^ount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or commission fee. 1,4.10. Penalty for Collusion If at any time it shall be found that the person, firm or corporation to whom a contract has been awarded has, in presenting any proposal, colluded with any other party or parties then the contract so awarded shall be null and void and the Contractor shall be liable to the District for any and all loss and damage of whatever nature, which the District may suffer and the District shall seek a new Contractor. LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 121.4.11 Conflict of Interest 1.5. By submitting a proposal, the company represents and warrants that no director or employee of the District is in any manner interested directly or indirectly in the proposal or contract which may result from the proposal or in any of the expected profits which might arise therefrom\nand, that no attempt has been made to influence or gain favorable advantage by communicating directly or indirectly with any official of the LRSD. It is understood, that any action taken which might tend to degrade the integrity of the competitive proposal process, will be considered as grounds for disqualification. ETHICS PROVISIONS \\ 1.5.1. Non-Discrimination The Contractor shall not discriminate against any prospective or active employee because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, creed, sex, age, or marital status. The Contractor thereby agrees to comply with applicable Federal and Arkansas Laws including, but not limited to. Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 2000 e through 2000 e (17) and AR. Code Ann. Section 16-123-101 et. seq. 1.5.2. Civil Rights Act Compliance The Contractor agrees that he will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Regulations of the Department of Education (34 C.F.R. Part 100) issued [pursuant to that title, to the end that, in accordance with Title VI of that Act and Regulation, no person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color or national origin, be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the Applicant receives federal financial assistance from the Department, and hereby gives assurance that he will immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate this agreement. The Contractor further agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of state and local laws, ordinances, and regulations regarding nondiscrimination in employment. 1.5.3. Hiring District Employees Involved in Proposal Evaluation The Contractor agrees not to hire any District employees involved in the evaluation and selection of the Contractor's Proposal for the duration of the contract without permission of the Superintendent and School Board. Such employees include but are not limited to the Director of Transportation or Maintenance Shop Foreman. LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTA TION (VERSION 7.0) 13 I1.6. TERMINATION 1.6.1. Criteria This Agreement is subject to termination at the Owner's discretion if any of the following occur:  1.6.1.1 - Revoked or Suspended Contractor Licenses The Contractor s licenses or permits legally required to perform transportation service called for by this Agreement have been suspended or revoked\n1.6.1.2 - Incomplete or Inadequate Service By Contractor The Contractor fails to provide services specified by this Agreement, or is guilty of a substantial violation of this Agreement\n1.6.1.3 - Contractor Bankruptcy The Contractor is adjudged bankrupt or makes a general assignment for the benefit of his creditors\n1.6.1.4 - Poor Operational Safety The Contractor maintains a poor safety record\n1.6.1.5 - Improperly Maintained Vehicles The Contractor fails to maintain school buses according to legal vehicle standards O 1 Z*V 1 I  I* _J_____1 1 1 a  or according to the District vehicle standards described elsewhere in this Agreement\n1.6.1.6 - Improperly Maintained Facilities The Contractor fails to maintain office and vehicle repair facilities in a reasonable and acceptable state of repair and appearance, to include specifically those areas and property items that impact on safety\n1.6.1.7 - Failure to Follow Runs \u0026amp; Schedules The Contractor fails to adhere to the runs and schedules provided by the District\nLRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 14 J1.6.1.8 - Failure to Obey Laws and/or Ordinances The Contractor persistently disregards laws, ordinances, or directions of the District\n1.6.1.9 - Failure to Provide Agreed Upon Data \\ The Contractor fails or refuses to provide required or agreed upon data or information to the appropriate school personnel or to the Owner Transportation Coordinator\n1.6.1.10 - Owner's Right to Termination The Owner's right to terminate is in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the Owner. 1.6.2. Advance Notice The Owner may terminate this Agreement for any of the above reasons by giving the Contractor thirty calendar days advance written notice delivered to the address provided for Contractor notice elsewhere in this Agreement. 1.6.3. Damage Provisions a cause enumerated in Section 1.6, the Owner may In the event of termination for a cause enumerated in Section 1.6, the Owner may secure replacement services described in this Agreement from another firm or provide service itself for the remainder of the Agreement's duration. If the cost of the replacement service exceeds the cost of services under the rates in this agreement, the excess cost shall be charged to and collected from the Contractor and/or his sureties, except that charge shall not exceed 150 percent of the cost of services under the rates in this Agreement. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 15 b2. CONTRACTOR OBLIGATIONS Contractor shall perform all of the services described below, and make any arrangements which may not be described, but which are necessary to perform these services. 2.1. MANAGEMENT Contractor will provide management staff to coordinate all Contractor functions described in this agreement. These staff shall ensure that Owner transportation needs are smoothly and efficiently met. In addition to such other personnel  ....................... as may be required to administer this Agreement, the Contractor shall employ and assign a full time transportation manager to act as the Contractor's primary designee in all matters relating to this Agreement and to the work to be done. 2.1.1. Hours of Office Operation The Contractor's operations office shall be adequately staffed from 5:30 A.M to 6'30 P M during all days that school is in session\nhowever, the Contractor will ensure that at least one manager will be designated at all times as \"on call.\" This person will be equipped with a beeper supplied by the Contractor ^will be responsible for answering emergencies during hours when the Contractor's II Operations Office is not open. 2.1.2. Emergency Situations Management personnel such as dispatchers shall not drive school buses except in an emergency. 2.1.3. Certified School Bus Driver Instructors The Contractor must employ or subcontract with a State-certified School Bus Driver Instructor who will be available to meet the training needs of drivers transporting District pupils. 2.1.4. Routine Communications With the District Contractor agrees to advise the District on routine organization and operations matters concerning transportation services, provided that such consultation does not disrupt the Contractor's ability to perform the services described in this agreement LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 162.2. OPERATIONS, ROUTING, AND DISPATCHING 2.2.1. General Operating Requirements The Contractor will provide both regular route service and extra service as described in the paragraphs below: 2.2.1.1 - Regular Run Service \\ Contractor shall provide all pupil transportation necessary to meet the District's Regular Home-to-School transportation needs for the specific runs detailed in Section I. Appendix B. Service shall be provided on school days, and on other days designated by the District. A subset of regular service will be provided during the summer months by the Contractor as required by the District. 2.2.1.2 - Non-conflicting Extra Service Contractor shall, as requested by the District, provide other pupil transportation for school-sponsored activities when such other transportation does not conflict with Regular Home-to-SchooI transportation service. Such school-sponsored activities may include field trips, work experience programs, athletic events, and the like. The Contractor will provide regular non-conflicting service during the months as well as required by the District. summer 2.2.1.3 - Conflicting Extra Service The District may request that the Contractor provide other transportation which may conflict with Regular Home-to-School transportation service. If these requests require the Contractor to utilize more vehicles than the District has requested be dedicated to other transportation service in section 2.5.2.1 of this Agreement, these trips will be declared as Conflicting\" and subject to the respective costs for conflicting service provided by the Contractor in the proposal forms associated with this Agreement. 2.2.1.4 - Public Communications \u0026amp; Complaint Management The Contractor will be responsible for assigning personnel who will answer status inquiries related to daily operations as well as complaints made by parents or other community members, principals, teachers, and other District personnel. Contractor will ensure that all such inquiries will be answered promptly in a friendly, courteous and understanding manner. All complaints will be logged and reported to the District. The LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 17The following will only appear in the Agreement for the State Magnet/M-to-M Block: 2.2.1.5 - Remote Student Transportation The Contractor agrees to be responsible for transporting remote students participating in M-to-M or State Magnet programs to and from school and other activities. The District will provide a list of all such students and their addresses at the beginning of the year. The Contractor may at any time during the Agreement subcontract the transportation of these students out, but the subcontractor must be approved by the District. 2.2.2. Driver Management Requirements 2.2.2.1. - Employing Existing District Drivers 1) Following its acceptance of this contract, the Contractor agrees to offer jobs to all existing qualified drivers currently employed by the District. All such drivers must still meet the requirements outlined in Arkansas law AR An. 16-19-101 Sections 101, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110 et. seq. 2) Furthermore, the Contractor agrees to provide these drivers comparable benefits as they currently enjoy while employees of the District for the duration of this contract providing that an employee works more than 25 hours/week on average during the academic year for the Contractor. If an employee leaves the service of the District after either resigning or being terminated, the employee is not entitled to these benefits if he or she is rehired. 3) The Contractor further agrees to provide these drivers the same base wage rate _ they are currently getting from the District. If an employee leaves the service of as the District after either resigning or being terminated, the employee is not entitled to this base wage rate if he or she is rehired. 4) The Contractor is not obligated to pay these Drivers the same wages for duties such as extra runs or field trips. The Contractor may establish a completely different wage scale for these activities. LRSD RFP9S-0N FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 18 J2.2.2.2. - Regular Driver Assignments Regular Route drivers shall be permanently assigned to the same bus route whenever possible. If a change is made to a permanent route assignment during the course of the academic year, the Contractor shall notify the District within 5 days of the change. I I 2.2.23. - Substitute/Spare Drivers \\ The Contractor shall employ and assign to the District a sufficient number of school bus drivers and driver substitutes. The sufficient number shall be at least 10 percent larger than the established number of daily regular routes covered by this contract for the first year of the contract and then no more than the annual average rate of regular route driver absenteeism for all subsequent years of the contract. 2.2.3. Routing and Scheduling The Contractor will operate buses along routes determined and scheduled by the District during the first year of the contract. In the second and third year of the contract, the Contractor will assume responsibility for routing the vehicles. 2.23.1. - Contractor Published Regular Routes (1) On August 1st of the second year of this Agreement, the Contractor agrees to provide the District all of the regular service routes that will be served by the Contractor at the start of the next academic year. (2) The District must approve all routes and changes before the Contractor implement them. may (3) All runs must conform to applicable Arkansas state laws and the Districts Desegregation Plan particularly as to the time that a student may travel to and from school (REMINDER: forty-five (45) minutes for Little Rock Block regular run). (4) At thg Start of the second year, any contract savings to the District which is generated by the Contractor eliminating a bus from the previous year's. District supplied, routing plan will be split with the Contractor according to the terms supplied by the Contractor in the Proposal Forms/or a period of one year. This only applies to buses that are eliminated by consolidating students onto another bus operated by the Contractor. All such savings must be identified by the first day of classes of the 96-97 school year. No additional monies will be offered to the Contractor for any savings uncovered during subsequent years of the Agreement. Nor will the Contractor receive any proportion of savings uncovered as a result of refining its own runs once it assumes responsibility for routing from the District. (5) The Contractor is expected to design the most cost effective, timely, and safe runs possible within constraints dictated by the District. LRSD RFP95-014 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 19 h(6) The Contractor must use a computer routing package to support its routing function. In the event that the Contractor is not interested in using the District's existing Echo Tran software, the Contractor is expected to pay for all hardware, software and implementation expenses associated with assuming the routing function in the second year of the Agreement. (7) At the conclusion of this Agreement, the Contractor agrees to sell its software, hardware, and routing data used to perform the routing function to the District for $1 2 to pay for conversion of the routing data used by the Contractor's software to a format useable by the District. The Contractor agrees to let the District decide which course is more proper at the conclusion of the Agreement. 2.2.3.2. - Dry-runs and Driver Orientation Dry-runs will be conducted on all runs prior to the beginning of a new school year or extended session, and prior to the implementation of a new run during the school year. All dry runs must take place at the time of day during which the run would ordinarily be operated. A driver orientation will be conducted for all drivers who will be assigned to perform services for the District. The two-day dry run and driver orientation program shall include, but will not be limited to: pupil management, relationships with parents, relationships with the school and the general public, discipline on the school bus, handicapped sensitivity. and other pertinent information. The cost of said dry-runs and driver orientation will not be charged to the District. 2.2.3.3. - Changes in Established Runs or Stops Changes to established/existing regular runs, stops, or schedules shall be implemented by the Contractor as soon as possible, but in no case more than five(5) calendar days later than notification of the change is received by the Contractor manager responsible for service to the District. Such changes may include: deletion of service for an individual pupil\naddition of service to individual pupils at an established stop\naddition of service to pupils at a new stop. The Contractor agrees to provide these changes at established flat bus/day rate without any additional charges. LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 202.2.3.4. - New Regular Service Runs The District realizes that additional regular service runs may be added to this contract during the term of this agreement. The District agrees to provide the Contractor advanced notice 30 days prior to requiring that new such runs be serviced by the Contractor. The Contractor agrees to provide this service at the established flat bus/day rate. 2.2.3.5. - Changes in School Schedules The District shall not be obligated to pay for any services hereunder on those days when the schools and classes of the District are closed to ensure the health and safety of pupils, for reason of inclement weather, or for any other lawful reason, provided that the District has notified Contractor by 5:45 A.M. of the day schools are to be closed. Likewise the District will not be obligated to pay anything above the flat bus/day regular home-to-school rates outlined in the proposal forms associated with this Agreement if the District is forced to close one or more schools early due to inclement weather or some emergency, and the Contractor is asked to transport children away from school earlier than usual. I I 2.2.4. Dispatching The Contractor will be responsible for dispatching all regular and extra service buses according to District supplied runs and schedules. 2.2.4.1 - Assigning Appropriate Vehicles to Routes The Contractor will ensure that an appropriate size and type of bus is assigned to each run each day, and that each bus assigned to each route is in compliance with legal and contractually described maintenance requirements. 2.2.4.2 - Driver Assignment to Routes The Contractor will assign all regular routes to the appropriate designated driver (if available) before choosing any other driver to cover a route. The dispatcher will also ensure that all routes are assigned to a driver who possesses all/any relevant endorsements or credentials needed to drive the type of bus assigned to that route (e.g.\nmanual transmission, or dual air brake), or to transport children on that route . LRSD RFP95-0I4 FOR STUDENT TRANSPORTATION (VERSION 7.0) 212.2.5 Extra Service Transportation In addition to providing daily service along pre-established and planned runs(Regular Routes), the Contractor will be called on from time to time to provide Extra Service for co- cunicular and extra-curricular activities. These trips will fall into one of two categories conflicting and non-conflicting. 2.2.5.I. - Non-Conflicting Trips Contractor shall provide service for all non-conflicting trips requested by the District. Charges for such trips shall be made using the hourly rate specified in the proposal forms (Section IV.) by the Contractor for Non-Conflicting Extra Service. 2.2.5.2. - Conflicting Trips The Contractor shall ensure enough capacity exists to provide transportation service for all conflicting trips requested by the District without jeopardizing regular run service. Furthermore, the Contractor agrees that all charges for such trips shall be made using the hourly rates specified in the proposal forms (Section IV.) by the Contractor for Conflicting Extra Service. 2.2.5.3. - Option To Cancel Trips The District shall have the option to cancel any scheduled trip upon the District's notification to the Contractor at least two hours prior to the time of the first scheduled pupil pickup. The District agrees to pay a S20 penalty charge for trip cancellations in which a two hou\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":1,"next_page":2,"prev_page":null,"total_pages":8,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":0,"total_count":95,"first_page?":true,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":12}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"StillImage","hits":54},{"value":"Text","hits":30},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":12},{"value":"Sound","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":33},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":5},{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":4},{"value":"Merritt, Carole","hits":3},{"value":"Montgomery City Police","hits":2},{"value":"Ricks, Willie, 1943-","hits":2},{"value":"Southern Labor Archives","hits":2},{"value":"Alford, W. Dwain","hits":1},{"value":"Brazeal, Brailsford R.","hits":1},{"value":"Dillard, Morris J.","hits":1},{"value":"Laird, Hervey W., Birmingham Age-Herald","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Transportation","hits":95},{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":46},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":29},{"value":"Montgomery (Ala.)","hits":26},{"value":"Montgomery County (Ala.)","hits":26},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":22},{"value":"Airplanes","hits":16},{"value":"Automobiles","hits":14},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":11},{"value":"Railroads","hits":11},{"value":"Education","hits":10}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":16},{"value":"Green, Robert Lee","hits":7},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":5},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":4},{"value":"Boone, Richard Charles, 1937-2013","hits":4},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":3},{"value":"Wallace, George C. (George Corley), 1919-1998","hits":3},{"value":"Bogolman, Dorothy","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Horace Mann, 1904-1972","hits":2},{"value":"Cooley, John","hits":2},{"value":"Kennedy, Stetson","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":15},{"value":"Green, Robert Lee","hits":7},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":4},{"value":"Boone, Richard Charles, 1937-2013","hits":4},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":4},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Horace Mann, 1904-1972","hits":2},{"value":"Kennedy, Stetson","hits":2},{"value":"Ricks, Willie, 1943-","hits":2},{"value":"Vivian, C. T.","hits":2},{"value":"Wallace, George C. (George Corley), 1919-1998","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":15},{"value":"Montgomery Bus Boycott","hits":3},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":1},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":1},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":33},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":31},{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":19},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":10},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":10},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":10},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Louisiana, 31.00047, -92.0004","hits":2},{"value":"France, Île-de-France, Paris, 48.85341, 2.3488","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Alabama","hits":65},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":10},{"value":"Georgia","hits":10},{"value":"Louisiana","hits":2},{"value":"","hits":1},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":22},{"value":"1994","hits":20},{"value":"1995","hits":19},{"value":"1996","hits":18},{"value":"1968","hits":17},{"value":"2005","hits":17},{"value":"1991","hits":16},{"value":"1993","hits":16},{"value":"2006","hits":16},{"value":"1990","hits":15},{"value":"1992","hits":15},{"value":"1997","hits":15},{"value":"1998","hits":15},{"value":"1999","hits":14},{"value":"2000","hits":14},{"value":"2004","hits":14},{"value":"2001","hits":13},{"value":"2002","hits":13},{"value":"2003","hits":13},{"value":"2007","hits":12},{"value":"2008","hits":12},{"value":"2009","hits":12},{"value":"2010","hits":12},{"value":"2011","hits":12},{"value":"2012","hits":12},{"value":"2013","hits":12},{"value":"2014","hits":12},{"value":"2015","hits":12},{"value":"2016","hits":12},{"value":"2017","hits":12},{"value":"2018","hits":12},{"value":"2019","hits":12},{"value":"2020","hits":12},{"value":"2021","hits":12},{"value":"2022","hits":12},{"value":"1956","hits":10},{"value":"1965","hits":10},{"value":"1967","hits":10},{"value":"1975","hits":7},{"value":"1950","hits":6},{"value":"1951","hits":6},{"value":"1952","hits":6},{"value":"1953","hits":6},{"value":"1954","hits":6},{"value":"1955","hits":6},{"value":"1957","hits":6},{"value":"1958","hits":6},{"value":"1959","hits":6},{"value":"1960","hits":6},{"value":"1969","hits":6},{"value":"1940","hits":5},{"value":"1941","hits":5},{"value":"1942","hits":5},{"value":"1943","hits":5},{"value":"1944","hits":5},{"value":"1945","hits":5},{"value":"1946","hits":5},{"value":"1947","hits":5},{"value":"1948","hits":5},{"value":"1949","hits":5},{"value":"1961","hits":5},{"value":"1964","hits":5},{"value":"1980","hits":5},{"value":"1985","hits":5},{"value":"1962","hits":4},{"value":"1963","hits":4},{"value":"1981","hits":4},{"value":"1982","hits":4},{"value":"1983","hits":4},{"value":"1984","hits":4},{"value":"1986","hits":4},{"value":"1987","hits":4},{"value":"1988","hits":4},{"value":"1989","hits":4},{"value":"1911","hits":3},{"value":"1912","hits":3},{"value":"1913","hits":3},{"value":"1914","hits":3},{"value":"1915","hits":3},{"value":"1916","hits":3},{"value":"1917","hits":3},{"value":"1918","hits":3},{"value":"1919","hits":3},{"value":"1922","hits":3},{"value":"1923","hits":3},{"value":"1924","hits":3},{"value":"1925","hits":3},{"value":"1926","hits":3},{"value":"1927","hits":3},{"value":"1928","hits":3},{"value":"1929","hits":3},{"value":"1931","hits":3},{"value":"1932","hits":3},{"value":"1933","hits":3},{"value":"1934","hits":3},{"value":"1935","hits":3},{"value":"1936","hits":3},{"value":"1937","hits":3},{"value":"1938","hits":3},{"value":"1939","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1900","max":"2022","count":831,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":32},{"value":"lesson plans","hits":12},{"value":"photographs","hits":12},{"value":"filing","hits":6},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":5},{"value":"news","hits":5},{"value":"slides (photographs)","hits":5},{"value":"unedited footage","hits":5},{"value":"interviews","hits":4},{"value":"archival materials","hits":2},{"value":"histories (literary genre)","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":72},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":20},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":2},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":33},{"value":"Alabama Photographs and Pictures Collection","hits":15},{"value":"Alabama History Education Materials","hits":12},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":10},{"value":"WSB-TV Newsfilm Collection","hits":5},{"value":"Brailsford R. Brazeal Papers","hits":4},{"value":"Voices Across The Color Line Oral History Collection, 2005-2006","hits":3},{"value":"WSFA Collection","hits":3},{"value":"Stetson Kennedy Papers","hits":2},{"value":"Andrew J. Young Oral Histories","hits":1},{"value":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":64},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":10},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":7},{"value":"Walter J. Brown Media Archives and Peabody Awards Collection","hits":5},{"value":"Atlanta History Center","hits":3},{"value":"Georgia State University. Special Collections","hits":2},{"value":"Auburn Avenue Research Library on African-American Culture and History","hits":1},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":1},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":1},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":1},{"value":"University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":93},{"value":"Collection","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":95}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}