{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"kdl_abrad_19971211yater","title":"Interview with George Yater and Marjorie Yater, December 11, 1997","collection_id":"kdl_abrad","collection_title":"Anne Braden Oral History Project","dcterms_contributor":["Yater, Marjorie"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Indiana, Clark County, 38.47718, -85.70728","United States, Indiana, Clark County, Jeffersonville, 38.27757, -85.73718","United States, Kentucky, Daviess County, 37.73177, -87.08723","United States, Kentucky, Daviess County, Owensboro, 37.77422, -87.11333","United States, Kentucky, Jefferson County, Louisville, 38.25424, -85.75941"],"dcterms_creator":["Yater, George H."],"dc_date":["1997-12-11"],"dcterms_description":["Interview with George Yater and Marjorie Yater, December 11, 1997 conducted by Catherine Fosl.","In this interview George and Marjorie Yater, who were friends of Anne and Carl Braden at the time of their 1954 trial for sedition, give their impressions of the Bradens and their political activities. They describe the social and political climate of Louisville during the 1950s, including discussions of racial relations and McCarthyism. George Yater was working as a journalist at the time and explains how McCarthyism affected members of the media in the Louisville area. In addition, the Yaters describe the court proceedings and the trial's impact on the community."],"dc_format":null,"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":null,"dcterms_subject":["Women civil rights workers--Interviews","Civil rights movements--United States","African Americans--Civil rights","Fellowship of Reconciliation (U.S.)","Kentucky Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression","Segregation","Racism","Courier-journal (Louisville, Ky.)","Veterans--Education--Kentucky","Libel and slander--Kentucky--Louisville","Reporters and reporting--Kentucky","Reporters and reporting--Indiana","Cold War--Influence","McCarthy, Joseph, 1908-1957--Influence","Fear--Kentucky","Intimidation--Kentucky","Communist Party of the United States of America","Communists--United States","Race relations","Louisville (Ky.)--Race relations","Segregation--Kentucky--Louisville","Civil rights demonstrations--Kentucky--Louisville","Lawyers--Kentucky--Louisville","Progressive Party (U.S. : 1948)","Strikes and lockouts--Kentucky--Louisville","Trials--Kentucky--Louisville","Subpoena--Kentucky--Louisville","Employees--Dismissal of--Kentucky--Louisville","Women's International League for Peace and Freedom","United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation","Trials (Sedition)--Kentucky","American Civil Liberties Union","Bombings--Kentucky--Louisville","African Americans--Violence against--Kentucky--Louisville","Discrimination in housing--Kentucky--Louisville","Governors--Kentucky"],"dcterms_title":["Interview with George Yater and Marjorie Yater, December 11, 1997"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Kentucky"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://kentuckyoralhistory.org/ark:/16417/xt72jm23bx29"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["All rights to the interviews, including but not restricted to legal title, copyrights and literary property rights, have been transferred to the University of Kentucky Libraries."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)","sound recordings","transcripts"],"dcterms_extent":["1 interview : [01:29:10]"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Yater, George H.--Interviews","Yater, Marjorie--Interviews","Braden, Anne, 1924-2006","Braden, Carl, 1914-1975","McCarthy, Joseph, 1908-1957","Johnson, Lyman T., 1906-1997","Ethridge, Mark F. (Mark Foster), 1896-1981"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1693","title":"Court filings: District Court, interrogatories and requests for production to the 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. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-12-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, interrogatories and requests for production to the 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/1693"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["49 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ' WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") submits the following Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. - 33 and 34: GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS (A) \"you\" or \"your\" Shall mean Joshua or any person acting on Joshua's behalf; (B) \"person\" Shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm, associaiion, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, and other such entities; (C} \"communicate\" or \"communication\" Shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of f:\\homolfendlcy~rod-jooh.m. information whether orally or by document or whether face to face, by telephone, mail, personal delivery, or otherwise; (D) \"document\" Shall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control; and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings, financial statements and records. Without limitation of the term \"control\" as used in the preceding sentence, a document is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another person or a public or private entity having actual possession thereof. If a document that is responsive to a request for identification or production is in your control, but is not in your possession or custody, identify the person with possession or custody. If any document that is responsive to a request for identification or production was, but is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it, by whom, and the date or dates or approximate date or dates on which disposition was made, and why; f:\\homolfcnd l.:yU ...ildoo-jcoh..- 2 (E) \"identify\" (i) As to a person (as defined), shall mean the persons name, business and residence address(es); and, if not an individual, state the type of entity and the address of its principal place of business; (ii) As to a document, shall mean the type of document (letter, memo, etc.) the identity of the author or originator, the date authored or originated, the identity of each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or delivered, the identity of such person known or reasonably believed by you to have present possession, custody, or control thereof, and a brief description of the subject matter thereof, all with sufficient particularity to request its production under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (iii) As to a communication, shall mean the date of the communication, the type of communication (telephone conversation, meeting, etc.), the place where the communication took place, the identity of the person who made the communication, the identity of each person who received the communication, and of each person present when it was made and the subject matter discussed; (F) \"Pertaining to\" Shall mean constituting, embodying, arising out of, incident to, referring to, mentioned, bearing upon, reflecting, evidencing, affecting, concerning, providing evidence for, or relating to the transaction, individual, entity, act, object, 3 conference, contention, communication, allegation or activity identified; (G) To \"describe in detail\" Shall mean to provide with respect to any act, occurrence, transaction, event, statement, communication or conduct (hereinafter collectively, \"act\") all facts pertaining to any such act known to the person answering after due inquiry, including but not limited to a description of each act, the d~te, the location, and the identify of each person involved; (H) \"or\" shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring within the scope of these Interrogatories any information which might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope; (I) \"Revised Plan\" shall mean LRSD Revised Desegregation - and Education Plan dated September 18, 1997; (J) \"current plan\" shall mean the LRSD Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992; all page and line citations to the current plan shall refer to current plan as set forth in LRSD's \"Desegregation Tool Kit,\" a copy of which is enclosed; (K) \"Interdistrict Plan\" shall mean the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992; all page and line citations to the Interdistrict Plan shall refer to Interdistrict Plan as set forth in LRSD's \"Desegregation Tool Kit,\" a copy of which is enclosed; The singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The past l:lhomolfcndleyUn,d'dco-jooh.Ull 4 tense includes the presence tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. If you do not answer any Interrogatory or Request for Production because of a claim of privilege, set for the privilege claimed, the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege, and identify all documents for which such privilege is claimed. INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of responses to these interrogatories and requests for production of documents . INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify all persons who you intend to call as a lay witness at the hearing on the Revised Plan . INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who you - intend to call as an expert witness at the hearing on the Revised Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce a written report signed by each expert witness identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 3 which contains a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor; the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for the opinions; the qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years; the compensation to be paid for his testimony; and a listing of any other cases in which the witness f:lhcmo\\kndieyUrod\\deo-jcoh.w 5 has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years. ' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all items, th~ngs and documents which you intend to introduce as an exhibit at the hearing on the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to student assignments? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 4 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to faculty? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 5 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to staff? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 6 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to transportation? If so, describe in detail f:lhcmo\\fcndlcyUnod\\doo-joah.inl 6 the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 7 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to extra-curricular activities? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 8 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to facilities? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 9 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Early Childhood Education component (pp. 4-19) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 10 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Special Programs component (pp. 20-27) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the f:\\homolfcrdlcyUr,d\\doe-j\u003c\u003eoh ... 7 basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 11 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the School Operations component (pp. 28-47) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 12 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Program for Accelerated Learning/Academic Support Programs (pp. 48-57) of the current - plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 13 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Gifted Education component (pp. 58-62) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 14 above. f:lhomolfcndlcyllrod'doo-jooh.u,t 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Multicultural Curriculum component (pp. 63-80) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 15 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Focused Activities component (pp. 81-85) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 16 above. - INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Parkview Science Magnet School component (pp. 86-92) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 17 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the McClellan Community School component (pp. 93-94) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. f:\\homclfcndleyllnd'dcojooh.mi 9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 18 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Recruitment of Private School students component (p. 95) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO . 18: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 19 above. INTERROGATORY NO . 20: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Federal Programs component (pp. 96-97) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 20 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Vocational Education component (pp. 98-99) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and i dentify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 21 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Library Media Services component (pp. 106-10) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the f:\\homc\\/erdlcyUnd'\u003cbjooh.inl 10 basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 22 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Special Education component {pp. 111-23) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 23 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Staff Development component {pp. 20-27) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 24 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Support Services component (pp. 129-30) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 25 above. f:lhomo\\kmlcyllrodldcojooh.n 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Parent Involvement/Community Linkages component (pp. 131-38) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 26 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Student Assignments component (pp. 139-44) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 27 above. - INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the New Futures For Little Rock component (p. 145) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 28 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Facilities component (pp. 146- 148) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. lc\\home\\fcndlcyllnodldoejooh.inl 12 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 29 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Incentive School Academic Programs and Curriculum Development component (pp. 152-70) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 30 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Incentive School Operations component (pp. 171~189} of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Please produce all documents . identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 31 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Incentive School Staffing component (pp. 190-204) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 32 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 33: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Incentive School Parent f:\\hamolfendleyllradldeo-jooh.w 13 Involvement component (pp. 205-14) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 33 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Incentive School Parent Recruitment (pp. 215-23) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 34 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Educational Equity Monitoring component (pp. 224-26) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 35 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Computerized Transportation System component (pp. 227-29) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 36 above. l:\\hamollordlcyllrtd\\doo-Jo,h.bo 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Introduction component (pp. 1-2) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 37 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 38: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Overview component (pp. 3-7) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 38 above. - INTERROGATORY NO. 39: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the student Choices and Options component (pp. 8-12) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 39 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Summer School component (pp. 13- 20) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. f:\\homclfc.-dlcyUnid'dcojcob.inl 15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 40 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Staff Development component (pp. 21-22) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 41 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 42: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the School Operations component (pp. 23-34) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 42 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Special Education component (pp. 35-53) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 43 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Guidance and Counseling Program component (pp. 54-55) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe f:lhom\u003c\\fcrdlcylll'ld'd.,o-jooh.n 16 in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all - facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 44 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Parental Involvement/Community Linkages component (pp. 56-58) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 45 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 46: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Public Relations component (pp. i-2) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 46 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 47: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with any order of the District Court pertaining to the current plan or Interdistrict Plan? If so, identify the order of the district court, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 47 above. r:lhorno1ren:11cy11nw1-.i..-jooh.in 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Please describe .in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1992-93 school year, including the identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 48 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Please describe in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1993-94 school year, including the identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 49 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 50: Please describe in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1994-95 school year, including the identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 50 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Please describe in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1995-96 school year, including the identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO . . 50: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 51 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Please describe in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1996-97 school year, including the f:lhomolfcndloyllndldco-jo,h.in 18 identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 52 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 53: Please describe in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1997-98 school year, including the identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 53 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Please identify all persons not currently employed by LRSD known to you to have personal knowledge of LRSD's failure to comply with any obligation under either the current plan or the Interdistrict Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Please identify all of your communications with persons currently employed by LRSD pertaining to LRSD's compliance with either the current plan or the Interdistrict Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 53: Please produce all documents pertaining to the communications identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 55 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 56: Do you contend that either current or past discrimination by LRSD is a proximate cause of the current racial disparity in academic achievement? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. f:lhcmclfcndlcyllnd'dcejooh.inl 19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 56 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 57: Do you contend that either current or past discrimination by LRSD is a proximate cause of the current racial disparity in student discipline? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 57 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 58: Do you contend that either current or past discrimination by LRSD is a proximate cause of the current racial disparity in special education? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 58 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 59: Do you contend that either current or past discrimination by LRSD is a proximate cause of the current racial disparity in the gifted and talented program? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO . 57: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 59 above . INTERROGATORY NO. 60: Do you contend that either current or past discrimination by LRSD is a proximate cause of the current racial disparity in participation in honors and advanced f:lhome\\fc,d loyllrodldco-jcoh.ir\u003c 20 placement courses? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 60 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 61: Do you believe that continued implementation of the current plan and the Interdistrict Plan would result in LRSD achieving unitary status? If so, please identify when LRSD would be unitary and describe in detail the basis(es) for your response. If not, please describe in detail why and identify those aspects of school operations which would not be unitary. INTERROGATORY NO. 62: Please identify by page number(s) the components of the current plan and Interdistrict Plan which you believe should be modified , and for each component identified, please: a. describe in detail why you believe the component should be modified; b. identify all facts and documents which support your belief that the component should be modified; c. describe in detail the program, policy or procedure which you believe should be substituted for the component; and, d. identify all facts and documents which support your belief that the program, policy or procedure described inc. above should be substituted for the component . f:lhomclfcndlcyll..d\\dco-jooh. in. 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 62 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 63: Please identify by page number(s) those components of the current plan and Interdistrict Plan which you contend should be continued under the Revised Plan, and with regard to each component identified, please describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 63 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 64: Do you agree with the recommendations 9on~ained in the Student Assignment Work Team report? If not, please identify each recommendation with which you disagree, describe in detail the basis(es) for your disagreement and identi fy all facts and documents which support your position. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 64 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 65: Do you agree with the recommendations contained in the Curriculum Work Team report? If not, please identify each recommendation with which you disagree, describe in detail the basis(es) for your disagreement and identify all facts and documents which support your position. !:\\homo\\fcndlcy\\l..dldco-jooh.inl 22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 65 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 66: Do you agree with the recommendations contained in the Technology Work Team report? If not, please identify each recommendation with which you disagree, describe in detail the basis(es) for your disagreement and identify all facts and documents which support your position. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: Please produce -all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 66 "},{"id":"kdl_abrad_19971209wallace","title":"Interview with Henry Wallace and Carla Wallace, December 9, 1997","collection_id":"kdl_abrad","collection_title":"Anne Braden Oral History Project","dcterms_contributor":["Wallace, Carla, 1957-"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Kentucky, Jefferson County, Louisville, 38.25424, -85.75941"],"dcterms_creator":["Wallace, Henry F., 1915-2006"],"dc_date":["1997-12-09"],"dcterms_description":["Interview with Henry Wallace and Carla Wallace, December 9, 1997 conducted by Catherine Fosl.","In this interview Henry Wallace, a longtime friend of the Bradens, and Henry's daughter, Carla Wallace, an activist who worked closely with Anne Braden, discuss Anne and Carl Braden. Henry Wallace talks about the Bradens during the 1950s and 1960s and describes the political and social climate surrounding their 1954 trial for sedition. He also discusses the Communist Party and the leftist presence in Louisville, Kentucky during that era. Carla Wallace discusses Anne Braden's personality, her career as an activist, and her contribution to the Louisville community. Carla describes the lifestyle of a full-time activist and shares anecdotes from her years of activism and community-organizing with Anne. She also mentions other Louisville activists who have been important to their work."],"dc_format":null,"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":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights workers--Interviews","African Americans--Civil rights","Civil rights movements--United States","Sedition--United States","Civil rights workers--Kentucky--Louisville","Women civil rights workers--Kentucky--Louisville","Trials (Sedition)--Kentucky","Woodberry Forest School","Kentucky Military Institute (1845-1971)","Communists--United States","McCarthy, Joseph, 1908-1957--Influence","Cold War--Influence","Labor unions--Kentucky--Louisville","Fear--Kentucky--Louisville","Race relations","Louisville (Ky.)--Race relations","Discrimination in education--Kentucky--Louisville","Employees--Dismissal of--Kentucky--Louisville","Civil rights movements--Kentucky--Louisville","Civil rights demonstrations--Kentucky--Louisville","Ku Klux Klan (1915- )--Kentucky","Youth--Political activity--Kentucky--Louisville","Stigma (Social psychology)--Kentucky--Louisville","Political activists--Kentucky--Louisville","Political participation--Kentucky--Louisville","Leisure--Kentucky--Louisville","Presidents--Election--1984","Gay activists--Kentucky--Louisville","Gays--Civil rights--Kentucky--Louisville","Women's rights--Kentucky--Louisville","Mentoring--Kentucky--Louisville","Conflict management--Kentucky--Louisville","Solidarity--Kentucky--Louisville","Work-life balance--Kentucky--Louisville","Smoking--Kentucky--Louisville","Communities--Kentucky--Louisville","Trust--Kentucky--Louisville","Coalitions--Kentucky--Louisville","Fellowship of Reconciliation (U.S.)"],"dcterms_title":["Interview with Henry Wallace and Carla Wallace, December 9, 1997"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Kentucky"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://kentuckyoralhistory.org/ark:/16417/xt759z909071"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["All rights to the interviews, including but not restricted to legal title, copyrights and literary property rights, have been transferred to the University of Kentucky Libraries."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)","sound recordings","transcripts"],"dcterms_extent":["1 interview : [01:27:05]"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Braden, Anne, 1924-2006","Braden, Carl, 1914-1975","Wallace, Henry F., 1915-2006--Interviews","Wallace, Carla, 1957- --Interviews","Yater, George H.","Pearce, John Ed.","Jackson, Jesse, 1941-","Edwards, George R., 1920-","Jones, Mattie","Freibert, Lucy M., 1922-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"kdl_abrad_19990420lusky","title":"Interview with Louis Lusky, April 20, 1999","collection_id":"kdl_abrad","collection_title":"Anne Braden Oral History Project","dcterms_contributor":["Fosl, Catherine"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","United States, Kentucky, Jefferson County, Louisville, 38.25424, -85.75941","United States, Kentucky, Jefferson County, Shively, 38.20007, -85.82274","United States, New York, New York County, New York, 40.7142691, -74.0059729"],"dcterms_creator":["Lusky, Louis"],"dc_date":["1997-12-09"],"dcterms_description":["Interview with Louis Lusky, April 20, 1999 conducted by Catherine Fosl.","Louis Lusky, a native of Louisville, Kentucky, was a well-respected civil liberties attorney, member of the ACLU, Betts Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and, in his early career, a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Harlan Stone. In this interview, Lusky discusses the socio-political climate of Louisville during the 1950s, the presence of McCarthyism, liberalism, and the general state of race relations, the mixture of which constituted the atmosphere wherein the Braden sedition trial unfolded. He speaks of the evolution of his legal career, his involvement with the ACLU/KCLU, his relationship with Carl Braden as a member of his defense team, and of the general dynamics of the trial. Lusky also speaks of Anne Braden, of his general impressions of her and her life's mission."],"dc_format":null,"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":null,"dcterms_subject":["American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky","American Civil Liberties Union","Race relations","Louisville (Ky.)--Race relations","Shively (Ky.)--Race relations","McCarthy, Joseph, 1908-1957--Influence","Cold War--Influence","Reporters and reporting--Kentucky--Louisville","African Americans--Segregation--Kentucky--Louisville","Discrimination in housing--Kentucky--Shively","Bombings--Kentucky--Shively","Racism--Kentucky--Shively","Insurance agents--Kentucky--Shively","Discrimination in insurance--Kentucky--Shively","Communists--United States","Trials (Sedition)--Kentucky--Louisville","United States. Supreme Court","Emergency Civil Liberties Committee","Judges--Kentucky--Louisville","Lawyers--Kentucky--Louisville","African American lawyers--Kentucky--Louisville","Discrimination in restaurants--Kentucky--Louisville","Arrest--Georgia--Atlanta","Communist Party of the United States of America","Segregation in education--Kentucky--Louisville","Courage--Kentucky--Louisville","Lawyers--New York (State)--New York","Law firms--New York (State)--New York"],"dcterms_title":["Interview with Louis Lusky, April 20, 1999"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Kentucky"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://kentuckyoralhistory.org/ark:/16417/xt7gms3jxd7f"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["All rights to the interviews, including but not restricted to legal title, copyrights and literary property rights, have been transferred to the University of Kentucky Libraries."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)","sound recordings","transcripts"],"dcterms_extent":["1 interview : [01:06:44]"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Boudin, Leonard, 1912-","Lusky, Louis--Interviews","Wade, Andrew, IV","Braden, Anne, 1924-2006","Braden, Carl, 1914-1975","Tachau, Eric, 1924-2002","Stone, Harlan Fiske, 1872-1946","Grafton, C. W. (Cornelius Warren), 1909-","Root, Elihu, 1881-1967","Ballantine, Arthur A. (Arthur Atwood), 1883-1960","Dewey, Thomas E. (Thomas Edmund), 1902-1971"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"kdl_abrad_19971206shuttlesworth","title":"Interview with Fred Shuttlesworth, December 6, 1997","collection_id":"kdl_abrad","collection_title":"Anne Braden Oral History Project","dcterms_contributor":["Fosl, Catherine"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, 32.22026, -86.20761","United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","United States, Kentucky, Jefferson County, Louisville, 38.25424, -85.75941","United States, North Carolina, Guilford County, Greensboro, 36.07264, -79.79198"],"dcterms_creator":["Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011"],"dc_date":["1997-12-06"],"dcterms_description":["Interview with Fred Shuttlesworth, December 6, 1997 conducted by Catherine Fosl.","Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth is an African American Baptist minister who was a leader of the civil rights movement and worked alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In this interview, Shuttlesworth describes his work in the movement, particularly in Birmingham, Alabama. He talks about some protests and demonstrations in which he participated, including the Freedom Rides of 1961. Shuttlesworth describes the violence and intimidation that he and his fellow activists faced from the Ku Klux Klan and others. He talks about his friendship with Anne and Carl Braden and their collaboration on civil rights activism. Shuttlesworth describes their role in the civil rights movement and assesses their contributions to the causes of freedom and equality. He also mentions other notable civil rights activists with whom he worked."],"dc_format":null,"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":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights workers--Interviews","Civil rights movements--United States","African Americans--Civil rights","Freedom Rides, 1961","Christians--Political activity","Ku Klux Klan (1915- )","Segregation","Southern Conference Educational Fund","Southern Organizing Committee for Economic and Social Justice","African Americans--Violence against--Southern States","Race relations","Southern States--Race relations","Segregation--Alabama--Birmingham","Courage","United States. Congress. House. Committee on Un-American Activities","Communism--United States","Cold War--Influence","Harassment--Southern States","Faith","Reporters and reporting--Southern States","Trust--Southern States","National Association for the Advancement of Colored People","National Urban League","Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights","Southern Christian Leadership Conference","Congresses and conventions--Kentucky--Louisville","Traffic accidents--Kentucky--Louisville","Marriage","Humility","Discrimination in housing--Kentucky--Louisville","Civil rights demonstrations--Kentucky--Louisville","Black power--United States","Boards of directors--Southern States","Montgomery Improvement Association","Widowhood--Kentucky--Louisville","Grief--Kentucky--Louisville","Youth--Political activity--Southern States","Civil rights demonstrations--North Carolina--Greensboro","Arrest--Alabama--Montgomery","Civil rights demonstrations--Alabama--Montgomery","Imprisonment--Alabama","Clemency--Kentucky"],"dcterms_title":["Interview with Fred Shuttlesworth, December 6, 1997"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Kentucky"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://kentuckyoralhistory.org/ark:/16417/xt7jm61bkr9t"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["All rights to the interviews, including but not restricted to legal title, copyrights and literary property rights, have been transferred to the University of Kentucky Libraries."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)","sound recordings","transcripts"],"dcterms_extent":["1 interview : [01:34:36]"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Braden, Anne, 1924-2006","Braden, Carl, 1914-1975","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011--Interviews","Dombrowski, James A. (James Anderson), 1897-1983","Williams, Aubrey Willis, 1890-1965","Wilkins, Roy, 1901-1981","Current, Gloster B. (Gloster Bryant), 1913-1997","Jackson, Mahalia, 1911-1972","Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","King, Coretta Scott, 1927-2006","Lowery, Joseph E.","Roosevelt, Eleanor, 1884-1962","Davis, Angela Y. (Angela Yvonne), 1944-","Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","Stembridge, Jane","Curry, Constance, 1933-","Farmer, James L., Jr. (James Leonard), 1920-1999","Kennedy, Robert F., 1925-1968","Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1691","title":"Court filings: District Court, plaintiff Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) answers to the Joshua intervenors' first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for approval of the revised desegregation and education plan","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)","Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1997-12-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Educational innovations"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, plaintiff Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) answers to the Joshua intervenors' first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for approval of the revised desegregation and education plan"],"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/1691"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["155 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. vs. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFFS :~~~~I COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTRECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEC ~ 1997 OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF LRSD, s AKiii~Ti MONITORING INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING LRSD'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Plaintiff Little Rock School District ( \"LRSD\") for its Answers to The Joshua Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents states: INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please state the name, title, address and telephone number of each and every individual assisting in the preparation of the answers to these interrogatories. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory requests information which is privileged under the work product doctrine and/or the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving this objection, LRSD states that the following persons assisted in the preparation of these answers: Dr. Les Carnine, Christopher Heller and John c. Fendley, Jr. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: In 15 instances in paragraphs II. B. through II. P. of the proposed new plan, the words \"LRSD shall implement programs policies and/or procedures\" followed by a particular subject matter appear. Please identify separately for l:lhomollct'd lcy\\lrod'dco-joob.ra  ' . each of these 15 paragraphs all programs, policies and procedures - which you maintain are currently implemented and are intended to be encompassed by the reference in the particular subparagraph of Part II. of the proposed plan. In addition, please specify when the implementation of the particular program, policy or procedure began. Lastly, as to each sub-paragraph, please indicate whether work is underway to develop a particular program, policy or procedure to implement the obligation and, if so, describe generally the nature of the initiative(s) and the anticipated completion date(s). ANSWER: Except as otherwise provided in LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), the obligations set forth in Section II were not intended to encompass any particular program, policy and procedure currently being implemented. As stated in Section XI of the Revised Plan, the 1997-98 school year will be a transition year in preparation for implementation of the Revised Plan during the 1998-99 school year. During the transition year, LRSD will be evaluating current programs, policies and procedures and developing new programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in order to meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. Some of this work has already been completed and is contained in the work team reports submitted to the LRSD Board of Directors in August of this year. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please explain the reason(s) that the proposed plan does not include in the 15 instances referred to in Interrogatory No. 2, or in any instance, the identification of the l:lh:\u003en-cllcndlcylll'ld'doo-jooh.,.. 2 particular programs, policies and procedures to be implemented. (If LRSD believes that there is identification of a particular standard in one or more instances, please answer as to obligations where you agree that there is no identification of a particular standard or program). ANSWER: The Revised Plan includes specific programs, policies and/or procedures with regard to student assignments (Section III \u0026 IV), African-American academic achievement (Section V), equitable allocation of certified personnel (Section VI) and compliance (Section VII). With regard to the remaining obligations, LRSD believes that, in order for the Revised Plan to be successful, the details related to implementation of the Revised Plan must be subject to modification without district court involvement. LRSD firmly believes that flexibility is essential to instilling in the - qistrict a sense of responsibility and accountability. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Would the system refuse to support adoption of the revised plan if the plan included the identification of particular programs, policies and/or procedures, or other steps, to implement the \"obligations\" identified in Part II? If so, explain the reason(s) for the system's pos i tion. ANSWER: The Revised Plan does identify particular programs, policies and/or procedures. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Do you agree that as written, there would be compliance with the provisions of II.B. through II.P. of the proposed plan if the system implemented, as to the particular sub-paragraph, programs or policies or procedures regarding the r:lhom,lr\u003cndlcyllr\u003e\u003cl'dca-jah.ra 3 particular matter addressed in the paragraph. If the answer is negative, please explain the basis for the answer. ANSWER: Yes. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: As the plan is written, would the court have the authority, in the opinion of the LRSD, to hold a system official (s) (sic] in contempt of court for failure to implement a term of a particular policy of the district, which the LRSD views as encompassed by one of the sub-paragraphs in II.B. through II.P. of the plan, but which is not specified in the plan. If your answer is in the affirmative, please explain the basis for the answer. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory calls for the legal opinion of counsel for LRSD which is privileged under the attorneyclient privilege. Without waiving this objection, LRSD states that the district court would have authority to enforce the Revised Plan using its contempt power. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: As the plan is written, does any provision of paragraphs II.B. through II.P. of the plan require any action on the part of the LRSD if at a particular school there is substantial racial disparity, atypical in the LRSD system, in the numbers of black students suspended, the numbers of black males placed in special education classes, or the numbers of black students in the gifted and talented program. If the answer is affirmative, please identify the provision(s) which is the basis of the answer. (:\\homolfcndlcyllndldoojooh.,.. 4 ANSWER: Paragraphs G., H. and I. of Section II state LRSD's obligations with regard to special education, student discipline and gifted and talented, respectively. Compliance with these paragraphs would require LRSD to investigate a racial disparity which varies substantially from what would be expected. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Do you maintain that the .LRSD complies, currently, with each obligation set forth in Part II. of the plan. If not, please describe in detail the area(s) of noncompliance. ANSWER: The obligations set forth in Section II encompass the core obligations from LRSD' s current desegregation plan. LRSD maintains that it has substantially complied with its current desegregation plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: With respect to II.B. of the proposed plan, please identify as to each category of positions to which it applies, the proportion black in the relevant labor market and the source of this information, and the proportion black of the work force at present. ANSWER: LRSD intends to rely on federal EEOC statistics for Pulaski County, the State of Arkansas and the nation as a whole to determine the percentage of qualified African-Americans in the relevant labor market. With regard to the proportion of AfricanAmerican teachers and administrators, see Exhibits A, B and C attached. LRSD' s noncertified personnel is 73. 8% African-American. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: With respect to II.C. of the proposed plan, please identify as to each category of positions to which it applies, the meaning of the words \"the pool of candidates eligible f:lhomolfcndlcyllnd'dc.-jc,oh.1W 5 for promotion\", the proportion black in that pool and the source of the information, and the proportion black of the persons employed in the category at present. ANSWER: The \"pool of candidates eligible for promotion\" includes current employees who satisfy all eligibility requirements imposed by law or by the Board for a position. LRSD objects to identifying every position for which every employee is currently eligible for promotion as unduly burdensome. With regard to the percentage of African-Americans currently employed by LRSD, see Answer to Interrogatory No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: With respect to II.D. of the proposed plan, please identify the positions covered within the term \"certified personnel\" and provide as to each category the number of persons currently employed in the LRSD by race. ANSWER: \"Certified personnel\" are LRSD employees who must possess teaching or administrative certificates issued by the State of Arkansas in order to hold their position. With regard to the percentage of African-Americans currently employed by LRSD, see Answer to Interrogatory No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: With respect to II.E. of the proposed plan, please identify any category of certified personnel where the LRSD does not have the right to assign personnel for the good of the system and the basis of the limitation. ANSWER: See Articles XV through XVIII of the PN Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit D, and the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. r:lhomellcndlcyUrld'da-jooh.,a 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I INTERROGATORY NO. 13: With respect to II.H. of the proposed plan, please describe in detail any specific initiative(s) in the LRSD at present, whether involving particular personnel, or standards, designed to guard against black students' receiving discipline for conduct for which white students are not disciplined, black students' receiving discipline for trivial matters, and/or black students' receiving more severe discipline than white students for similar conduct. ANSWER: LRSD expects all of its students, regardless of race or socioeconomic background, to comply with the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. If a student fails to comply, the student will be disciplined as provided in the Handbook. Discipline information including the race of the student, the race of the administrator, the nature of the offense and the sanction imposed is compiled by the schools and maintained by LRSD. LRSD's Associate Superintendent for Student Discipline reviews this information in an attempt to identify possible racial discrimination. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: With respect to II.I. of the proposed plan, please define, with specificity, the word \"qualified,\" as it applies to each of the three areas discussed in the obligation, namely \"extracurricular activities\", \"advanced placement courses\", and \"gifted and talented\" programs. ANSWER: The phrase \"qualified African-American students\" means African-American students who satisfy the eligibility criteria for an activity or program. For many activities and (:\\hoorcll'endlcyll..dldoo-jolh.ra 7 programs, there are eligibility criteria other than student interest. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: With respect to II.J. of the proposed plan, does LRSD agree that as written the system would be in compliance with this provision if the system continued to implement any two programs with its federal Title I monies to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. If not, lease (sic) explain the basis for the disagreement. ANSWER: No. LRSD must also implement the programs, policies and/or procedures set forth in Section V of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: With respect to II.L. of the proposed plan, please define the terms \"equitable allocation,\" \"technological resources,\" and \"educational resources.\" Also, please identify any data source allowing a determination of whether these resources are equitably allocated to LRSD schools at present. ANSWER: The phrase \"equitable allocation\" means to allocate based on need and without bias or favoritism. The term \"technological resources\" means up-to-date computer and information technology. The term \"educational resources'' includes teachers, teacher aides, equipment and supplies. With regard to a data source for determing whether these resources are currently equitably allocated, see the technology work team report, the individual school profiles and the LRSD budget. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: With respect to II.M. of the proposed plan, please define the term \"equitable\" and identify the matters encompassed in the terms \"maintenance and repair.\" In addition, /:lhomo,1/crdlcylltod'doo-jch.,.. 8 please identify any source of data available to ascertain compliance with this obligation on a school-by-school basis. ANSWER: The term \"equitable\" means based on need and without bias or favoritism. The terms \"maintenance and repair\" include the routine upkeep of the building and grounds and the repair or replacement of elements of the building and grounds which are no longer functional. LRSD maintains records which would indicate maintenance requests submitted by schools, the priority assigned to those requests and when and if those requests were acted upon. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: With respect to II.N. of the proposed plan, please identify any specific initiatives currently undertaken in the LRSD to ascertain whether or not guidance or counseling services provided to African-American students involve steering to a restricted range of courses and/or postsecondary educational opportunities. ANSWER: LRSD recognizes that African-American students are underrepresented in upper-level courses and has implemented strategies to address that issue. Specifically with regard to guidance and counseling services, LRSD has requested a National Science Foundation grant to fund training modeled after TESA and EQUALS to assist counselors in motivating African-American students to take the courses necessary to later be successful in upper-level science and math courses. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: With respect to II.O. of the proposed plan, does LRSD maintain that this subparagraph adds anything to r:\"\"'-lfcndley~r,d\\deo-jcoh.ra 9 other obligations of the plan. If so, please describe with specificity what it adds. ANSWER: Yes. The obligations in Section II should be interpreted consistent with Paragraph 0. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: With respect to II. P. of the proposed plan, please set forth the number of persons the LRSD plans to assign on a full-time basis to compliance/monitoring activities and the categories of positions to be staffed. In addition, please describe any steps to insure that the make-up of the staff includes a substantial number of African-American persons and any role which LRSD is willing to give the representative of the Joshua Intervenors in the selection of this staff. ANSWER: These decisions have not yet been made. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: With respect to III. A. 1. of the proposed plan, please identify any document and any existing analysis stored in any other manner projecting school make-up by race if the steps described in this subparagraph are implemented. If any such data does not currently exist, please describe how such a projection could be done with data and resources available to the LRSD. ANSWER: LRSD is currently working with Edulog software to project school make-up under scenarios consistent with Section III of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: With respect to III.B. I . -5 of the proposed plan, please: (i) identify all written standards governing these transfers and (ii) describe any unwritten practices governing l:ll,anollcndlcy\\Jnd'du-jooh.,a 10 one or more of these transfers. (iii) In addition, please define the concepts of \"capacity limitations\" and \"reasonable requirement\" identifying any designations of schools capacities to be utilized. (iv) In addition, please explain the language \"a special need arising out of circumstances unique to a particular student\" by reference to the circumstances of youth receiving such transfers in 1997-98 and explain who does and who would decide that the requisite circumstances exist. (v) Lastly, please identify the numbers of students by race utilizing each category of such transfers in 1997-98. ANSWER: (i) No additional standards have been developed beyond what is contain in the Revised Plan. (ii) None. (iii) A school's capacity is a function of the physical plant and the educational programs being implemented at a school . At this time, LRSD is using the school capacity numbers attached hereto as Exhibit E. The \"reasonable requirements\" described in subparagraphs 1 through 5 of Section III.B. relate to procedural requirements which may be imposed by LRSD to ensure that student assignment occurs in a timely and efficient manner. (iv) Special circumstances transfers as described by the Revised Plan are currently handled through an appeals committee composed of five members with individual members selected by the LRSD Board of Directors, the Biracial Committee, the PTA Council r:lhomo\\fendlcyUnod'dc.-jooh.,a 11 and the Little Rock CTA. The committee reviews requests for transfers based on geographic isolation, racial isolation, medical hardship and other extenuating circumstances. This committee was established by the Tri-District plan and has been continued by LRSD under its current plan. (v) Records concerning transfers will be made available upon request at a time and date mutually agreed to by counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: With respect to III. E. of the proposed plan, please identify any potential sites for the school in west Little Rock, including any sites set forth in any study. In addition, please state whether the LRSD envisions the court's approving the site prior to its final approval. ANSWER: No potential site has been identified. Although LRSD anticipates keeping both the court and the parties informed about the site selection process, the site would not have to be approved by the court except as provided in Section IX.B. of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: With respect to IV.E. of the proposed plan, please describe any existing agreements, standards, and practices relating to cooperative efforts of the LRSD and PCSSD. ANSWER: See Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: With respect to V.B. and C. of the proposed plan, please (i) identify the author or authors of the provisions, committees and entities, designating the provision or provisions associated with each such author; ( ii) identify any document(s) providing further explanation of any provision(s) of f:lhomo\\fcndlcyllrod\\doo-jooh.,_ 12 the proposal; (iii) regarding parts B.l.a., B.2.a., and B.3.a., please identify any standards describing the level of competency envisioned in each instance and how it would be assessed; is developing the standards and the general timelines for that effort; and (iv) regarding these three parts of the plan, please state whether LRSD plans to have students satisfy a test requirement prior to moving to the next grade; if the matter is not decided, but such a requirement remains an option, please indicate. ANSWER: See curriculum work team report. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: With respect to V.C.4. of the proposed plan, what is the reason for evaluating Algebra I placement procedures and what would be done with the evaluation results. ANSWER: See curriculum work team report. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: With respect to V.D. of the proposed plan, please identify any standards for use of the \"additional funding.\" If none currently exist, how would standards be developed and in what time period. Lastly, what is the position of the LRSD regarding the use of some funds to pay area college students to tutor in these schools, during and outside the regular school day, on a one-to-one basis. ANSWER: See incentive school work team report and incentive school individual school plans. LRSD has not taken a position on the use of some funds to pay area college students to tutor in the incentive schools. INTERROGATORY NO. 28 : With respect to V.F. of the proposed plan, please identify any standards for this effort and provide a (:lhonwlfcrdlcyUtwd'-\"jcoh.- 13 definition of the language \"parental and community relations linkage system.\" ANSWER: See community links work team report. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: With respect to V.I. of the proposed plan, please explain why the title and the first paragraph apply to teachers and the next two paragraphs apply to certified personnel. As to V.B., what person or persons would decide when the desegregative impact would be outweighed. ANSWER: All of Section VI applies to certified personnel. The superintendent or his designee would decide when the desegregative impact would be outweighed by the educational benefit from allowing a teacher to remain in his or her present assignment or to transfer to another assignment. INTERROGATORY NO. 3 0: With respect to Part VII. of the proposed plan, please identify all documents alluded to in this part, including but not limited to \"compliance standards and procedures\", and/or further explanatory of the meaning of this part. ANSWER: The compliance standards and procedures have not yet been developed. Section VII is based on the requirements for an effective corporate integrity program under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines 8Al.2. INTERROGATORY NO. 31: What if any impact would the court's approval of the proposed plan, or a modified version, have on the life of the agreement which LRSD maintains was made regarding fee payments to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors after the payment of (:lhomo\\lcrdlcyllnd'da,-jo,11.,_ 14 the amount described in the Settlement Agreement. If the LRSD view is that the agreement would continue in force, please set forth the terms of the agreement on which LRSD relies and explain how the agreement could continue in view of the terms of the agreement asserted by the LRSD. ANSWER: The fee agreement was part of the settlement agreement which is not being modified by the Revised Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please provide a copy of each document which you have identified in responding to interrogatories numbered 2 through 30. RESPONSE: LRSD will make the documents identified herein available for inspection upon request at a time and date mutually agreed to by counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Do you consider these interrogatories and req~est for documents as continuing and agree to supplement your answers as required by the Court's order of October 23, 1997? ANSWER: LRSD will comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the orders of the district court. r:\\homolfc..dlcy\\lr,d\\dao-_jool,.ra 15 VERIFICATION STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) ss. COUNTY OF PULASKI) I, Dr. Leslie V. Carnine, state under oath that I am the Superintendent of the Little Rock School District, that the foregoing answers have been prepared from information gathered from personnel and records of the District, that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I am authorized to execute this document on behalf of the District. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY:~ DR. LESIEV.CARNINE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a notary public, on this day of December, 1997. r:lhomolfcndl,:yllnodldco-jooh.,.. Christopher J. Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Little Rock School District BY: 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 3rd day of December, 1997. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 ~ittle Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 f:'llornolfcndlcyUl'ICl'da-jooll.,.. 17 Elementary Teachers - 1993 , 17 i . 4 t---15--- --25.o ---- -- -1L2% - 18.2% -18.0% 3 Total ---  246 r 434  ...  i .f i IC PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT A Elementary Teachers - 1994 --- -- 18 - --- -- --- . 17 191)% -L5.3% . '---- --  61 . 5 % - -27. 2% - ' 0 Elementary Teachers - 1995 -,_,-----+--.,.,----+---- --------- ------ -- . 0 . 0 Elementary Teachers - 1996 I I ;- -r-- -- 56.3% -- ....... 22. I%- 2 12 4 Elementary Teachers - 1997 3 - -  9 r6   60. o -1 24.2 - 12 : \\  -- 2r- - 46.2% - --1 OA% - Elementary Teachers - 1998 i ! 3 ........... - 51.3% - .. 15.5% -- Secondary Teachers -1993 ALTLRN 4 2 66.7% CENTRAL 21 49 30.0% CLOVERDALE 2 30 6.3% DUNBAR 8 23 25.8% FAIR 7 29 19.4% FOREST HEIGHTS 9 20 31.0% HALL 9 35 20.5% HENDERSON 9 26 25.7% MABELVALE 3 20 13.0% MANNM/S 13 22 37.1% MCCLELLAN 12 24 33.3% PARK.VIEW 9 28 24.3% PULASKI HEIGHTS 4 28 12.5% SOUTHWEST 15 15 50.0% 93 Total 125 351 26.3% Secondary Teachers - 1994 ALTLRN 4 2 66.7% CENTRAL 25 48 34.2% CLOVERDALE 5 30 14.3% DUNBAR 8 25 24.2% FAIR 8 28 22.2% FOREST HEIGHTS 9 19 32.1% HALL 10 34 22.7% HENDERSON 8 30 21.1% MABELVALE 6 21 22.2% MANNM/S 13 25 34.2% MCCLELLAN 12 27 30.8% PARKVIEW 11 28 28.2% PULASKI HEIGHTS 4 29 12.1% SOUTHWEST 15 15 50.0% 94 Total 138 361 27.6% 40.4% 3.7% -20.0% -.5% -6.8% 4.8% -5.8% -.5% -13.2% 10.9% 7.1% -1.9% -13.8% 23.7% er;- -~=~ ... ;J~mlg,\u0026;? ',~zj~g,~~ 39.0% 6.6% -13.4% -3.4% -5.4% 4.5% -4.9% -6.6% -5.4% 6.6% 3.1% .5% -15.5% 22.3% PLAINTIFF'S 1 EXHIBIT s :5 J Secondary Teachers - 1995 Scn\"o' ~~- '~-~ . - ,._, . ::;;:. , . ..  - .. ---: -  ...,  - ~~ 1:eme..\" r:i-,i ..~... ~ ~ n,_i.c,..a, .i ,,f~ :-.-:..:.P.. ~e,rc\" ent,a_.g e , ' . . -  , ~- , . . . ~.  .-~-- -.: -~:~1:-.-- : .r.:. :':\"'=:\" -.::-  .. :- ! .. -  . ~  . ;- -}~- ;..,,f.,.   _; ,  ~ capj ~ ;~~~~~c.AA,:;::,.:~ ~:...: Y.anance ;. ALTLRN 4 2 66.7% 36.0% CENTRAL 24 42 36.4% 5.7% CLOVERDALE 5 24 17.2% -13.4% DUNBAR 10 20 33.3% 2.6% FAIR 13 23 36.1% 5.4% FOREST HEIGHTS 12 19 38.7% 8.0% HALL 10 34 22.7% -8.0% HENDERSON 10 26 27.8% -2.9% MABELVALE 5 21 19.2% -11.5% MANNM/S 10 26 27.8% -2.9% MCCLELLAN 12 24 33.3% 2.6% PARK.VIEW 10 28 26.3% -4.4% PULASKI HEIGHTS 7 29 19.4% -11.2% SOUIBWEST 15 14 51.7% 21.0% 95 Total 147 332 30.7% Secondary Teachers - 1996 s~il~l~l~fillE1~ ~JH~tt~~,r.:i ~~~pt~~!~: ALT LRN ' 4 2 66.7% 33.1% CENTRAL 23 41 35.9% 2.4% CLOVERDALE 11 20 35.5% 2.0% DUNBAR 15 18 45.5% 11.9% FAIR 15 25 37.5% 4.0% FOREST HEIGHTS 12 20 37.5% 4.0% HALL 10 36 21.7% -11.8% HENDERSON 19 20 48.7% 15.2% MABELVALE 5 22 18.5% -15.0% MANNM/S 12 25 32.4% -1.1% MCCLELLAN 10 32 23.8% -9.7% PARK.VIEW 12 29 29.3% -4.3% PULASKI HEIGHTS 6 32 15.8% -17.7% SOUTHWEST 15 13 53.6% 20.0% 96 Total 169 335 33 .5% Secondary Teachers - 1997  ~=ifl ~\"I- m11me'rc'efiliifff ' ..- .. ~Rercenta e, . CENTRAL 24 44 35.3% .4% CLOVERDALE 12 19 38.7% 3.8% DUNBAR 14 21 40.0% 5.1% FAIR 14 20 41.2% 6.3% FOREST HEIGHTS 11 18 37.9% 3.1% HALL 11 33 25.0% -9.9% HEDERSON 17 19 47.2% 12.4% MABELVALE 5 20 20.0% -14.9% MANNM/S 12 25 32.4% -2.4% MCCLELLAN 13 30 30.2% -4.6% PARK.VIEW 14 28 33.3% -1.5% PULASKI HEIGHTS 4 35 10.3% -24.6% SOUTHWEST 19 10 65.5% 30.6% 97 Total 174 325 34.9% Secondary Teachers - 1998 . :.:f.i~:~~~~17:(f-;~.;BpiJ .~ --~~:n . caira ' ~- ' ~caw an\"'---.; ~ercefftre.~canl ~ :r.ercen~ge.:. ' Sclioolf:f:~,:t~\".. .~ _,; , aniei ~~-~ ~ :.,.-.:~} ~:~~,~J.;: ~- ; --:~~4t.lm.;i -~-~~~- i~~~.~ ;:i;. ~3:~e;;, ALTLRN ' 2 5 28.6% -7.4% CENTRAL 27 48 36:0% .0% CLOVERDALE 13 19 40.6% 4.6% DUNBAR 17 22 43 .6% 7.6% FAIR 11 23 32.4% -3 .6% FOREST HEIGHTS 14 17 45 .2% 9.2% HALL 11 33 25.0% -11.0% HENDERSON 16 19 45 .7% 9.7% MABELVALE 4 21 16.0% -20.0% MANN MIS 15 23 39.5% 3.5% MCCLELLAN 14 29 32.6% -3.4% PARK.VIEW 16 29 35.6% -.4% PULASKI HEIGHTS 6 31 16.2% -19.8% SOUTHWEST 19 10 65.5% 29.5% 98 Total 185 329 36.0% Central Office Administrators - 1993 Superintendent 0 Assistant Superintendent 4 2 Departmental Directors 5 12 93 Total 9 15 Central Office Administrators - 1994 Superintendent 0 Assistant Superintendent 3 2 Departmental Directors 5 13 94 Total 9 IS Central Office Administrators - 1995 Superintendent 0 Assistant Superintendent 3 3 Departmental Directors 6 14 95 Total 10 17 Central Office Administrators - 1996 Superintendent 0 Assistant Superintendent 2 3 Departm,ental Directors 5 13 96 Total 8 16 Central Office Administrators - 1997 Superintendent 0 Assistant Superintendent 2 2 Departmental Directors 4 12 97 Total 6 IS 0.0% 66.7% 29.4% 37.5% 100.0% 60.0% 27.8% 37.5% 100.0% 50.0% 30.0% 37.0% 100.0% 40.0% 27.8% 33.3% 0.0% 50.0% 25.0% 28.6% ~ PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT c,., Central Office Administrators - 1998 Superintendent 0 2 0.0% Assistant Superintendent 2 2 50.0% Departmental Directors 4 10 28.6% 98 Total 6 14 30.0% Principals and Assistant Prlnlclpals -1993 Principals and Assistant Prlnlclpals - 1994 s 8 18 16 52.9% S2 47 S2.So/o Principals and Assistant Priniclpals - 1995 Principals and Assistant Prinlclpals - 1996 r--- -- - ; - :~ . ~:.::-,..1- 11: -11 -~\\:::;:t~: ~~ l~-;''._~::'.i~~i~~;:f.:i!: l L-.ac ~ :-~--~t~(_I~ . - - ~r ~'l.,.t.~~l:~:..!! Elementarv Princioals 17 18 48.6% Elementary Assistant Principals II s 68.8% Secondary Principals 8 6 57.1 o/o Secondary Assistant Principals 20 13 60.6% 96 Total S6 42 53.1 o/o Principals and Assistant Prinicipals - 1997 Secondary Ass 20 16 55.6% 97 Total 57 44 56.4% Principals and Assistant Priniclpals - 1998 11 5 s 9 5 64.3% s 20 16 55 .6% - 98 Total S6 4S 55.4% ARTICLE XV TEACHING ASSIGNMENTS A. The procedure outlined below shall be followed in making teaching assignments: 1. Teaching assignments shall be based upon training, experience, competence, seniority, tenure, and such other factors as would indicate success in the position to be filled. 2. To assure that students are taught by teachers working within their areas of competence, teachers shall not be assigned, except temporarily and for good cause, outside the scope of their teaching certificates of their major or minor field of study. Teachers assigned outside their major or minor fields shall not be penalized on the salary schedule in any way. When requested, the Director of Personnel will make available to the Association a list of teachers assigned outside their major or minor fields.  3. All teaching assignments will be made by the principal or his/her superiors after the following steps are taken: a. Each year all teachers will submit in writing their personal preference for grade level, group and subject assignments, and such preference shall be a factor in making assignments. b. Department Coordinators will be consulted before assignments are made in their departments. 4. Secondary teachers shall not be required to teach more than two (2) subject matter areas with no more than two (2) preparations involved. Basic, regular, and enriched classes shall be considered separate preparations. Exceptions will only be made when it would otherwise be impossible to enroll all students who have registered for a required course. Teachers assigned more than two (2) preparations will be so notified as soon as possible and in no case later than three (3) weeks before the teach ing assignment is to commence. No teacher shall be assigned more than three (3) preparations under any circumstances. 5. Schedules of teachers who are assigned to more than one (I) school shall be arranged so that such teachers shall not be required to engage in an unreasonable amount of interschool travel. 6. The principal shall or should consult with the Building Coordinating Committee in regard to the tentative master schedule for the following year, and all teachers will be given an opportunity to discuss their tentative assignments with the principal if they so request. B. The following procedure shall be used for notifying teachers of their assignments: 1. Returning teachers shall be given written notice of their tentative grade levei, grouping, subject area assignments, building assignments, and room assignments by the end of the current school year. Newly elected teachers shall be given such notic "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1685","title":"Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court jurisdiction","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)","Joshua Intervenors"],"dc_date":["1997-12-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School districts","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court jurisdiction"],"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/1685"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["21 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FILE6 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. DEC 4 1gg7 [)gC O 2 1997 DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. UJ:il~Of INTERVENORS ~ ION MONITORING The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to the PCSSD Petition for Release From Federal court Jurisdiction A. Introduction The PCSSD has moved for a declaration of \"unitary status\" and the system's \"release from further court supervision.\" Petit., October 14, 1997, at 1. Subsequent to the filing of the motion,  _this court scheduled the matter for a hearing beginning on March 23, 1998. This memorandum discusses the standards applicable to the PCSSD motion and the showings made by the PCSSD regarding various elements of the system. In brief, the PCSSD errs with regard to the governing standards; moreover, if the district's presentation during the hearing mirrors the one made in the petition, the PCSSD will not be entitled to the relief sought. Indeed, the deficiencies of the Petition are such that it is appropriate to rescind the notice of a hearing and to deny the motion as was done in the case of a more detailed motion for termination of jurisdiction filed by the LRSD. See Mem. Opin. and 1 Order, Sept. 23, 1996, at 9-12. Consideration and resolution of the petition requires the parties and the court to address at least four areas: first, there is a need to designate the standards which identify both the areas of the system's operation to be evaluated and the criteria for the evaluations; second, there is a need to identify the extent (or degree) of compliance to be required in each area before jurisdiction is relinquished; third, there is a need to identify the party having the burden of proof to establish the requisite degree of compliance (or noncompliance); and fourth, there is a need to apply the foregoing principles. Intervenors' response addresses each area. A 14-page Attachment to this memorandum quotes many key elements of the desegregation plan of the PCSSD (April 1992) and the Interdistrict Plan {April 1992). These plans, we argue, rather than the so-called Green factors, as such, must be the focal point in the resolution of the PCSSD motion. To facilitate analysis of the issues presented by the petition, the Attachment clusters the provisions of the two plans by topic, rather than simply by page number. The Attachment is cited throughout this memorandum. The Joshua Intervenors argue below that the PCSSD has the burden of establishing a basis for the termination of supervision 2 in each area. However, ,intervenors do plan to undertake extensive discovery regarding compliance with the plans in the PCSSD. B. The Governing standards (1.) The Terms of the Plans Provide the Substantive standards for Evaluating the operation of the Pesso The PCCSD focuses upon the six areas mentioned by the supreme Court in Green v, county School Board, 391 u.s. 430, 435 (1968). See, for example, Petition at 4-5;  7-34. 1 In contrast, there is but a single, general reference to the Interdistrict Plan (Petit. at 7) and almost all of the small number of references to the 1992 PCSSD desegregation plan are in the form of terse assertions, without page citations. Ig. at 7, 9, 31, 33- 37; but see .ig. at 11 (single reference to page number in the plan). The citations to the significant provisions of the 1992 - PCSSD and Interdistrict Plans are obviously incomplete, as a reading of the Attachment shows. Moreover, the PCSSD approach is out of focus. Scores of rulings of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and this court establish that the settlement plans, approved by this court by Order of May 1, 1992, must be the focal point in resolving the motion. 2 Intervenors next cite 1 In Green, the Supreme Court wrote in part: \"Racial identification of the system's schools was complete, extending not just to the composition of student bodies at the two schools but to every facet of school operations -- faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities\" (at 435). 2 Indeed, the PCSSD recognizes this, in effect, by the very last part of its brief requesting this court to retain jurisdiction until \"enforcement of the Settlement Agreement\" is complete. Petit. at 44 n.5. See also LRSP y. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 1996) (in appeal involving state payments 3 examples evidencing this aspect of \"the law of the case.\" In the oft-cited December 1990 opinion, the Court of Appeals directed this court to approve the \"settlement plans and settlement agreement as submitted by the parties.\" LRSP v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1376. The court stated that it was \"important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to ... \" (.i.g. at 1386) and alluded, similarly, to the parties' \"scrupulously and diligently carry[ing] out the settlement plans and the settlement agreement .... 11 .Ig. at 1394. Lastly, the court \"instructed\" this court \"to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, [and] to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement .... \" .Ig. at 1394, para. 8; emphasis added. The appellate court in 1991 set forth standards governing modifications to the settlement documents. It stated that \"[t]he 1989 settlement ... should indeed be a benchmark for the future path of this case.\" Appeal of Little Rock school District, 949 F.2d 253, 255; emphasis added. The court wrote that \"[t]he desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments. The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed.\" I.g. at 256. Lastly, the court identified \"crucial\" \"elements of the 1989 plan\" \"with respect to which no retreat should be approved.\" .Ig. These include \"the agreed effort for workers' compensation claims and other matters, .court twice notes that PCSSD and LRSD .base their arguments on the terms of the Settlement Agreement). 4 to eliminate achievemel'}t disparity between the races\" and \"appropriate involvement of parents.\" .Ig. 3 Other pertinent guidance appears in the Court of Appeals' opinion concerning the PCSSD teacher strike issue. There, the court wrote that \"[t]he job of [this court] is to enforce the settlement agreement.\" Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 954. The court added: \"Because this case has been settled, the settlement agreement becomes, in a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties.\" .Ig. at 955. Two examples from this court's many rulings support the Joshua Intervenors' contention that the court-approved settlement documents provide, with regard to substantive terms, the \"benchmark [at this stage] of this case.\" As previously noted, this court in a lengthy May, 1992 order, containing no reference to Green, approved the various desegregation plans, as modified.' The court's understanding of the significance of the plan provisions emerges from the following excerpt from that ruling. Special Education (PCSSD) .... While the Court approves the addition of new language regarding the relationship between social 3 It is noteworthy that the seven elements as set forth by the court are a combination of activities designed to attain an objective (or goal) and objectives\\goals. 'This action rendered the defendants subject to the possibility of a contempt sanction for the violation of a plan provision containing specific obligations. See Transcript of hearing of July 6, 1995, at 176-77 (court refers to then pending hearing on intervenors' motion to hold officials of the LRSD in contempt for plan violations). 5 deprivation and disproportionality in special education, the original language regarding long-range goals must remain in order for the Court to monitor progress toward the goal of reducing achievement disparity between the races and reducing over representation of black students in special education classes. [Order, 5-1-92 at 7-8] This court's decision of September 23, 1996, denying a similar motion of the LRSD \"to end federal court jurisdiction,\" is also noteworthy. The court first addressed an LRSD contention that its commitment to implement \"the desegregation plan\" was limited to a six year period, assuming adequate implementation. The court rejected this contention, noting that \"[t]he LRSD ... cites no provision that its duty to comply with the settlement plans ends after six years, and the Court cannot find such a provision in the settlement plans. 11 At 11.; emphasis added. This court then quoted the portion of the decision in Appeal of Little Rock School District setting forth the \"crucial\" elements of the settlements, 949 F.2d at 256, and described the predicate for any termination of federal court jurisdiction, as follows. The LRSD asserts in its pleadings that it has substantially complied with its desegregation goals. In order to end federal court jurisdiction, the LRSD must provide evidence that it has substantially complied with the aforementioned elements insofar as they obligate the LRSD. Reports of ODM and other evidence received in hearings in this matter reflect that the LRSD has fallen short of its goals with respect to many aspects of the plan. Instead of presenting substantial evidence of its compliance with its goals as set forth in the plan, the LRSD submits arguments that it has achieved unitary status because data from the LRSD compares favorably with data from other districts which have been declared unitary. The Court would be inclined to .agree with the LRSD with respect to many of these arguments if the LRSD were not contractually bound by the plan which it voluntarily adopted. 6 The Court has encouraged the parties to consider modifying those parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable. The court has provided the parties with the testimony of experts to assist in the modification process. Instead, the LRSD has used the testimony of these experts to ask the court to end court jurisdiction without first proceeding with plan modifications. The Court cannot so easily relieve the district of its contractual obligations, [At 11-12; emphasis added] These comments establish in this very context the centrality of the plan provisions to which the PCSSD voluntarily agreed. Three other arguments made by the PCSSD warrant responses. The PCSSD seems to argue that at this advanced stage of the remedial phase of the case, the parties and the court can return to the PCSSD's view of the scope of the liability findings as set forth by the Court of Appeals prior to the parties voluntarily agreements. Petit. at 2-3, 6-7. As intervenors have shown, this approach involves a head on collision with much law of the case at this and the appellate level. This court, we respectfully suggest, can not set aside the many rulings of the court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, necessary to adopt this approach. The PCSSD seems to argue that the fact that the Delaware case involved eight particular \"ancillary factors\" means that those factors are properly a focal point in this case. Petit. at 34. This approach is unsound. Relief regarding those factors was identified as necessary, and ordered, to support the desegregation remedy in the particular circumstances of that case. coalition to save our Children Y, Board of Education, 90 F.3d 752, 757, 769 (3rd cir. 1996). This case has its own  7 ,. decrees, entered largely by consent. The decisions of the court of appeals and this court establish, in accord with the general rule, that these decrees, in this case, provide the \"benchmark\" for measuring compliance by the officers and agents of the PCSSD. Finally, intervenors note other efforts to elevate substantive standards employed in other cases above the specific remedial steps and goals agreed to by the PCSSD in this litigation. Petit. at 1, 25, 31, 35-36, 38-41. However, none of these other cases involved a consent decree, much less one with the terms extant in this litigation. 2. The Degree of Compliance to Be Required in Each Area Prior to the court's Relinquishing Jurisdiction a. The Appropriate source of Legal Principles The parties, as has been noted, agreed in the PCSSD and - Interdistrict Plans to terms governing the operation of many aspects of the educational program afforded in the PCSSD. the parties' agreement also allowed \"[this court] to retain jurisdiction to oversee ... [the] implementation (of the agreements].\" LRSD, supra, 921 F.2d at 1390. The parties' agreements did not, however, address the standards and procedures for the termination of court jurisdiction in any particular area, including the standards delineating the degree or extent of compliance to be required in an area prior to the termination of jurisdiction. As to these matters not addressed in the agreements, it is the position of the Joshua Intervenors that the standards normally govern~ng the termination of jurisdiction in a particular area, described below, are applicable. 8 In the first place, there is no reason to believe that the plans provided for endless court jurisdiction. The system, as shown by the current motion, would not desire such jurisdiction. More significantly, by 1989 the courts had decided that perpetual jurisdiction would be inappropriate. For example, in Freeman v . Pitts, 118 L.Ed.2d 108, 132-33 (1992), the court described the 1976 decision in Pasadena city Board of Educ. v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424. It noted the rationale of Spangler that a federal court in a school desegregation case has the discretion to order an incremental or partial withdrawal of its supervision and control. In resolving the teacher strike issue, the Court of Appeals identified the sources of law applicable in this case. Knight. supra, 112 F.3d at 954. The court referred to the settlement agreement, \"reasonable implication therefrom,\" and \"other applicable law.\" ,lg. Each of the latter sources of law supports the approach taken by intervenors. As the parties agreed to continued jurisdiction of the district court in traditional terms, 5 it is reasonable, absent explicit terms, to imply traditional terms to govern the court's exercise of that jurisdiction, when addressing the matter of termination of jurisdiction. With the parties silent on the matter, it seems eminently reasonable to draw upon the body of law normally utilized by courts considering the termination of jurisdiction, 5 compare Brown y. Board of Education, 349 u.s. 294, 299-301 (1955) with LRSD. supra, 921 F.2d at 1390. 9 namely, \"other applicable law.\"6 Two other factors buttress this approach. First, when the parties addressed the end of court supervision in some areas, they cited the principles set forth in Freeman y, Pitts. supra, a decision focusing on the termination of jurisdiction. See \"Stipulation for Order,\" Feb. 9, 1996. Second, when dealing with matters outside the substantive terms of t he agreements, the Court of Appeals has described this court's authority in traditional terms. LRSD y, PCSSD. supra, 921 F.2d at 1394, paras. 8., 9.; Appeal of LRSD. supra, 949 F.2d at 257 (nature of continuing jurisdiction), .ig. at 258 (standard for considering modifications). 7 6 These approaches reach the same result in different ways. In the first instance, intervenors suggest that the traditional concepts be viewed, by implication, as part of the agreement. In the second approach, intervenors argue, in effect, that the agreements are supreme as far as they go, with this court, which retains jurisdiction, supplementing the agreements, in areas not addressed, by reference to the traditional principles. See Restatement of contracts. second. sec. 204 (\"Supplying an omitted Essential Term\") (\"When the parties to a bargain sufficiently defined to be a contract have not agreed with respect to a term which is essential to a determination of their rights and duties, a term which is reasonable in the circumstances is supplied by the court.\") 7 See also LRSP y, PCSSP, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995) (traditional standard employed in considering modification of LRSD plan); LRSP Y, Arkansas, Slip Opin., Oct. 14, 1997, at 3-5 (propriety of reliance on a federal statute, 42 u.s.c. Sec. 1988, as to the availability of 'a fee award, an area like this one, not addressed in the agreements between the PCSSD and other parties). 10 b. The standard for Evaluating the Degree of compliance The Supreme Court set forth the standard for evaluating the extent of compliance in a school district seeking release from court jurisdiction in Freeman v, Pitts. supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 134-35. The Court wrote, in part (emphasis added): .... Among the factors which must inform the sound discretion of the court in ordering partial withdrawal are the following: whether there has been full and satisfactory compliance with the decree in those aspects of the system where supervision is to be withdrawn; .. [J  'The District court should address itself to whether the Board [hasJ complied in good faith with the desegregation decree since it was entered. and whether the vestiges of past discrimination [have] been eliminated to the extent practicable.' Board of Educ, of Oklahoma city v. Dowell, 498 U.S. ----(1991). see also Jenkins v, Missouri, 122 F.3d 588, 595-96 (8th cir. 1997) (quoting the foregoing portion of the Freeman decision); ,id. at 599 (\"As to the facilities factor, the district court found that certain court-ordered renovations remain to be completed. 959 F.Supp. at 1168. The district court did not err in requiring the terms of the court's decree to be completely fulfilled before relinquishing the ability to enforce compliance with the decree.\"); Pasadena city Board of Education y. Spangler. supra, 4271J.S. at 436, emphasis added (alluding to \"dispute as to the [district's] compliance with those portions of the plan specifying procedures for hiring and promoting teachers and administrators\"). The Joshua Intervenors relate these standards to the motion as follows. on the issue of degree of compliance, scrutiny must be given to two matters in each area addressed by the plans. 11 These are whether the ~CSSD has fully implemented, absent impossibility or the like, the various activities which it pledged to carry out to achieve objectives in that area .a.rul whether the configuration or make-up of students or staff, or the other target of the remedies, in that area, evidences achievement of the goals or objectives of the plans to the extent practicable. 3. The Burden of Proof Regarding Each Area In the Plans The matter of which party has the burden of proof regarding the areas of the system as to which the termination of court supervision is sought is another area not addressed by the parties' agreements. Based upon the same analysis, intervenors contend that the normal standards governing burden of proof in this phase of a school desegregation case apply. Under these standards, we submit, the PCSSD has the burden of proof to establish full compliance with the various steps set forth in the plans and to show that the plan goals have been fulfilled to the extent practicable. The general rule is that a school district has the burden of establishing the predicate for the termination of court jurisdiction in one or more areas of the case. Freeman v. Pitts, 118 L.Ed.2d 108, 137 (1992); 9 see also Wedo not suggest that these areas be viewed in isolation. The status of the activities is most important where the configuration of students or staff, as relevant, continues to reflect a racial pattern. '\"The school district bears the burden of showing that any current imbalance is not traceable, in a proximate way, to the prior violation.\" 12 United States Y, Fordice, 120 L.Ed.2d 575, 599 (1992) (higher education). 10 More generally, assignment of this burden to LRSD is consistent with the standards for allocation of the burden of proof set forth by the supreme Court in Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 208-10 (1973). In Keyes, a school desegregation case in which segregation had not been required or permitted by state law, the Court identified instances in which Denver school authorities had the burden of proof. For example, proof of intentionally segregative actions in a substantial part of the system was held to establish a prima facie case that actions having a segregative effect in other parts of the system were also motivated by race. See 413 U.S. at 208-09. 11 The Court explained the basis for this rule as follows: \"This burden-shifting principle is not new or novel. There are no hard-and-fast standards governing the allocation of the burden of proof in every situation. The issue, rather, 'is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.' 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence 2486, at 275 (3d Ed 1940).\" See 413 U.S. at 209. -The court then cited several situations in which considerations of \"policy and fairness\" had 10 \"Brown and its progeny, however, established that the burden of proof falls on the State, and not the aggrieved plaintiffs, to establish that it has dismantled its prior de jure segregated system. Brown II, 349 U.S. at 300. \" 11 \"In that circumstance, it is both fair and reasonable to require that the school authorities bear the burden of showing that their actions as to other segregated schools within the system were not also motivated by segregative intent.\" See 413 U.S. at 209. 13 been held to support a requirement that school authorities explain actions or conditions. See 413 U.S. at 209-10. Considerations of \"policy and fairness\" warrant allocating to PCSSD the burden of showing compliance with the terms of the settlement before the termination of the court's jurisdiction. The school district obviously has superior access to personnel and data, as well as greater resources, in. terms of personnel, to compile materials. The district's counsel, through its highest administrators, can request the lead personnel in each area to compile data and materials, if any there be, designed to show that the specified remedial steps have been undertaken and that goals have been attained to the extent practicable. This court seemingly adopted this approach when ruling on the earlier LRSD motion. It referred to the LRSD \"provid[ing] evidence that it has substantially complied and Order, May 1, 1992, at 11.  11 Mem. Opin. The PCCSD acknowledges having the burden of proof on the so-called Green factors. Petit. at 37. However, based upon its reading of the decision in the Delaware case, coalition to Saye Our Children. supra, the PCSSD argues that the burden of proof rests with the Joshua Intervenors as to any other areas where the relinquishment of jurisdiction is opposed. Petit. at 37-38. This argument is based upon an erroneous interpretation of the Delaware decision and again ignores the content of the courtapproved agreements in this case. The opinion in the coalition case discusses three areas of 14 district operations. These are the areas covered by the so-called Green factors (90 F.3d at 761-69, 776); eight so-called \"ancillary factors, as to which a \"1978 order of [the] court required the implementation of eight specific programs ancillary to the 9-3 pupil assignment plan\" (at 769-76); and \"certain performance disparities\" in the areas of achievement, special education and dropout rates, neither among the Green factors, nor covered \"in the ancillary relief order ... \".Ig. at 776. With regard to burden of proof as to termination of court supervision, the appellate court wrote: \"We emphasize that here we are not discussing the burden of proving compliance with the Green factors or the 1978 Order, as to which the school districts acknowledge bearing the evidentiary burden. Our discussion here, and our allocation of the burden of proof to [the Coalition] is limited to the issue of proving that the identified performance disparities are vestiges of de jure segregation.\" Ig. Thus, in the Coalition case, the court allocated the burden of proof to the plaintiffs only in areas not covered by a court order. Here, in contrast, the Joshua Intervenors' concerns, in their entirety, including as to achievement and special education, involve activities addressed in detail in the agreements, which the district has been ordered to implement, by reason of this court's approval of the plans. In sum, the Coalition decision is supportive of the intervenors' approach regarding burden of proof. 15 1 ' I i :1 c. Application of the Governing Standards to the Areas Addressed by the Plans, Including but Not Limited to Those Addressed in the Pesso Petition The Joshua Intervenors next discuss the various areas of the operation of the PCSSD which are addressed in the Petition. In keeping with the controlling legal standards, intervenors focus upon the specific activities which the PCSSD promised to undertake in the agreements, as well as th.e stated goals (objectives). Comments are made about the statistics presented (or not presented) in some instances. 12 Lastly, as appropriate, intervenors note distinguishing factors regarding the decisions cited by the PCSSD. 1. The Assignment of students. Including within Schools The PCSSD submits data on student enrollment, by school, - which is impressive, when considered in isolation. However, the system's showing in this area is incomplete for several reasons. 13 First. The petition is silent as to the plans of the PCSSD regarding student assignment, if supervision in this area is ended. One basis for jurisdiction to continue in an area is when this \"is necessary or practicable to achieve compliance with the 12 The PCSSD approach regarding statistical data varies. There is at times data by school; at times aggregated data, not showing the pattern by school; and at times no data. 13 Intervenors note ODM's conclusion, based upon its interpretation of the agreement, that in 1996-97, eight elementary schools and two secondary schools in the PCSSD \"[fell] outside the target for racial balance.\" see 1996-97 Erollment and Racial Balance in the LRSD and the PCSSD, ODM, Dec. 18, 1996, at 13, 14. 16 decree in other facets of the school system; -\" Freeman v. Pitts. supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 135. Based upon the content of the plans, intervenors raise concerns infra about access to programs and the quality of school facilities available to class members. Intervenors and the court need to be informed about PCSSD's future plans for student assignment to know how they interact with these, and possibly other areas. 14 Second. The total failure of the petition to discuss the topic of the assignment of class members within schools is a major shortcoming. This issue is not the subject of either text, or statistics. In its 1990 decision, the Court of Appeals alluded to comments made by the intervenors' lead counsel, as follows: \"As one of the counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wisely remarked - during the oral argument, it is important which schools students attend, but it is also important what kind of education they receive after they get there. LRSD. supra, 921 F.2d at 1385. The PCSSD desegregation plan contains considerable content regarding assignment within schools. It addresses \"classroom racial balance\"; \"ability grouping,\" including its possible elimination; talented and gifted programs, including at the 14 In the Interdistrict Plan, the PCSSD agreed to cooperative efforts with the LRSD with regard to interdistrict schools (in both districts) and magnet schools (in the LRSD). Attach. at 11. The case file shows that the LRSD is not seeking the termination of jurisdiction at this time. The court and the intervenors need to know the PCSSD's future plans regarding the magnet and interdistrict schools, in particular, to assess the impact on the LRSD plan. The fact that three school districts joined in agreements may ~ead to the need to craft some special rules at the time when the limiting of the court's jurisdiction is proposed. 17 secondary level; \"honors and advanced placement courses\"; and \"advanced core curriculum courses.\" Attach. at 11-14. The plans provide for the gathering of data, the identification of any problems, and the crafting of solutions, if need be. Attach. at 6 I 12  We do not suggest that the PCSSD must provide a novel-length explanation of its implementation of the plan and the current configuration in each of these areas. However, to meet its burden, the PCSSD should be able to provide some statistical data, by school and race, as well as evidence of its carrying out of the specified activities. Citations to documents generated over time would often allow verification of the assertions made, if verification is possible. Failing such an approach in this and other areas, there is no guarantee that the plan provisions have been more than simply verbiage. 2. Transportation The resolution of this area must await resolution of the student assignment area. In the absence of information about future plans as to assignment to schools and data about access to enriched programs, one must speculate to address this area. 3. Personnel. Including Qualifications The Petition sets forth data regarding three areas. These are \"certified secondary staffing\" (by school but without a breakdown by category), \"principals and assistant principals\" (aggregate data), and \"central office.\" At 17-30. While the results cited are clear1y  positive in nature, they do not in view 18 . - of the full sweep of the commitments undertaken (Attachment at 9-10) warrant the relinquishment of jurisdiction. The existence of these commitments also distinguishes this case from others to which the PCSSD alludes. Petit. at 25. The PCSSD pledged that \"[a]enrollment levels of the organization will reflect a desegregated staff .... 11 Attach. at 9. The shortcomings in the PCSSD presentation are as follows: First. Data for certified staff should be provided by category, by school, so that it is possible to determine the extent to which black and white pupils are exposed to black faculty members, the staff members with whom students spend the majority of the school day. Second. The plan provides that the PCSSD \"shall staff each school with at least one minority administrator  11 Attach. at 10. The petition identifies, for 1996-97, 33 black principals and assistant principals and 37 schools. At 11-13, 27. Therefore, there is a need for a chart showing the number of administrators by school and by race to allow evaluation of the fulfillment of this objective. Third. The plan pledged efforts to desegregate several categories of staff, for which no data is now provided. These are \"support staff\"; the \"Special Education Department\"; \"facilitator\" in the Talented and Gifted Program; and \"coaches and band directors.\" Attach. at 9-10. Inclusion is important in each of these areas. For example, the support staff are often the first staff members to greet parents. Their make-up, therefore, 19 . - seems related to the central goal of promoting parental involvement. Data for these areas should allow a determination of whether there has been any progress over time. Fourth. The PCSSD made promises regarding staff qualifications, generally, and, in schools offering the compensatory program. The latter pledges were more specific. Attach. at 10. This area, an important one_ in a plan emphasizing educational quality and the narrowing of the achievement gap, is ignored. 4. co-curricular and Extracurricular Activities The PCSSD voluntarily agreed to more than three pages of provisions concerning these areas. Plan at 68-69, 76-77; ID Plan at 6; see also Attach. at 4-5. Under the law of the case, - citation to decisions dealing with systems without such commitments does not suffice to establish a basis for termination of the court's role. Intervenors note the following specific shortcomings in the presentation on this topic: First. The PCSSD has yet to submit the promised supplementation in the \"co-curricular\" realm. Petit. at 33. As the plan provides for a goal for each school (Attach. at 4), the data should be school-based. The providing of data for more than one year, as was done in the case of certified staff, will be necessary to permit a determination of whether any progress has been made over time. Should the data show \"minority underrepresentation\" in the past, the PCSSD should provide 20 ,. evidence that the affirmative steps promised by the plan (Attac "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1683","title":"Court filings concerning PCSSD's amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants, ODM, ''Report on the Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Monitoring of the School Districts in Pulaski County'', and Joshua Intervenors notices of deposition for receivership of Southwest Junior High School","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Joshua Intervenors","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Lawyers","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","Education and state","School integration","School districts","School administrators","Southwest Junior High School (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning PCSSD's amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants, ODM, ''Report on the Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Monitoring of the School Districts in Pulaski County'', and Joshua Intervenors notices of deposition for receivership of Southwest Junior High School"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1683"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["106 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion; District Court, three orders; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants; District Court, order; District Court, seven notices of deposition; District Court, notice to take deposition upon oral examination; District Court, memorandum of Joshua intervenors in support of their emergency motion concerning attorneys' fees; District Court, response to motion to quash deposition; Court of Appeals decision 96-2047; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, motion to supplement record; Court of Appeals, supplemental appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al.; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Report on the Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Monitoring of the School Districts in Pulaski County''; District Court, order; District Court, joint motion for extension of time; District Court, three orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION f;lED U.S. DISTRICT COURT ':A STF.RN DISTRl(:T ARKANSAS 1' 0-[~\"-' :..',. /J\" 1i 997 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK 3v: __.. - }\u003eL--A-l'ld'f'ffi'~  ..,n .. .u~~LERK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court for an order directing the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to provide for the record a listing of all monitoring reports which it has issued during the past fifteen months, or is in the process of issuing ( with the expected date of such report) involving the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. This motion is made because: a) there have been no monitoring reports issued by ODM and received by the Joshua lntervenors involving these two school districts during the period that the Court has granted leave to the Little Rock School District to utilize the ODM in a nonmonitoring, advisory capacity; and, b) because it is necessary to have the benefit of such monitoring reports by the ODM in aid of Joshua's presentation regarding the anticipated evidentiary presentation of the PCSSD during the hearing before the court scheduled for March 23, 1998. The Joshua Intervenors observe that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit directed the creation of ODM and set forth the expectation that monitoring would be vigorous, continuous, purposeful and plan directed to enable contemplated implementation of the Settlement Agreement. The authority for this motion is the Eighth Circuit's several Opinions directing monitoring and - enforcement of the settlement plans. This motion is being made also because there is a general impression among some members of the Joshua class that the Court monitoring is not being directed toward protecting the interests of the class and is being directed toward promoting minimum compliance or developing excuse for noncompliance of, by and from the districts with the Court approved plans. There is no prejudice to any party by the requested relief Respectfully submitted, By: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 /J:k?l k. ~ Jo ~er, Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon all counsel of reco:g~ placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid, on this - day of December, 1997. 9:ftl~~ John W. Walker IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. , Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT AR'\u003cANSAS DEC O 5 1997 Before the Court is a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors requesting that this Court direct the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (uODM\") to provide for the record a listing of all - monitoring reports which it has issued during the past fifteen months or is in the process of issuing in regard to the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. 1 Whenever ODM issues a monitoring report, it has been this Court's practice to make that report a part of the record in this case. However, this Court will grant the Joshua Intervenors ' current request. By copy of this Order, ODM is hereby directed to provide for the record a listing of all monitoring reports that it has issued during the past fifteen months or is in the process of issuing. 11\\__ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 5= day of December 1997. 1 Docke! No. 3081. rHIS DOCUME!NT ENTERED ON DOCK\u0026 SHEET IN OOUPUAHCE WITH AUL~ 71(8) FRCP ~ ,'UD'Y1 IY_~_ ct:: __ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * FILED U.S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT AR'\u003cANSAS DEC O 5 1997 JA~ES W. iMcCO~ACK, CLERK vs. * * * * * * * * * * * By._ \\ '~ I\\ 7_, \\I\\, '\" No. LR-C-82-866 oeP CLERX PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., In tervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. ORDER Before the Court is a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") requesting that this Court convene a hearing involving the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"), and Joshua in order to review the circumstances said to exist at Southwest Junior High School. 1 Joshua requests that this Court, upon appropriate findings, determine that it is necessary to have the school placed in receivership or in the hands of a specially designated authority other than the present principal of the school. The time for filing a response to this motion has passed, and the LRSD has not filed a response. This motion was filed during the time in which the Court suspended monitoring of the LRSD in order to allow the LRSD to develop proposed modifications to the desegregation plan. By requesting that this Court place Southwest Junior High School in receivership, Joshua has requested a drastic, equitable remedy. Throughout the history of this case, this Court has never placed a school into receivership. After reviewing Joshua's motion and brief in support, 1 Docket No. 3038. 08 this Court concludes that the facts as presented by Joshua do not justify the appointment of a receiver to take over the operations of the school. Therefore, Joshua's motion is denied. ft IT IS SO ORDERED THIS --!:\u003e- \"-day of December 1997. rHtS OOCUM8'T ENTERED ON OOCt(\u0026l SHEET IN OC'AIPU~ WITH RULE  AN00R 79(a) FRCP JN lHXi!J..7_ av _vr-___ _ 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Iritervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARl(ANSAS DEC O 5 1997 By previous Order and in response to a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors, this Court directed the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") to provide for the record a listing of all monitoring reports that it has issued during the past fifteen months or is in the process of issuing. Attached to this Order is a letter this Court received from ODM in response to the Court's request. The Clerk is directed to file this Order and the attached letter, thereby making the letter a part of the record in this case. _?\\..__ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS ~ ') aay of December 1997. rntS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COAAf\u003eUANCE WITH RULE 56 ANOIOR 79(a) FRCP ON /,_:]. ,/S/-91 BY _,lt ___ _ 084 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas - Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor December 5, 1997 Judge Susan Webber Wright U. S District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright : 201 East Markham, Suite 51 0 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 I am happy to provide the requested list of the monitoring reports ODM has issued during the past 15 months, even though, as the Court has noted, those reports are already a matter of record. To the list of filed repons, I am pleased to add those which we are currently in the process of researching and writing, along with the approximate date of publication. The list attached by no means encompasses nor reflects the extensive activities and tremendous amount of work this office has done during the last 15 months. As you are aware, issuing monitoring reports is only one of the many ways in which ODM monitors and otherwise carries out the duties of this office. cki~ Ann S. Brown Enc. cc: All Counsel - ODM Monitoring Reports Issued Since July 1996 ~ Subject July 12, 1996 LRSD incentive schools July 31 , 1996 Elementary school facilities in the NLRSD December 18, 1996 Double funding of the LRSD incentive schools December 18, 1996 Enrollment and racial balance in the districts May 7, 1997 Budgets of the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCS SD June 4, 1997 LRSD incentive school extended year program Target Date December 1997 January 1998 January 1998 February 1998 February 1998 March 1998 March 1998 ODM Monitoring Reports In Progress SuQ.iect ADE's monitoring of the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD Enrollment and racial balance in the districts Student achievement in the PCSSD Secondary school facilities in the PCSSD Secondary staffing in the PCSSD Student discipline in the PCSSD Student participation in extracurricular activities in the PCSSD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEJlfED DEC S 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S REPLY TO ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S \"AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AS TO STATE DEFENDANTS The PCSSD for its reply to the ADE's response states: 1. First, the PCSSD agrees with the ADE conclusions set forth at paragraph 2 of its response dated December 2, 1997. Accordingly, in revised calculations which appear infra, the PCSSD has deducted 2.9 hours for Sam Jones and 1.5 hours for Angell Jones in respect of the petition for rehearing. 2. The PCSSD agrees in part with ADE' s contentions regarding time spent defending the appeal. In reviewing the time records submitted with the December 2, 1996 Affidavit, the PCSSD has identified the following time entries, all for Sam Jones, which relate to work on that appeal: .8 5/8/95 .8 6/21/95 .6 6/26/95 .5 8/4/95 .1 . 8/9/95 2.9 11/15/95 Reducing this total by 1/3 results in subtracting an additional 1.9 hours from Sam Jones. However, the PCSSD disagrees that any reduction should accompany the oral argument. The travel time to St. Louis and the argument itself were not affected by the fact that three issues as compared to two were involved in the appeal. 1 Accordingly, the PCSSD has not reduced the time spent travelling to and arguing before the Court of Appeals. 3. The PCSSD disagrees with the ADE's conclusions regarding the affidavit and supporting time records. Contrary to the State's assumption, most of the time was spent regarding the final review and editing of time records spanning three years. It is simply a fact that reviewing, separating and then reassembling time records limited to two or three subjects is a tedious and time consuming matter. Particularly since the PCSSD is submitting no time or claim for the most recent work done in preparing the amended petition, the Court should accept the summary set forth in paragraph 4 below. 4. Having made the additional deletions as described in paragraphs 1 and 2, the revised claim is as follows: Timekeeper M.S. Jones C.S. Hancock A. Jones _ B. Benjamin V. Bryant J.D. Thompson M.A. Gocke A. Haguewood L. Hudson D. Compton J.H. Sorn 1994 $13,824.00 $ $ 654.50 31. 50 $ 2,020.50 $ 65.00 $ 30.00 $ 32.50 $ 20.00 1995 $ 6,936.00 $ 132.00 $ 1,281.50 $ 735.00 $ 181.50 1996 $ 4,655.00 $ 4,263.00 $ 75.00 $ 104.50 $ 600.00 1The 2.9 hours reflected on November 15, 1995 was the entry for preparation for oral argument. Thus, the preparation time has already been reduced by one-third. SUBTOTAL $16,678.00 $ 9,266.00 $ 9,697.50 TOTAL FEES 1994-1996: $35,641.50 CONCLUSION For the reasons previously explained, and as supplemented herein, the PCSSD prays for a total fee award of $35,641.50 to which post-judgment interest at the current federal rate should attach. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By __ -,,,'--+-----'~.._ ____ _ M. Att 76060) for aski County District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December 1 , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FILED U.S. OIST\"ICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT A~'\u003cANSAS IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEC O 8 1997 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * :~ESJ . ~~A~ 2~K DEP CLERK-\u003c... Plaintiff, * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVEP DEC 9 1897 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER By previous Order dated December 5, 1997, this Court denied a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") requesting that this Court convene a hearing to review the circumstances said to exist at Southwest Junior High School and determine that it is necessary to place the school in receivership. 1 In that Order, this Court inadvertently indicated that the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") had failed to respond to the motion. For the record, this Court wishes to clarify that the LRSD did file a response in opposition to the motion. 2 After reviewing that response, this Court reaffirms its initial decision to deny the Joshua Intervenors' motion. I(_, IT IS SO ORDERED THIS g day of December 1997. 1 Docket No. 3083. 2 Docket No. 3044 and Docket No. 3045. A 71I / ,f '!\" ,y1 ;;1 Oi,. V l4h .lt';Jii: ONITEDST'A TES DISTRIC J OGE rHtS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET s+-IEET IN COMPLIANCE \"?'~::VLE 58 ANOt'OA 79(1) FACP ON lco/fa _y_ IY ...f..S ::-.._ __ ...., 085 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS 01r'.r\" .\\\"\\i'i\": lu\"'C, DESEGREGAilON ,iOi'!110R\\NG PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Dr. Leslie Carnine, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on Tuesday, December 16, 1997 @ 1:00 p.m. at the law offices of JOHN W. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. ... . : CBRTIJICM'B QI SBRVICB I do hereby state that a copy of united States mail on this 10th day counsel of record. sent via IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Dr. Don Roberts, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on Tuesday, December 16, 1997 @ 2:30 p.rn. at the law offices of JOHN w. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. CBRTifICATB or SBRVICB I do hereby state that a copy of United States mail on this 10th day counsel of record. via IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. TO: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John w. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Margaret Gremillion, at the place and time identitied below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on Wednesday, December 17, 1997@ 9:00 a.m. at the law offices of JOHN w. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. .. :- .;.... . .:.-':.-... ... .. ~ . ~  .  ~ ... ::. . ---.. . . f . v' ,' .. .  + CBRTilICATB or SBRVICB I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was sent via 4t United States mail on this 10th day De~ember, 1 97 to all counsel of record. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. TO: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John w. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Brady Gadberry, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on Tuesday, December 17, 1997 @ 10:00 a.rn. at the law offices of JOHN w. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. cuiri;xcli'1i' :or' sERVIcB . . I do hereby state tha~ a'\" c~py of United states mail on this  10th .day of counsel of record.  via IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Sadie Mitchell, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on Tuesday, December 17, 1997 @ 11:00 a.m. at the law offices of JOHN w. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. '  A ... , -~.  CBRTIFICATB or SBRVICB I do hereby state that a copy of  the _foregoing was sent via United States mail on this 10th day 6 ecem r , . 997 counsel of record.   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. TO: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Nancy Acre, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on Wednesday, December 17, 1997@ 1:30 p . m. at the law offices of JOHN W. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206.  .. ~. , ~::,,:l~J:C,..~V~ ~' ~ :'--~~~~t,'.::~}= ;n. ~ . ~ ~,~:\\.'-:I't.~~ . . ~: :- -~- .. . . . . ~' ,~ ~ -!'~\\.. ,.-.;.,;.t.1:  :,~~ . ..,.. '\\',~ ',,- ...  .  QBR'l'IJIQATI QP SBRVICB I do hereby state that a copy of United States_ mail oh this 10th day f counsel .. of record.   via IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Dr. Richard Hurley, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on Tuesday, December 17, 1997 @ 2:30 p.m. at the law offices of JOHN w. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. ... .. . ..,;,  .   .,.  .. \\   .,. t.,,  ~  .  \"\" : .,-,\\~. :..:.. ;1' .'i. . CBRTilICA'l'B or 'SBRVICI  ..?~t't~ {~~ ~,~I~i\u003e.4  I do hereby state that a copy of th~ foregoing was sent via United States mail on this 10th day  counsel of record. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION F'l-~~~'!},ED . - q \\~. L . TO: John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 l\u003cl- 1 5 1997 Orr/CE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING This will notify you that on December 16, 1997, commencing at 9:30 a.m., at the office of FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK, 2000 First Commercial Building, 400 W. Capitol, Little Rock, Arkansas, the plaintiff in this case will take the deposition upon oral examination of Bonnie Brown or current Joshua class representative for the Little Rock School District before a duly qualified Court Reporter. Ms. Brown or current Joshua class representativ~ for the Little Rock School District is requested to bring to the deposition documents in- her possession pertaining to the position of the Joshua Intervenors with respect to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The deposition upon oral examination will be taken pursuant to and in accordance with Rules 26 and 30 of the Federal Rules of civil Procedure. You are invited to attend and cross- - examine. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By:-=:~ ChristopherHell Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice To Take Deposition has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 10th day of December, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 - 2 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 --- 3 FILED U S DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU~sTE.RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEC 1 2 1997 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NO. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED DEC l 5 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JAMES w. rpr9QfM1''r}.-f LrnK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENOR Memorandum of the Joshua Intervenors in Support of Their Emergency Motion Concerning Attorneys' Fees This memorandum supports the emergency motion of the Joshua Intervenors concerning the payment of attorneys' fees to the these intervenors by the LRSD. It is designed to supplement that motion. The motion draws upon the authority of the court to interpret the agreement of the parties, to modify the agreement of the parties in appropriate circumstances, and to provide for interim awards of attorneys' fees. The intervenors assume, for the purposes of the motion, the existence of the limitation on the intervenors' ablity to secure fee awards against the LRSD, found to exist by this court in September 1996. The motion seeks the recognition of an entitlement to fees on two grounds. First. Intervenors contend that their work regarding the LRSD's motion for the approval of a Revised Plan, which includes a request to relace and extinguish the current LRSD and Interdistrict Plans, is outside the terms of the agreement urged by the LRSD and found by the court. See 1 Motion, para. 9. Second. Intervenors contend in effect that the court has the same ability to consider modifications of the fee agreement as it has, on motion of the LRSD, to consider modifications of the substantive terms of the current, multiple plans. In Appeal of LRSD, 949 F.2d 253, 258 (1991), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, set forth the standard applicable to requested modifications of a consent decree as follows: We find the Sixth Circuit case of Heath v. Decourcy. 888 F.2d 1105 (6th Cir. 1989), instructive on this issue: To modify [a) consent decree[], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in it original decree which impedes achieving the goal, either because experience has proven it less effective [or) disadvantageous, or because circumstsnaces and conditions have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree. A modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties. Id. at 1110. Later, in LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995), the court wrote as follows: A party seeking modification of a consent decree 'must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree.' Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992). If the moving party meets this burden, the District Court must then determine 'whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances.' Id. at 391. The modification 'must not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation,' nor strive to rewrite a consent decree so that it conforms to the constitutional floor.' Ibid. In its memorandum in support of the Revised Plan, the LRSD quotes from the decision in Jacksonville Branch NAACP v. Duval County School Board, 978 F.2d 1574, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992) as follows: \"Modification [of a consent decree) may be considered 2 when. (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has a legitimate interest to be considered.\" The modification sought is consistent with these formulations of the relevant standard. As set forth in the motion, the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors have had to engage in an extraordinary amount of work over a seven year period, much of it due to poor compliance by the LRSD. Motion, para. 7, 10. The LRSD motion envisions that the Revised Plan would be in effect for at least three years beginning eight months hence, i.e., with the start of the 1998-99 school year. LRSD Revised Plan at 16. It is obvious that much additional work by intervenors' representatives will be necessary, not only in connection with the consideration of the Revised Plan, but also in connection with its implementation if it is adopted (or with the current plans if it is not). There is another important consideration. The portion of the Settlement Agreement concerning attorneys' fees contains the following provision: \"The parties are also satisfied, upon a review of their own time records and costs in this litigation over the last five years, that the payment [the settlement amount] is fair and reasonable and consistent with the payments made over that period of time to counsel for the other parties\" [Part v., explanation and emphasis added]. When it reviewed and approved the settlement, the Court of Appeals held the figure to be reasonable in terms of the past work performed in a 34 year 3 period. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1392 (8th Cir. 1990). Intervenors' noted in their fee petition of November 21, 1995, that counsel for the LRSD had been paid for 7,261.55 additional hours on this case through August 1995 and counsel for the NLRSD 3302 hours through April 1995. In addition, counsel for the PCSSD had been paid for hours throughout the postjudgment period, but the number was unknown. Affidavit of J. W. Walker at 10-11. In brief, the extraordinary number of hours required and the LRSD poor record of compliance contributing to that fact, the continuing need for work in the LRSD, and the additional, and continuing, payments to all counsel for the other parties are reasonably interpreted as a changed circum "},{"id":"uwg_phc_barnard19971201","title":"Oral history interview with Doug Barnard, 1997 December 1","collection_id":"uwg_phc","collection_title":"Georgia Political Papers and Oral History Program","dcterms_contributor":["Steely, Mel","University of West Georgia. Georgia Political Papers and Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Barnard, Douglas"],"dc_date":["1997-12-01"],"dcterms_description":["Douglas Druie Barnard, Jr. was born in Augusta, Georgia in 1922, where he went to school before earning an A.B. degree from Mercer University in 1943. He served in the United States Army from 1943-1945, and then returned to Mercer, where he obtained his law degree in 1948. Barnard entered the banking industry after college, and served as executive secretary to Governor Carl E. Sanders from 1963-1966. He was a delegate to the 1964 Democratic National Convention and was elected to represent the 10th district in Congress in 1976. Barnard's major emphasis in Congress was on banking reform and he tried repeatedly to revamp banking laws with little success. He left Congress in 1993 and currently lives in Augusta.; Interviewed by Mel Steely on December 1, 1997 at the University of West Georgia.; Barnard starts the interview by discussing his childhood in Augusta, Georgia, and talks about his parents' professions and his education. He talks about what he remembers about life during the Great Depression when he was a child; he said his family had to scratch and save in order to maintain themselves. He says that he went to Mercer because his parents were against him going to the University of Georgia. After the outbreak of World War II, Barnard went through several hoops only to end up discharged in Fort Benning, when he decided to go straight into law school. Upon graduation, he decided to get employment with the Georgia Railroad Bank and Trust. He brings up the domination of his community by a clique called the \"Cracker Party,\" which he said was not good for them. Barnard then transitions into a discussion on the politically independent party. Barnard then spends a great deal of time discussing his time with Carl Sanders and his tenure as Sanders' executive secretary. He answers questions about his relationships with and opinions on other Georgia politicians, then begins talking about his election for Congress."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Carrollton, Ga. : University of West Georgia Special Collections in association with the Digital Library of Georgia"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Georgia Political Papers and Oral History Program oral history interviews. Annie Belle Weaver Special Collections, Irvine Sullivan Ingram Library, State University of West Georgia"],"dcterms_subject":["Georgia--Politics and government--1865-1950","Georgia--Politics and government--1951-","Legislators--Georgia--Interviews","United States. Army","Georgia Institute of Technology","Mercer University--Alumni and alumnae","National Independent Party (U.S.)","Georgia Railroad Bank and Trust Co.","United States. Montgomery G.I. Bill","Augusta (Ga.)","Segregation","Banks and banking--United States","Banks and banking--Georgia","Depressions--1929","Richmond County (Ga.)","World War, 1939-1945"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Doug Barnard, 1997 December 1"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of West Georgia. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/uwg/phc/do:barnard19971201"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/id:uwg_phc_barnard19971201"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: [interview title], Georgia Political Papers and Oral History Program oral history interviews. Annie Belle Weaver Special Collections, Irvine Sullivan Ingram Library, University of West Georgia"],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)","moving images"],"dcterms_extent":["2 interviews : (circa 120 mins.; circa 78 mins.)"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Barnard, Douglas--Interviews","Barnard, Douglas","Arnall, Ellis Gibbs, 1907-1992","Callaway, Howard H. (Howard Hollis), 1927-2014","Carter, Jimmy, 1924-","Lance, Bert, 1931-2013","Maddox, Lester, 1915-2003","Roberts, Ray, 1913-1992","Russell, Richard B. (Richard Brevard), 1897-1971","Sanders, Carl, 1925-2014","Talmadge, Herman E. (Herman Eugene), 1913-2002","Vandiver, S. Ernest (Samuel Ernest), 1918-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_jad_768","title":"Photograph, 1997 Nov. 28, of Mattie De Laine, Joseph A. De Laine, Jr., Ophelia De Laine Cona, Brumit De Laine, and other family members","collection_id":"suc_jad","collection_title":"Rev. Joseph A. DeLaine Papers ca. 1918-2000","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1997-11-28"],"dcterms_description":["Photo of 90th birthday celebration for [Mattie DeLaine]; corresponding letter identifies individuals, including Mattie, Joseph Jr., and Brumit De Laine, Ophelia De Laine Cona, and other family members."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Legal size - 13439 - (Folder 30)","Joseph A. DeLaine Papers"],"dcterms_subject":["De Laine, Mattie Belton--Pictorial works","De Laine, Joseph A.--Pictorial works","Gona, Ophelia De Laine--Pictorial works","De Laine, Brumit--Pictorial works"],"dcterms_title":["Photograph, 1997 Nov. 28, of Mattie De Laine, Joseph A. De Laine, Jr., Ophelia De Laine Cona, Brumit De Laine, and other family members"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.tcl.sc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/jad/id/768"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright Not Evaluated. For more information contact the South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208."],"dcterms_medium":["photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_jad_jad768","title":"Photograph, 1997 Nov. 28, of Mattie DeLaine, Joseph A. DeLaine, Jr., Ophelia DeLaine Cona, Brumit DeLaine, and other family members","collection_id":"suc_jad","collection_title":"Rev. Joseph A. DeLaine Papers ca. 1918-2000","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1997-11-28"],"dcterms_description":["Photograph of 90th birthday celebration for Mattie DeLaine on November 28, 1997. A corresponding letter identifieds individuals in the photograph, including Mattie, Joseph Jr., and Brumit DeLaine and Ophelia DeLaine Gona and other family members.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Rev. Joseph A. DeLaine papers, ca. 1918-2000."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Legal size - 13439 - (Folder 30), Joseph Armstrong DeLaine papers, ca. 1918-2000,  South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbus, South Carolina."],"dcterms_subject":["African American women","African American families","Birthdays","Dwellings"],"dcterms_title":["Photograph, 1997 Nov. 28, of Mattie DeLaine, Joseph A. DeLaine, Jr., Ophelia DeLaine Cona, Brumit DeLaine, and other family members"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.tcl.sc.edu/digital/collection/jad/id/768"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["photographs"],"dcterms_extent":["image/jpg","Images"],"dlg_subject_personal":["De Laine, Mattie Belton, 1907-1999","De Laine, Joseph A. (Joseph Armstrong), 1933-","De Laine, Brumit Belton, 1937-","Gona, Ophelia De Laine, 1936-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"ere_c18_51300","title":"Ella Elizabeth Tyson Harris oral history interview, November 3, 1997","collection_id":"ere_c18","collection_title":"African American History","dcterms_contributor":["Ruffin, Carrie"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, 35.50069, -80.00032"],"dcterms_creator":["Harris, Ella Elizabeth Tyson"],"dc_date":["1997-11-03"],"dcterms_description":["Interview with Ella Elizabeth Tyson Harris an African American educator in Greenville, N.C. who taught French at C. M. Eppes School (1967-1968), black studies and history at J. H. Rose Senior High School (ca. 1970), and is currently a school administrator at J. H. Rose. Harris discusses her education, her career as an educator, and African American history in Greenville. The interview took place at J. H. Rose High School in Greenville, N.C. Interviewer: Carrie Ruffin. Field notes and critique of the interview also available."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Education--North Carolina--Greenville","African Americans--North Carolina--Greenville--History","African American school administrators--North Carolina--Greenville","African American teachers--North Carolina--Greenville","African American women--North Carolina--Greenville","School integration--North Carolina--Greenville","Teachers--North Carolina--Greenville--Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["Ella Elizabeth Tyson Harris oral history interview, November 3, 1997"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["J.Y. Joyner Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.lib.ecu.edu/51300"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This item has been made available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Researchers are responsible for using these materials in accordance with Title 17 of the United States Code and any other applicable statutes. If you are the creator or copyright holder of this item and would like it removed, please contact us at als_digitalcollections@ecu.edu."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Harris, Ella Elizabeth Tyson"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":433,"next_page":434,"prev_page":432,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":5184,"total_count":81557,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1915},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2771},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":145},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}