{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47891","title":"[Rosa Parks at the White House with President Bill Clinton after receiving the 1996 Presidential Medal of Freedom, Washington, D.C.] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996-09-14"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff.","\"Official White House Photo 14Sep96\"--printed on back of photograph."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"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":["Forms part of: Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers (Library of Congress)."],"dcterms_subject":["Presidential Medal of Freedom"],"dcterms_title":["[Rosa Parks at the White House with President Bill Clinton after receiving the 1996 Presidential Medal of Freedom, Washington, D.C.] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47891"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use digital image. Original served only by appointment because material requires special handling. For more information, see (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/info/617_apptonly.html)","Publication may be restricted. For general information see \"Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers...,\" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/689_park.html)"],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc","portrait photographs1990-2000.gmgpc","group portraits"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Clinton, Bill, 1946-","Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1310","title":"Proceedings: ''Temporary Restraining Order''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-09-10"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School employees","School administrators","School management and organization","Teachers","Employee rights"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Temporary Restraining Order''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1310"],"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":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["36 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcri_bcri-ohpc_37","title":"Kathleen Bunton","collection_id":"bcri_bcri-ohpc","collection_title":"Birmingham Civil Rights Institute Oral History Project Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996-09-06"],"dcterms_description":["Kathleen Bunton discusses growing up working the family farm before getting involved with ACMHR, attending mass meetings, and working on voter registration. Her mother was also involved in the Movement and was arrested for her efforts."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Alabama--Birmingham","Farming","Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights","Voter registration"],"dcterms_title":["Kathleen Bunton"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Birmingham Civil Rights Institute (Birmingham, Ala.)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://bcriohp.org/items/show/37"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1651","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee/appellant Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1996-09-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee/appellant Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al."],"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/1651"],"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":["84 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Joshua, Lorene"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  SEP 5 1996 Office of Desegregation Monlicnn~ Michael E. Gans, Clerk U.S. court Of Appeals, 1114 Market Street st. Louis, MO 63101 of Court Eighth Circuit 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 September 3, 1996 Re: Little Rock School Dist. v. Servicemaster Management Services, No. 96-2047EALR Dear Mr. Gans, Enclosed for filing are the original and 9 copies of the brief o~ the Joshua Intervenors (appellees\\appellants). Sincerely, cc: all counsel I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 96-2047EALR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLANT v. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.P. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. APPELLEE Ilic APPELLEE~ _ .. APPELLANT Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF OF APPELLEE\\APPELLANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Bob Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1, Summary and Reguest for Oral Argument Long after this court in 1990 directed the entry of a fresh order providing for the dismissal of the State (but not the local systems) from this litigation, the LRSD's appeal calls for this court to consider the meaning\\implications of the robust version of continuing jurisdiction provided for by this court in 1990. This court must also consider, with regard to the LRSD motion denied below, the implications of the district court's finding of poor implementation by LRSD, a finding amply supported by the record. The contract issues presented by LRSD involve the application of basic principles of contract interpretation. Such principles call for a different result than the one reached below. Oral argument is warranted, given LRSD's request for a directive that the litigation be dismissed with prejudice. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Appeal of Little Rock Sch. District, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991) 6, 15-16 Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) 1, 13, 15 Continental Bank and Trust Co. v. American Bonding Co., 630 F.2d 606 (8th Cir. 1980) 17 Klein v. Arkoma Production Co., 73 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 1996) 17 Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) passim Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School Dist., 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) 14, 15-16 Press Machinery Corp. v. Smith R.P.M. Corp., 727 F.2d 781 (8th Cir. 1984) 18 Raney v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 443 (1968) 13 st. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 113 s.ct. 2742 (1993) 14 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (1971) 15 Tasby v. Estes, 643 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1981) 12 Union National Bank v. Federal Nat. Mort. Assoc., 860 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988) 19 United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 395 U.S. 225 (1969) 15 Wright v. City Council of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451 (1972) Other Authorities Restatement of Contracts, Second, Sections 202(1), 203(a) 15 1, 18-19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS summary and Request for Oral Argment Table of Contents Table of Authorities Issues Presented on Appeal Statement of the Case A. LRSD's Motion for Dismissal B. The Servicemaster Contract Argument A. The District Court's Denial of LRSD's Motion Dismissal with Prejudice Should be Affirmed for 1. It is Plausible to Construe This Court's 1990 Decision as Not Applying the Provision for Dismissal of the Case as to the Local Districts i ii iii 1 1 1 11 12 12 12 2. If the District Court, in Substance, Rejected a Belated Effort to Implement a Portion of the Settlement Agreement, That Action Was Not an Abuse of Discretion in View of the Evolution of the Case Since 1990 15 B. The Court Erred in Applying Principles of Contract Conclusion Addendum Release as to State Order of Dismissal, Dec. 15, 1989 Order, Jan. 18, 1991 Statement of Judge Wright to LRSD Counsel and Board, March l9, 1993 Transcript Excerpts, March 29, 1993 Transcript Excerpts, June 7, 1994 Transcript Excerpts, June 29, 1994 Excerpts from ODM report, May 17, 1995 Law 17 19 1 5 6 8 16 22 30 40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Issues Presented on Appeal (1.) Whether, in 1990, this court in fact approved, as to LRSD, a provision for dismissal with prejudice of this civil action and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors. * Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) (2.) Whether, alternatively, the district court's denial in 1996 of the motion for dismissal with prejudice was, in view of the evolution of the case since 1990, an appropriate exercise of the court's broad discretion. * Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, supra, 921 F.2d at 1386, 1394 * Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299-301 (1955) (3.) Whether the district court erred in interpreting the contract between the LRSD and Servicemaster Management Services and in declaring the interpretation urged by the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors to be inconsistent with public policy. * Restatement of Contracts, Second, Sections 202(1), 203(a) Statement of the Case A. LRSD's Motion for Dismissal In 1988 and 1989 the parties agreed to settle this desegregation case concerning three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. They presented to the district court separate, detailed, desegregation plans for the three systems, a lengthy interdistrict plan, and a 36-page \"settlement agreement\" 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I resolving the financial liability of the State of Arkansas. 1 Four releases were attached to the settlement agreement, one pertaining to each of the three local school systems and one regarding the State and its agents. A difference in the text of the two categories of releases is noteworthy. The releases pertaining to the LRSD, the NLRSD, and the PCSSD contained the following identical provision (emphasis by use of capitalization and parenthetical explanations added). 2 It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 et al., No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including but not limited to, [identification of other cases applicable to the system] (the 'Litigation') is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the [name of local system] and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. THIS DISMISSAL IS FINAL FOR ALL PURPOSES EXCEPT THAT THE COURT MAY RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ADDRESS ISSUES REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLANS. The release regarding the State and its agents did not include the language regarding the retention of jurisdiction. It read as follows: It is further understood and agreed thast the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1. et al., No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (the 'Litigation') is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the Arkansas State Board of Education and the former and current 1 See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir. 1990). 2 See LRSD Addendum, at 13, 17, 21. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I members of that Board named in the Litigation. 3 Thereafter, the parties appealed to this court the district court's rejection of the five agreements. At the outset of its opinion, this court characterized its resolution of the parties' challenge to the district court's action, as follows. We now reverse the judgment of the District Court. In general, we direct that Court, on remand, to approve the settlement plans and settlement agreement as submitted by the parties. We also make certain other directions for the future of the case. This court discussed the standards governing its review of the parties' settlement. See 921 F.2d at 1383-85, 1388-89. On the one hand, the court emphasized the importance of the parties' agreement and the public policy in favor of settlements. Id., at 1383, 1388. The court also recognized, however, its responsibility to insure that the agreements were not \"unfair to class members ... ,\" or ones inconsistent with the \"[court's] strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in an ongoing equitable decree which is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face.\" Id., at 1383. This court's 1990 opinion emphasized the district court's important responsibilities and its considerable authority and discretion. This language, quoted below, casts doubt on whether this court in fact approved the \"dismiss[al] with prejudice\" of 3 See Joshua Add., at 2.  See Little Rock School District, supra, 921 F.2d at 1376. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I this and the related civil actions as to the LRSD (and NLRSD and PCSSD). This text is as follows: 921 F.2d at 1383 This does not mean that a court must automatically approve anything the parties set before it. In the present case, for example, any remedy will necessarily require some judicial supervision -- monitoring, at least -- for a long time. A court has a strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in an ongoing equitable decree which is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. In addition, this is a class action, and courts are not obliged (indeed they are not permitted) to approve settlements that are unfair to class members, or negotiated by inadequate class representatives. 921 F.2d at 1386 The district court was concerned about the lack of sufficient detail in the plans to guarantee successful implementation. The answer to this concern lies, we think, in the fact, upon which we place a great deal of weight, that the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring. Indeed, such monitoring by the District Court and its agents is essential. It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to -- and here we have in mind especially the kind of programs that the plan contemplates for the incentive schools -- and it will be the job of the District Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. 921 F.2d at 1388 As indicated above, this does not mean that the parties will be free of supervision or monitoring. Quite the contrary: a necessary condition of our holding that the plans are not facially unconstitutional is that the parties' compliance with them will be carefully monitored. As we shall make clear at the conclusion of the opinion, when we set out the directions to be followed by the District Court on remand, the office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, to be headed by a Monitor appointed by the District Court, with such additional personnel as the District Court shall deem appropriate. 921 F.2d at 1390 .. We accept these undertakings [of the districts], 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I again with the reminder that compliance with them will be closely monitored. If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. As the parties agree, the settlement agreement implicitly authorizes the District Court to retain jurisdiction to oversee its implementation. See 14 App. 3466. 921 F.2d at 1394. para. (8.) The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. 921 F.2d at 1394. para. (9.) .. The parties should be able to agree as to whether any such adjustments [for purposes of transition to the new plans] are necessary, and, if so, what they should be. Absent such agreement, the District Court is authorized to take such action as may be just. [explanation added] This court's \"actions\" (921 F.2d at 1394) also addressed explicitly the \"settlement plans,\" the \"settlement agreement,\" and the provision, set forth without qualification, for dismissal of the State and its agents from the litigation. The court directed the district court, on remand, \"to approve\" \"the settlement plans submitted by the parties\" and \"the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" See 921 F.2d at 1394. This court also specified [921 F.2d at 1394, para. (5.), emphasis added] that [i]n Nos. 90-1165, 90-1166, and 90-1167, the District Court's order of December 11, 1989, is reversed, and the order of December 15, 1989, is vacated, with instructions to enter a fresh order dismissing the State as a party pursuant 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement. 5 There was no comparable provision regarding LRSD, NLRSD, or PCSSD. In an order of January 18, 1991, the district court (the Honorable Susan Webber Wright) addressed certain of this court's directives. Judge Wright, inter alia, ordered that \"[t]he state of Arkansas is dismissed as a party to this action pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.\" Joshua Add., at 7. She added that \"[t]he parties' settlement agreement is hereby approved as written by them\" (id.) and paraphrased this court's description of her responsibilities and authority as the case unfolded on remand. Id. In Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991), this court addressed the contention that the district court had employed erroneous legal standards in considering the parties' agreed upon modifications of the settlement. This court concluded that the district court had erred, articulated standards to be used in considering the requested modifications, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the decision. This court added: \"We ask the District Court, to the extent practicable, to give this matter priority on its docket\" (949 F.2d at 258) phraseology seemingly inconsistent with the notion that this case had been or should have dismissed as to the 5 This court referred to the entry of \"a fresh order\" because on December 15, 1989, Judge Henry Woods had, by order, \"dismissed [the State defendants] with prejudice from this case, the cases consolidated herein and their predecessors .... 11 Joshua Addendum, at 5. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I local defendants and the Joshua Intervenors. On November 30, 1995 -- 4 years and 10 months after Judge Wright had provided for the dismissal of the State defendants, the LRSD, alone, filed a \"Motion for Order of Dismissal\" seeking an order dismissing this case with prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD as of January 18, 1991, except to the extent the court retains jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or the desegregation plans. [LRSD App., at 35-36) LRSD did not in its motion or supporting memorandum explain to the court and the parties how, if at all, the conduct of the litigation would change if the motion were granted, whether effective January 18. 1991 as requested, or upon the date of the district court's order. See LRSD App., at 34-43. 6 On March 11, 1996, the district court denied LRSD's motion, reasoning as follows (LRSD Add., at 8-9, emphasis added): Let there be no mistake that, with the entry of the settlement agreement, the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter. The Court finds, however, that no useful purpose would be served by entering an order of disnmissal at this time. The Court of Appeals has instructed this Court 'to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.' Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreements (although some improvements have been made). Therefore. the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and 6 No such explanation is offered here, despite the fact that the Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to LRSD's motion below noted LRSD's silence about its perceived effects. LRSD App., at 56-57. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years. the logistics and complexity of this case are such that this court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering an order of dismissal at this time. The court's earlier statements and reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), created by order of this court, provide ample support for the court's finding about LRSD'~ poor implementation of the settlement. We next provide examples from the record supportive of the court's finding. Judge Wright directed that LRSD's school board members appear in court on March 19, 1993, at which point she \"read the riot act\" to them, beginning as follows (Joshua Add., at 8): .... The Court does not believe that you understand those orders, or if you do understand them, you do not seek to comply. Hopefully, after this morning, you will have an understanding; but whether you do or do not, you must comply. This court has been too lenient with you. The Court has given you ample leeway and opportunity to move toward a unitary school system. Those days of Court leniency and the assumption by the Court of good faith on your part are over. The court's March 19, 1993 statement, encompassing eight pages (Joshua Add., at 8 - 15), provided considerable evidence of failings in the LRSD. The court, for example, noted that it would \"appoint a budget officer to be paid by the [LRSD], who [would] be a part of the [ODM] and who [would] operate under the direction of Ann Brown [ODM Director].\" lg., at 11. This would be done because \"it became increasingly apparent that the [LRSD] could not or would not develop a budget sufficient to identify 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I expenditure of desegregation funds.\" Id., at 10. 7 The district court also provided \"a reminder of some of the provisions of the Plan or Court orders that [LRSD had] yet to fulfill,\" citing 21 examples. Id., at 13 - 15. On March 29, 1993, Judge Wright made the following comments to the lawyers for the parties (Joshua Add., at 18, 20-21): And just letting you as the lawyer for the district work this out with Joshua and the ODM will not help me instill in your Board the importance of starting a process whereby they consider the ramifications of their own actions and whereby they focus on the plan. They must be driven by this plan. The plan has to drive their actions and that has not been happening, clearly. * * * I feel that in dealing with the district that the Court has had to to ask the district at every turn where is this, where is that. You promised this under the plan, where is it? And the district kind of says, oh, yeah, we do need to do this, un-huh. But they drag their feet, and they don't have a plan in place to focus and they don't have a process in place to focus on what needs to be done to fulfill their obligations. And I have waited long enough and I'm tired of waiting .. On June 7, 1994, the district judge alluded to the need to depend upon action by many LRSD employees, in the context of again criticizing the quality of the system's implementation efforts (Joshua Add., at 22, 23-24, 27). THE COURT: I want to inject something right now. I hope that you are right, that people are there ready to, as you 7 The court further explained (id., at 13): \"A budget officer to assist the School District is just a 'make work' situation.\" No, it is not; that is patently false. The Court cannot determine how you are spending your money to achieve desegregation. Your administrators do not know. Your lawyers do not know. And you do not know. If the LRSD were a corporation, I would put it in receivership. By the way, do not think that I have not considered that with regard to LRSD.\" 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I put it, collaborate with the LRSD. I'm willing to assume that that's correct. What I cannot assume is that the LRSD will put in motion the efforts to, in fact, collaborate. The district talks a good game, but a lot of times, doesn't have anyone accountable for putting its promises into action, and we have seen this repeatedly in this case and it's an inherent defect of the Desegregation Plan. The Plan made a lot of promises, but didn't make any one department or person or officer officially accountable, and that's the reason people like you have to be here because nothing was being done. And we are getting things a little more in motion .... * * * THE COURT: Well, that sounds good, but I need to know with some specificity who will do it, when they'll do it, where they'll do it, who the targets are, what the means will be, because so far in this case, it has been difficult to get an organization as big and cumbersome as you school district to coordinate itself to meet these visions you have. I think they're great visions. I mean, no one can say that's a poor idea. I think it's a wonderful idea .... * * * THE COURT: Well, saying that you can do this and saying that that you will do it is not going to be enough in this courtroom any more. You're going to have to say specifically in some detail what you will do, when you'll do it, whom you'll contact and what have you .... 8 This court provided for the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to gather and report facts, therby facilitating and strengthening the district court's monitoring efforts. LRSD's incentive schools, identified by this court as a pivotal part of the settlement (921 F.2d at 1386 ), have been a focus of ODM's monitoring. In its report of May 17, 1995, concerning the incentive schools, ODM concluded (Joshua Add., at 8 See also Joshua Add., at 30-39 (deficiencies in LRSD's performance described by the court at a hearing on June 29, 1994). 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40-44): This year, we found none of the programs that we monitored being fully implemented at all five schools. Beginning with the first ODM incentive schools report in 1991-92, we have pointed to the glaring inconsistencies among the schools. As the number of incentive schools has dwindled from seven to five, the inconsistencies have grown rather than diminished. With four of the five principals being newly assigned this year, and two of them being brandnew principals, it is no wonder that some programmatic offerings have been slighted as the new principals tried to deal with the challenges posed by incentive schools, while adjusting to new jobs as well. In many areas, we were disheartened to see a retreat from the prior level of program implementation .... [details re particular programs omitted] [At 34) In many ways our fourth annual visit to the incentive schools was the most discouraging review we have conducted. While we saw many positive and commendable aspects, we also saw problems and deficiencies that were entirely avoidable and correctable. The LRSD has had a sufficient amount of time to successfully implement the promised programs. These schools were designed to serve as models of instructional excellence, but that level of quality has not been realized throughout. Instead, too many aspects of these schools serve as an object lesson that promises made, but not kept, are meaningless. Successfully implementing the incentive schools programs is not an impossible task by any means. With solid leadership. competent staff, consistent support, and the will and determination to 'be the best,' all these schools can be the high-guality centers of learning they were pledged to be. [At 36; emphasis added] In summary, as of the time of the LRSD's motion, the district court had an ample basis for concluding that LRSD had not \":scrupulously and diligently carr[ied] out the [relevant portions of] the settlement plans ... \" (921 F.2d at 1394), including the provisions regarding the incentive schools. B. The Servicemaster Contract With the exception of expressing the view that the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors agreed to a settlement of intervenors' 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I motion concerning the Servicemaster contract, the intervenors accept LRSD's factual statement regarding this contract. See LRSD Brief, at 4-5. Argument A. The District Court's Denial of LRSD's Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice Should Be Affirmed 1. It Is Plausible to Construe This Court's 1990 Decision as Not Applying the Provision for Dismissal of this Case as to the Local Districts This court is, of course, the best judge of the meaning of its 1990 decision and the specific directives to the district court. 9 It is plausible, we respectfully submit, to construe this court's 1990 decision as not applying the provision for \"dismiss[al] [of this litigation] with prejudice as to the LRSD .\" and its agents. Several factors support this alternative argument. First. This court did not simply state that it approved the settlements. Rather, it cited the responsibility to insure their consistency, facially, with minimum constitutional standards (921 F.2d at 1383) and approved the agrements \"[i)n general\" and subject to \"certain other directions for the future of the case.\" See 921 F.2d at 1376. Second. This court directed the entry of an order dismissing the action agaiamst the State and its agents (921 F.2d at 1394); no similar action was required as to the local systems. 9 See Tasby v. Estes, 643 F.2d 1103, 1106 (5th Cir. 1981) (deference to district court on the standard of compliance established by its own order); Little Rock School District, supra, 921 F.2d at 1391-92 (construing earlier decision in this case). 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Third. This court's description (quoted above) of the district court's future role is hardly consistent with a dismissed case. In the light of five, detailed settlement documents, this court obviously foresaw an active role for the district court -- and, indeed, even required the creation of ODM to facilitate that effort. Fourth. This court may have viewed the key paragraph of the releases quoted above as containing contradictory concepts10 and opted for continuing jurisdiction as necessary to meet the minimum constitutionaal standards to which it alluded. 11 Fifth. This court may have construed the key paragraph of the releases - - by use of the words \"may retain jurisdiction ... \" -- to allow the courts to choose the retention of jurisdiction (i.e., a continued open status), if deemed necessary for the court to conclude that the settlement was lawful. See 921 F.2d at 1390.12 Lastly, we reiterate our point about this court's descrip~ion of the status of this case during a later appeal. See supra at 6. To be sure, our suggested approach may involve some tension with the directive that on remand the district court should \"approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" 10 That is, this case shall be dismissed, this case shall not be dismissed. 11 E.g., Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299-301 (1955); Raney v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 443, 449 (1968). ~ \"As the parties agree, the settlement agreement implicitly authorizes the District Court to retain jurisdiction to oversee its implementation. See 14 App. 3466.\" 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 921 F.2d at 1394, para. (6.). 13 It sometimes happens that all of the content of an opinion resolving a complex matter does not fit neatly together. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 113 s.ct. 2742, 2752-53 (1993). If there is tension, or inconsistency, we respectfully suggest that ours is the best reading of the totality of the 1990 opinion. 14 Intervenors' alternative approach does not leave LRSD without the benefit of its bargain. Rather, the case continues to be deemed open, as realistically it is; 15 and LRSD and the other districts are free to argue that any particular matter (or claim) raised by the Joshua Intervenors is ouside the ambit of the ongoing litigation. That is, the case remains open; its nature is somewhat changed.\" 13 There is no such issue, if the agreement \"as written by [the parties]\" is construed by reason of the phrase \"may retain jurisdiction\" to allow the courts to choose a continuing open status rather than dismissal. 14 The decision in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992), regarding the provision about millages (see LRSD Brief, at 7-9), is factually distinguishable. That issue did not involve an instance of either differing strands in this court's 1990 opinion approving the settlement, or a provision of the settlement open to multiple interpretations. 15 The docket excerpts included in the LRSD Appendix (at i to xv) include, for example, 155 entries from August 31, 1995 through April 30, 1996. 16 It is unclear to intervenors what the district judge meant by stating that \"the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter.\" LRSD Add., at 8. The court, there, did not refer to dismissal of the litigation with prejudice. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. If the District Court, in Substance, Rejected A Belated Effort to Implement a Portion of the Settlement Agreement, That Action Was Not an Abuse of Discretion in View of the Evolution of the Case Since 1990 It may be, depending upon this court's interpretation of its 1990 ruling, that the district court's denial of the motion is accurately characterized as rejecting a part of the \"settlement agreement\" -- at least temporarily.n If so, that action was not an abuse of discretion given the facts of which the district court was aware when it ruled in 1996, and the non-final nature of its ruling. The Supreme Courts's emphasis on the role of district courts in desegregation cases began with Brown v. Board of Education. supra, 349 U.S. at 299-301. This theme was often repeated thereafter by the high court, which emphasized the need to rely upon the informed discretion of the district courts, the judicial bodies most familiar with the facts of each case.~. United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 395 U.S. 225, 227, 235-36 (1969) (noting that on at least one occasion the district court had \"on its own motion, amended his outstanding order ... \"); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educ., 402 u. S. 1, 28 (1971); Wright v. City Council of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451, 470-71 (1972). 18 n The district court wrote that dismissal \"should be deferred\"; the court declined to approve dismissal \"at this time.\" LRSD Add., at 9, 10. 18 In this case, this court has followed the Supreme Court's lead, emphasizing the need for reliance on the district court, as well as that court's discretion. See Little Rock School District. supra, 921 F.2d at 1394, para. (8.); Appeal of Little Rock School 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Turning to the action giving rise to this segment of the appeal, the district court faced a motion seeking dismissal of this litigation in 1995 and 1996, at a point when it had been confronted with and commented upon LRSD's inadequate implementation of the settlement, also evidenced by the work of ODM. The situation, then, was different in a very significant sense from 1989-1990 when this court had considered the facial validity of the settlement. See 921 F.2d at 1383-84. The district court's ruling was based upon \"the facts\"; the court took \"appropriate [action] . to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement .. \"See "},{"id":"gsg_1121-100_0116","title":"Groundbreaking Ceremony at the Civil Rights Museum","collection_id":"gsg_1121-100","collection_title":"W.W. Law Photograph Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Chatham County, Savannah, 32.08354, -81.09983"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996-09-05"],"dcterms_description":["Color photograph of a ceremony at the Civil Rights Museum. A sign has just been unveiled."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["1121-100, W. W. Law Photograph Collection, City of Savannah, Research Library \u0026 Municipal Archives, Savannah, Georgia"],"dcterms_subject":["Museums--Georgia--Savannah","Signs and signboards--Georgia--Savannah","Historic buildings--Georgia--Savannah"],"dcterms_title":["Groundbreaking Ceremony at the Civil Rights Museum"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["City of Savannah Municipal Archives"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://savannahga.pastperfectonline.com/photo/74D712C9-6745-4204-B5C9-729915102322"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["Courtesy of City of Savannah, Research Library \u0026 Municipal Archives"],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1658","title":"Court filings concerning enforcement of the settlement agreement with the state, motion for asamicus curiae concerning the Servicemaster contract, PCSSD's motion seeking equitable relief, and LRSD final program and planning and budgeting tool for 1996-97 and September program","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Joshua Intervenors","Knight Intervenors","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School facilities","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning enforcement of the settlement agreement with the state, motion for asamicus curiae concerning the Servicemaster contract, PCSSD's motion seeking equitable relief, and LRSD final program and planning and budgeting tool for 1996-97 and September program"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1658"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["52 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to respondent Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) ''amendment and supplement'' to its second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the state; District Court, motion for temporary restraining order; District Court, brief in support of motion for temporary restraining order; Court of Appeals, motion to strike certain portions of the Joshua intervenors' appellee/appellant's brief; District Court, Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, brief in suopport of Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to motion for temporary restraining order; District Court, brief in opposition to motion for temporary restraining order; District Court, motion for enlargement of time; District Court, motion of the Joshua intervenors to be heard asamicus curiae concerning the Servicemaster contract issue; District Court, motion for hearing; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to Knight, et al., response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) supplemental motion for costs and attorneys' fees as to the state defendants; District Court, brief in further support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) supplemental motion for costs and attorneys' fees as to the state defendants; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees; District Court, motion for order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) final program and planning and budgeting tool for 1996-97 and September program and planning and budgeting tool; Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, motion to intervene by the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)  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. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRYANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; FORT SMITH SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST MEMPHIS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ALTUS-DENNING SCHOOL DISTRICT; ASHDOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT; BARTON-LEXA SCHOOL DISTRICT; BATESVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; BIGGERS-REYNO SCHOOL DISTRICT; BLACK ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRIGHT STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; BRINKLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT; CENTERPOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CLARENDON SCHOOL DISTRICT; COTTON PLANT SCHOOL DISTRICT; CUTTER MORNING STAR SCHOOL DISTRICT; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INT ERVEN ORS SEP 5 1996 Office of Dss~regation Mcrn1Grn1~ DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOLLARWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT;  -------r FOREMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT; FOUNTAIN LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT; GILLETT SCHOOL DISTRICT; GLEN ROSE SCHOOL DISTRICT; GUY-PERKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT; HOXIE SCHOOL DISTRICT; JONESBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT; KIRBY SCHOOL DISTRICT; LAVACA SCHOOL DISTRICT; LEWISVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MAGAZINE SCHOOL DISTRICT; MALVERN SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAMMOTH SPRING SCHOOL DISTRICT; MANILA SCHOOL DISTRICT; MAYNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTHEAST ARKANSAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; ODEN SCHOOL DISTRICT; OZ~..RK SCHOO~ DISTRICT; PLAINVIEW-ROVER SCHOOL DISTRICT; POCAHONTAS SCHOOL DISTRICT; PRAIRIE GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT; SOUTH CONWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; SPRING HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT; STAMPS SCHOOL DISTRICT; STEPHENS SCHOOL DISTRICT; TURRELL SCHOOL DISTRICT; VAN BUREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT; WATSON CHAPEL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WEST FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT; WHITE HALL SCHOOL DISTRICT; WINSLOW SCHOOL DISTRICT; WONDERVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT; and YELLVILLE-SUMMIT SCHOOL DISTRICT BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS PCSSD'S \"AMENDMENT INT ERVEN ORS AND SUPPLEMENT\" TO ITS SECOND MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE PCSSD adopts and incorporates by reference its brief dated August 5, 1996 which was served in support of its response to ADE's motion to dismiss or have this court abstain from considering PCSSD's second motion to enforce settlement agreement with the State. The PCSSD has no sericus quarrel with the State's description of the \"status of Lake View II\" as set forth at page 2 of the State's brief. The State's Exhaustion Argument Simply stated, the new minimum salary law, an unfunded mandate, substantially interferes with the PCSSD's ability to desegregate by requiring, absent a temporary waiver, the shifting of scarce resources away from instructional activities and desegregation related activities into a salary structure1  This law was imposed without regard, apparently, to the publicly known financial circumstances of the PCSSD and without regard to the fact that the PCSSD is one of four school districts in the state which collectively bargains with it~ certified employees. Thus, whatever policy considerations might underpin the passage of the minimum salary law elsewhere in the State, those policy reasons could not apply in the PCSSD where the District and the union have historically agreed (admittedly, often after much rancor) upon a salary schedule for all certified employees. 1The main thrust of the relief sought by the PCSSD on this issue is for the State to provide the funds for compliance with the law. This is not a case about administrative remedies. In any event, any waiver that could be obtained by the PCSSD is limited to two years. The impact of the minimum salary law will be into the next century at a minimum. That the passage of the minimum salary law substantially interferes with the PCSSD's ability to desegregate was amply demonstrated on August 19, 1996 when the teachers in the PCSSD went on strike. Simply put, to the extent that the existence of the minimum salary law was a key component of the dispute which led to the strike, it \"substantially interfered\" with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate. For a further amplification of this cause and effect scenario, the PCSSD respectfully incorporates by reference the proceedings had in this Court on August 28, 1996, the ruling which issued at the end of those proceedings, and the motion and brief filed by the PCSSD on August 27, 1996. Because the granting of a waiver would only postpone the legal issues and the effects of the minimum salary for a maximum of two years in the context of a case that has been ongoing since 1982, the PCSSD respectfully submits that the minimum salary law issue should be considered in tandem with the other issues raised by the respective PCSSD motions to enforce the settlement agreement. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the relief sought by State defendants be denied and that under the particular circumstances 3 of this case, that abstention should not lie. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ; \"11 ' M. SamELlones III (76060) Atta~ eys or Pulas i County Speci' 1 hool District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 3 , 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons of record:. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. o. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 4 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP O 6 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: --------- DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. REC ,V .. SEP 1996 DEFENDANTS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS Office of Desegregation Monitonn~ BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. INIERVENORS MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Knight, et al. Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL LAW FIRM, for their Motion, state on information and belief: 1. On Thursday, August 29, 1996, the court held a hearing on the Motion of PCS SD for Injunctive Relief with regard to PACT and those of its members who were then engaged in a strike against the District over pay and other related issues. This hearing was commenced upon approximately fifteen (15) hours notice to counsel for the Knight, et al. Intervenors. 2. At the conclusion of the hearing, citing desegregation obligations of the District and PACT in addition to contractual obligations of PACT to the District as contained in the Master Contract between those parties, the Court ordered the teachers back to work on Tuesday, September 3, 1996. Further, the Court ordered PACT and the District to mediate the disputes between them before Mr. Gus Taylor, Chief Conciliator of the United States Department of Justice. 3. As ordered, the teachers returned the work on September 3, 1996, and on September 4, 1996, began the mediation process with Mr. Taylor. Schools were closed by the Board August 19-23; August 26-27; August 29-30. 4. It was clearly the intent of the Court's Order requiring mediation that the parties should mediate in good faith and without retaliation by the District against those teachers engaged in the strike. 5. Despite the Order of the Court for the teachers to return to work which undercut any negotiating position they may have had, the following relevant events have taken place since the order was delivered from the bench: (a) The District has engaged in pay practices which docked three days pay for every classroom teacher regardless of their circumstances on the first regularly scheduled payday. The District has announced actions to dock each classroom teacher regardless of their circumstances for five to seven (5-7) days in the second regularly scheduled pay period which means that there is a potential for many of the District's teachers on that payday to actually owe the District money. (b) The District has docked the pay of classroom teachers who crossed the picket line and worked on the one day that the board voted to hold school open. 2 ( c) Classroom teachers on paid leave of absence were docked the same number of days as teachers who were out on strike. Teachers on paid disability leave were docked the same pay as regular classroom teachers in spite of the fact that they did not participate in the strike. (d) At least one teacher on paid administrative suspension pending termination hearings was docked the same as other classroom teachers. (e) On the other hand, psychological examiners; speech therapists; support staff; and building level administrators were not docked any pay and no docking of pay is planned for the next regularly scheduled pay period. (f) The District is violating the master contract between the parties with regard to pay when schools are closed. For instance, the master contract does not provide for teachers to get their pay docked for such closures of school as inclement weather and the District did not dock pay after the 1988 Strike. (g) Not only are the actions with regard to docking pay contrary to the court's intent in its ruling from the bench, but also, the actions of the District in docking pay of classroom teachers is clearly retaliatory in nature contrary to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (h) The District has made an administrative decision that all makeup days will occur at the end of the school year and it did not alter the twenty-six (26) pay periods set forth in the Master Contract 3 6. The actions of the District seriously jeopardize the success of the mediation process and the successful implementation of the District's Desegregation Plan. 7. AH the Data phase factors for Preliminary Relief are in favor of PACT. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors pray that the court order an immediate hearing and, following said hearing, to make such temporary and permanent orders and rulings as will protect the integrity of the mediation process; protect the classroom teachers of the District from retaliation for the exercise of their constitutional rights; uphold their master contract; grant them attorney's fees; and all other relief to which they may be entitled. 4 ~ctfully submitted, '---~ I~ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on September 6, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 5 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard W. Roachell 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. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SEP O 6 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ------D~E...,..P . ...,.C-LE=R-K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INIERVENOR.5 INIERVENOR.5 INIERVENOR.5 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER It is clear that the actions of the School District in docking teachers' pay is contrary to the Court's intent in its ruling from the bench after the hearing of August 29, 1996. Teachers' pay was not docked subsequent to the teacher strike of 1988. Furthermore, the master contract between the parties provides that there shall be twenty-six (26) pay periods during the school year and provides no docking of pay provisions for any circumstances such as inclement weather or other incidents or other circumstances that may interrupt the school year. Even though the Court undercut the bargaining position of the teachers by ordering them back to work, the teachers did honor the Court's Orders and have returned to the bargaining table with Mr. Taylor as mediator. This mediation process which the Court clearly intended to resolve the issues between the parties is severely threatened by the District's retaliatory action against select members of the teacher union in an effort by the District to crush the union or render it ineffective by creating economic hardship among its members. The- events that have taken place and the disparate impact of the docking of pay of the classroom teachers show that the District is bent not upon settlement of the division between the parties and healing the riff between them, but rather to punish the classroom teachers who will now have to wait until the end of the school year to receive their pay. The District did not change the twenty-six (26) period pay provisions of the master contract. Further, that some teachers at the next pay period may actually owe the District money creates such economic hardship with its attendant morale problem in the classroom teachers that the successful implementation of the District's Desegregation Plan may be irreparably harmed. Finally, the rights of freedom of speech and association guaranteed to all citizens of this country, including public employees, has been violated by the District's retaliatory action. To remedy this situation, the Court should, temporarily and permanently enjoin the District from deviating from its normal pay practices without singling out any sub-group of PACT for docking of pay; grant them attorneys fees and all other relief to which they may be entitled. 2 ~tfully submitted, ~~.C)__J__ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on September 6, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 3 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCB Y Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 ~.~ Richard W. Roachell RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT SEP 1 0 1996 Off ice of Desegregauon Morntonng LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 96-047EALR SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.P. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN PORTIONS APPELLANT APPELLEE APPELLEE OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS APPELLEE/ APPELLANT'S BRJEF ServiceMaster Management Services L.P. (\"ServiceMaster\"), for its motion to strike certain portions of the brief filed by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") states: - ... -.,... ___... .... ~ 1. Joshua requested in a letter filed with the Court dated August 21, 1996, that it be heard with respect to \"argument one\" of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Brief as an appellee and that it be heard with respect to \"argument two\" of the LRSD Brief, which involves ServiceMaster, as an appellant. 2. ServiceMaster filed a response to Joshua's Motion on August 23, 1996, whereas ServiceMaster objected to Joshua's request that it be heard as an appellant with respect to argument two of the LRSD Brief. 3. On August 23, 1996, the Court granted Joshua's motion for an extension of time within which to file a brief as an appellee, and the Court denied, without prejudice, ServiceMaster's response, subject to renewal when the brief by Joshua is filed if circumstances warrant. 624\\MOTSTRIK.909 1 4. The brief filed by Joshua is titled: \"Brief of Appellee/Appellant Mrs. Lorene Joshua, ET AL.\" In addition, in its Brief, Joshua took the position of an appellee and appellant. 5. The following references are made in the Joshua Brief with respect to ServiceMaster: Issues Presented on Appeal, Issue number 3, page 1 of the Joshua Brief; Statement of the Case, Part B, page 11-12 of the Brief; and, Argument, Argument B, page 17-19 of the Brief. 6. Joshua advances arguments with respect to ServiceMaster which may only be properly made as an appellant in the case. 7. Joshua was served with a copy of the District Court's Order dated March 11, 1995, and failed to file an appeal of its own accord with respect to the District Court's Order concerning argument two, the ServiceMaster issue, as prescribed by the Rules of Appellate - Procedure. In addition, this appeal is not and cannot be characterized as a cross-appeal. 8. The status of Joshua in this appeal filed by the LRSD can only be entertained as an appellee with respect to argument one presented by the LRSD. WHEREFORE, ServiceMaster requests that all portions of Joshua's Brief which make reference to ServiceMaster be stricken as they are prejudicial to appellee ServiceMaster. 624\\MOTSTRIK.909 2 Respectfully submitted, GIROIR \u0026 GREGORY, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 111 CENTER STREET, SUITE 1900 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 (501) 372-3000 and - - John C. Everett, #70022 EVERETT, MARS \u0026 STILLS P.O. Box 1646 Fayetteville, AR 72702 (501) 443-0292 Attorneys for ServiceMaster Management Services BJYoseS.M:owe~ry, %~ Bar #90l23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Strike Portions of the Joshua's Intervenors Brief has been served on the following people by depositing copy of the same in the United States mail on this 9th day of September, 1996. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 17223 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capital, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Bldg. Capitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 624\\MOTSTRIK.909 3 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept. of Education 4 State Capital Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 624\\MOTSTRIK.909 4 C IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT' ~-  - ' \"~As EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS .C._':_\",\" ) -A \") - --~ .)  - - ') WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-8'6- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RE: c erv~~ DEFENDANfS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INIERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SEP 1 1 1996 Oifioo of D(\u003cSvc.grsgation Mon~or~VENORS BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. INIERVENORS KNIGHT, ET AL., RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF Knight, et al. Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL LAW FIRM, for their Response to PCSSD's Motion Seeking Equitable Relief, state: 1. Admit paragraph 1 to the extent that the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers' (PACT) job action continued until September 3, 1996, when the Court ordered PACT members back to work. 2. Deny paragraph 2. Asserts affirmatively that PACT' s job action does not prevent PCSSD from delivering the educational services and desegregation programs outlined in the Desegregation Plan and by orders of this Court. Asserts affirmatively that the job action is only delaying the execution of the Desegregation Plan and orders of this Court for the current school year. 3. Denies paragraph 3. Asserts affirmatively that PACT is currently involved in litigation involving the precise issue of PACT' s job action in Pulaski County Chancery Court, Sixth Division, in the case Mike Wilson, et al. v. Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, No. IJ96-5788. .: ...... . Asserts affirmatively that PACT has filed a Motion for Joinder of PCS SD in that action because PCS SD is a necessary party to that action. Asserts affirmatively that they were not aware as of the date of the preliminary hearing of any breach of contract by the PCS SD except the Teacher Minimum Salary law. 4. Denies paragraph 4. 5. Denies each and every allegation ofPCSSD's Motion not specifically admitted herein. WHEREFORE, Knight lntervenors pray for an order of this Court denying PCSSD's Motion Seeking Equitable Relief; that the Court allow PACT to continue its job action pending resolution of the dispute between PCS SD and PACT; and for all other proper legal and equitable relief. Respectfully submitted, ~ . 0--L_ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on September 10, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 I Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street 2 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 7220 I M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 7220 I Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0 . Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 3 Mr. Stephen W Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard W. Roachell IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S::? : ~ .:.~3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS J,.\u003c .. ~c: ','/ i~:~:-.:? ~,. -. .=. ~ cL----~ WESTERN DIVISION B, -_______ _-  _ '' 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. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF KNIGHT, ET AL.. RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF Statement of tlte Facts L,_:-c .. :::--.r\u003c PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) were unable to agree on teaching contracts for the 1996-97 school year before the school year began. PACT began a job action because of the failed contract negotiations. Several parents filed a complaint in Pulaski County Chancery Court, asking the Court for injunctive relief Mike Wilson, et al. v. Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, et al., Case No. U96-5788 . The Court denied Plaintiffs requests, and refused to order PACT teachers back to work at the time of the hearing. PACT filed a Motion Seeking Equitable Relief on or about August 27, 1996, in the abovecaptioned case. The Court held a hearing on August 28, 1996. The Court ordered teachers in PCSSD back to work on September 3, 1996. Argument At issue is whether the PCSSD has met its burden for this Court to issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary .injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. PCSSD must show (1) the threat of irreparable harm; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that the movant will succeed on the merits; and ( 4) public interest. Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981). There is no threat of irreparable harm on the PCSSD or desegregation because of the teacher strike. The Eighth Circuit has given this Court much discretion to modify details and marginal issues related to the Settlement Agreement. 949 F.2d 253 (1991). The agreed timetables for school are details and/or marginal issues within the Court's discretion to modify. A mere delay in the school year is a detail and/or marginal issue that the Court can modify. Thus, PACT' s job action does not affect the Desegregation case in a substantial way, and neither does it cause irreparable harm to the school district. However, the Court's order that broke PACT's job action greatly injures the bargaining position of PACT with PCS SD. \"The right to strike, as an important symbol of a free society, should not be denied unless such a strike would substantially injury paramount interests of the larger community.\" County Sanitation District No. 2, 69.9 P.2d at 848. Furthermore, PACT joined the Desegregation case to protect its bargaining position. \"An injunction does not settle a dispute -- it simply disables one of the parties.\" Burlington Northern R .. Co. at 107 S. Ct.1854. PACT's bargaining position has been disabled because of the injunction. 2 Furthermore, it is a matter of public _policy in the state of Arkansas to allow organized labor to bargain collectively. \"Freedom of organized labor to bargain collectively ... is declared to be the public policy of the state under Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 34.\" Ark. Code Ann.  11-3-301. Therefore, there is a great interest in letting PACT maintain its bargaining position with PCS SD by allowing it to continue in its peaceful job action. On the one hand, the Court's order renders moot the issue of the probability of success on the merits because ordering teachers back to work means that PCS SD has succeeded on the merits, only to the great detriment to the teachers' bargaining power. On the other hand, because the matter has been directed to federal mediators, success on the merits means that PCS SD and PACT agree to contract terms for the l 996-97 school year. This result would be no more of a success for PCS SD than it would be for PACT. PCSSD contends that it cannot afford to raise teachers' pay. However, the Courts have said repeatedly that lack of money is no excuse. PCSSD must be made to comply with Act 917 of the 1995 legislature for the 1996-97 school year. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors pray for an order of this Court denying PCS SD' s Motion Seeking Equitable Relief; that the Court allow PACT to continue its job action pending resolution of the dispute between PCSSD and PACT; and for all other proper legal and equitable relief Respectfully submitted, 3 ~.c:u___ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on September 10, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 20 I East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson and Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 4 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 7220 I ~.0--L_ Richard W. Roachell 11:20 WRIGHT LINDSEY \u0026 JENN I t--!GS NO.083 POO9/ O20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LRC-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL blSTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. PCSSD's RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), for its response to the motion - of Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") for a temporary restraining order to prohibit PCSSD from \"docking\" teachers' pay for strike days, states: 1. PACT cannot demonstrate any of the Dataphase requirements lo warrant this Court's granting of injunctive relief. 2. PACT must show (1) the threat of irreparable harm, (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant, (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits, and (4) the public interest. 3, PACT cannot establish irreparable harm. It seeks money -- and it is beyond peradventure that purported injury which can be recompensed by monetary damages is not irreparable harm. 11 : 21 WRIGHT LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS NO. 083 P010/ 02O 4. This Court has "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1003","title":"\"Educational Equity Monitoring 1995-96, Second Semester Summary Report,\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Educational Equity Monitoring 1995-96, Second Semester Summary Report,\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1003"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"hbcula_becu_32","title":"The Voice Newsletter, September 1996","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["1996-09"],"dcterms_description":["The student newsletter of Bethune-Cookman College, now Bethune-Cookman University, highlighting student voices, campus and community activities, and current events."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"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":["African American universities and colleges","African American students","Campus life","College student newspapers and periodicals","Civil rights movements"],"dcterms_title":["The Voice Newsletter, September 1996"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/32"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. https://www.cookman.edu/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1644","title":"Court Filings: District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants, and affidavits","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-08-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Lawyers","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants, and affidavits"],"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/1644"],"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":["70 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 3 0 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ------;:D:;-;:E~P.--;::C;;-LE;=-;R:;;:;K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-8-66 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL SEP 3 1996 ,i ! S-J?(' .,.., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office ot Des . e~regauon Monitoring ,, ---- -- --- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S- --'-.~  MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AS TO STATE DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. With respect to the loss funding and workers' compensation issues decided -by this court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, LRSD is a prevailing party and is therefore entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs. LRSD is entitled to $42,520.00 in attorneys' fees (Christopher Heller - 262 hours x $160.00 = $41,920.00; Clay Fendley - 6 hours x $100.00 = $600.00) and $563.32 in costs. 2. The fees and costs are supported by the attached Affidavit. 3. LRSD adopts the motion and brief filed on August 16, 1996 by PCSSD concerning attorneys' fees in this matter. blby\\UISD-WC.FEES 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:(_,~ ~ Christopher H~ ---- Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Little Rock School District's Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Costs As To The State has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of August, 1996: 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 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham street Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201  _/// / -- wilY\\USD,WC.FEES 3 JJs\\m\\ij:;NS.S E.f\u003e.STtP.N O\\S1RI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT p..l}G 3 0 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Cl\u003c. CLERK WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMA ' By. ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SEP 3 1996 3.:..,.,,,., PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS Office of Dssegregaiion Monitcnno INTERVENORS AFFIDAVIT I, Christopher Heller, after being duly sworn, state under oath: 1. The billing statements attached as Exhibit A to this Affidavit reflect the hours worked on this matter as recorded in contemporaneous time records. All of the time shown on these billing statements have been billed to LRSD and those bills have been paid. 2. My time in this case was devoted primarily to the loss funding and workers' compensation issues. I have reviewed the billing records in an effort to exclude time which was devoted to matters on which LRSD did not prevail, including the APSCN issue and our petition for reconsideration to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3. I have been engaged in the private practice of law at Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark for fifteen (15) years. My normal hourly billing rate is $160.00. That rate is in line with rates typically btloy\\UlSD-WC.AFF charged by lawyers of similar experience and ability in Pulaski County, Arkansas 4. Clay Fendley is an associate with Friday, Eldredge \u0026 .. Clark with four (4) years of experience. His normal hourly billing rate is $100. 00. This rate is in line with billing rates for lawyers of similar ability and experience in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 5. As can be seen from the attached billing statements, the time expended on this matter was originally recorded and billed as a part of the general Little Rock School District Desegregation Case file (LI230-90). Following the district court decision, a separate file was established (LI230-159). In reviewing the general file, I was very conservative in my effort to segregate the time which was devoted to the issues in this discreet matter. Many time entries which were more probably than not related to this matter are not included in the attached exhibit. Further affiant sayeth not. au,y\\LllSD-WC.AFF 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) ss. COUNTY OF PULASKI) on this the 30th day of August, 1996, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, personally appeared Christopher Heller, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the attestation and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purpose therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. Notary Pubf ic ~- My bllo,IIJISl).WC.AFF 3 EXHIBIT A TO AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PAR'ffiERSHIP Of NlMDUAlB l\u003eHO PflOFESSIONAl ASSOCIAllONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ~1 400 WEST CAPITOL ~ LITnE IIOQC, AIIUNIAS 72201 TAX IDENTIFICATION 171-0253837 2000 ARSTCOMMERCW. llUIIJllNG r 1so1 \u003e 37\u0026-2011 r A G E 6/20/94 LENC RESEARCHE~ WHAT L.R. SC~O~L ~IST. wusT aa TG BE DECLARED U~ITARY; ~OCD F~rTH COMPLIANCE o/~l/94 (Jr{ TELEPHONE C:JNfE:REtKE wITH :TE\\I[ JCJNCS RE: BUS Ct. $E PREPARATWN '.JF BUOG!:l ISSUES r~:.JTE ::.\\00!'. ; PR~Ph~ATIGN FOR HEA~ING RESE .. RCH!:r u~-HT:.AY STATUS r::SUi'.\",,, 6/21/94 L~NC USED W~3TLAW TO SHEPA~OIZ~ rrTTT3 A~~ oa~ELL UP TH~U TODAY; ~A~ VARIJU : SE~~CHES TJ SEE WHAT A SCH00l B0A~D ~UST 00 AFTE~ IMPLEMENT[~~ CONS:~T DECREE TO ATTAIN UNITARY STATUS ~~r G~; OUT OF CCJURT'S SUP::R'VISim: 6/Z~/~~ CJH TELEPHONE CCN~E~E~CE WITH JOHN RIG~S LETTE~ F~D~ STEVE JONES RECEIVED~ REVIEWED NlR 3UOGEi LETT=R TO MR. ~tlHOLL[N PREPARATION OF ~OTION TO EXCU:E MR. RIGGS RES~ARCHE~ WGRKERS CG'4P. ISSU~ PRErA~ATI  N JF DUOGET H~ARI~G: 6/22/94 LE '.K ~ES::/,f:.CHED 2 NE~ CASES FC,iND 2!; \\\\::Tu.;.: YE'..TERulV FR0'4 F.:\u003e. SUPPLEM~1:T 6/23/94 CJH TELEPHONE C~N~!:RENCE ~ITH ELIZ ~QVTER P.E: ADE TRIAL; ca~P P~EPARATI~N OF ~OTION TO ~N~nCE SETTLEM~NT RE: WORKERS CO~P TELEPHONE CONFERE~CE WITH ~ARK MILHOLLEN RE: BUOGET HEARING PREPARATION FOR WITNESS MEETrnG:; . A~!O BUDGET Hi:~R I NG TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ~Trvr JJN:~ LETTER FRO~ MR. GANS ~E: ~BEYANCE TELEPHONE CJNFERE~CE WIT~ MAR HILHGLLEN TELEPHONE CONFE~ENCE WITH 0~ JAVELL! - zqT~ PREPARATION OF MOTION TO ~X(U~E 6/23/94 LENC SHEPAROIZED PITTS ANC TOPEKA C~$E~; REVIEWED RELEVA~T CASE~ \u0026/2~/94 tJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH PAT GEE; ;. . REVIEWED STATUTE; FAXED .. LETTER FROM HR. GANS :.-.1,::. , . .'-; RECEIVED t REVI~MEO ORDER .. _i/~V:-: .. ~:i.,'., . TEt.EPH~~E CONFERENCE WITH PAT GEE :_.j(._'tt, _;~,!tii,.~,- _ _. {tl\\E,A,~~qo~ . OF BUOGET HEARING :. h -, --~.f:.,., -: LENC FQUNO_ ALL RELEVANT CASES IN :,!( . .  , f t.;~::P~,E~.i~!iA!~Off CASE; MAOE CCP IS; -~*..,, .. :: J~. ,,:,\u003c ~C~GHT!D   A IQ NlPV ~ .-~:;;, . :. ~:  . I!'\\:V~ ~ 0 -lltll oATr 7/27/o L!~30 .OO:JOO!\"-CJ l.O~ .25 -~s .1c; .25 .25 1.:5 .75 .75  2 5 2.'ic .so .25 .sc  50 .~s .zs .z., z.1~ 3.00 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PAR'ERSIF Of' INllN'llUALS AHO PROf'ESSIONAl ASSOCIATlONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 Fl'IST COMMEJICIAL a.DING \u003cIQ() WEST CAPITOL UTIU 110CX. AIIICANIAI l'22ID1 (501) '79-2011 6/'l.'t/94 WAD RECEIVED ANO R:VH:~EC LETTE\" Fi:'.::'~ 1'.. GANS o/27/94 CJrl CONF::RcNC( ,HTH STEVE JONES. :HE~ STEVE JONE: A~D nae ~ORGA~; C~LL TC NOR~A RJGERS; ~EVIf-MEO BUDGET n~cs; PREPARATION FGR ~IT~ESS ~EfTI~~~ TCLEPHO~E CONFERENCE WITH J~HN TULL~ ~: ~IO',~ P.ECEIYEO ~ REVIEWED FAX FRC~ ~q. lULL TELEPHON:: c:~FERENCE WIT~ FUS~ ~AYC CQNFCREN~C WITH WIT~ESS IN FR[ rA~!~IS~ FOR nuc~rr HEAP.ING LEfTE~ FR~~ RICHARD ROACHELL TEL[PHO~E CJNFERE~:E ~IT~ er JACOVELLf PRErARATICN OF ~OT!ON TC ~x:u:E 6/27/~4 JL~ VARIOUS ~tTTEqS t:,/27/94 LENC BEGAN OUTLINING ~HAT MUST B; DONE AFTE~ DECREE rs E~TEREO t.,/~:1/94 CJt-i PREPARATIQN ANQ APF4RF\"l AI rii,p;,i::r HEA~IT,Gj CALLS IO CJ Fe r.,~YTfQi 6/?.9/'9i. CJH JRAFTEO WJRKERS COMP. ~~TIO~; CALL TO DR. r:!LUAMSj PREPA~ATI:;I: F:'P. COMPLETT?N OE H~ARING LETTER FRO~ STEVE JONES RECEIVEO t ~EVIEWEO NLRSD STATU~ P.[P~~T ~EVIEWEO F~X ~RO~ ~R. ROACHELL R~: HEAR!ttG CONFERENCE ~ITH CLIENTS; PREPA~ATIC~ AND APPEARED FOR BUDGET HEA~I~G LETTER TO DR. WILLIA~$ RE~ NLR STATUS AEPO~ T MEMO FRO~~. BASSA DRAFTED JUNE PRJJECT MGMT TOOL CO~FEP.ENCE ~ITH J[RR~ MALON~ TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CR. hlLLIAM~ LETTER TO OR. ~ILLIA~ SU~MARI!I~G ccc~T PROCEEDINGS ~EVIEWEO JQSHUA PROPC,ED ~RCE~; REPORT(~ TO OR. WILLIA~ RESE.:.RCHEQ ANO PBF 0 4SATTQN ~F \"0T~CJ!; ANC ~TIPULAT!ON RE: ~ORKERS COMPfNS.ntoN 6/Zq/94 JLM REVIEWED ~OCUME~TS FROM OR. ~!TCHELL; NOTE FPOM MS. RODGERS; DRAFTED L[TT~~ TO MS. BOYTER REVIEWED GUOGET HEARl~G ~ATTE~S REVIEWED JUNE MG~T TOOL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH OR. BAS~A MGMT TOOL HATTERS AEVIEHEO FILEi O~AFTEO PLEADING; ?AGr TAX IOENTIFICATI~ 171-0253137 I~vr :0-11111 0.C.Tf 7/27/~ UZ3J  000090-CJ  ....-, C. ' .2s -,c  - J -~ 5  on e.7~  t_r.  :i Q.__ .75 .so .zs 7 ,. (CONTINUED ON PAGE ~I ., FRIDAY, ELDREDGE\u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0MDUAI.S AHO PAOFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL IIUIIJllNG 400 WEST CAPITOL IJTTU IIOCI(, AIIKANUI 722111 (S01) 3711-2011 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY; REVIEhED GRIEF TO 8TH CIR. RE: ELECTION ZONES; REVIEWED CHARLES PL~INTIFFS ORIEF; LETTER TO 8TH CIRCUIT CLE~K RE: RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES 7/07/q4 JLM REVIEWED AND PREPARED OUTLINE RE: AOE KGMT TOOL REVI[tiED ORDER R!:: AOE/MFPA . ,  CALCULATIONS 7/08/94 CJH PREPARATIJN OF AP~EAL - VOTING RIGHT~ RECEIVED REVIEWED PCSS~ LETTER RE: sc.-.o  L SIT ING:: 7/08/94 JU'i 7/09/94 CJH /4/94 CJH 7 /11/qr. CJH TELEPHONE CONFERE~CE WITH D~. WILLIAM: Rf: ADE/CONSTRUCTION REVIEWED ORDER RE: BUDGET INFORr.ATIO~ PREPARATION OF FINAL CRAFT - 8TH CI~. LETTER RE: TWO NEW SUPP. COURT VOTING CASES PREPAR~TICN OF LAWSUIT RE: wGRKERS CO!-IP. I S::iUE MEETING ftITH LRSD COUNCIL RF.: VARIOUS DESEG. ISSUES; PREPARATIO~ FOR euoGET HEARING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH OL.GL. JACOVELLI RE: TRA~SCRIPT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH C  U~T REPORTER RE: TRANSCRIPT CONFERENCE WITH JERRY MALONE RE: CUDGEi HEARINGS ARA TION OF WORK  COMP. MOT 7/ll/q4 JCF REVIEWED LETTER TO STH CI REVISED BY CJH 7/11/94 JLM REVIEWED ~NO REVISED LETTER RE: SCHOCL CONST R UC TI ON REVIEWED MATTEP.$ RE: LRSO BUCGET HEARINGS 7/l~/94 CJH RECEIVED t REVIEWED DRAFT INTEROISTRICT SCHOOL ASS[GNMENT GUIDELINES I AIR COPY MEMO FROM OR. MAYO RE: I~C. SCH. K. SEATSi 4 YR OLO RECEIVED t REVIEWED INFOR~ATION R(: $AO BUS. CASE; CONFERENCE WITH JLH CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY BURNETTE - VOTING APPEAL RECEIVED t REVIEWED APIC BUS. CASE RECEIVED t REVIEWED CR. JENNINGS ANALYSIS OF ASSIGNMENT ZONES RECEIVED t REVIEWED INC- SCHOOL SPANISH SUS. CASE PAGE TAX IOENTIFICATION 171-0253837 IPN ~ 31- l 11 i3 C' DATE 6/25/q LI2JO .OOOO90-CJ 4. 5,J ...?.C. l. 7':, .50 .zs .z~ .2s .5C ...., c: .5r. .~s .25 .75 .zs  7/12/94 JLM 7 I l3/9't CJH 7/t4/94 CJH 7/lS/94 7 /17 /94 CJH 7/18/94 CJH A/RCOPY FRIDAY, ELDREDGE\u0026. CLARK A PARTNERSIIP Of' INllMDUAI.S Nm PAOFESSIONAI. ASSOCIA TlONS ATTORNEYS AT UW 2000 ARST COMMEJICIAI. IIUl.DING G WEST CAPITOL I.ITT1.E 110C1C. A11KAN1A1 722111 (501) 37\u0026-2011 CONFERENCE WITH J(RRY MALONE ~E: PRINCPAL MTG; BUS CASES REVIEWED BUDGET HEARING PREPAQATION~ TRIAL PREPARATION; CONFE~E~CE WITH LR~D WITNESSES - BUDGET HEARING; REVIEhEC OOCUMEt-lTS LETTER FRO~ ATTORNEY ~EffLYN D~VIS RECEIVED C REVIEWED PCBE MEMO A~D CORR: S PONC EJ~Cf Le:TT~R TO ATTOR\"4EY DAVI$ ~E: vbru,G RIGHTS APPEAL LETTER FROM ELIZ BOYTER RECEIVED  REVIE~~ED I.OE RESP01; S[ ~E: MFPA REVIEWED BUDGET FILES; CALL TO BJ f MORGM, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ~iRK MILHOLLEN LETTER FROM DORSEY JACKSON PREPA ELEPHONE C  NFERENCE WITH STEV~ JONES RE: WORKERS COMP. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE \"ITH JGH~ ~ALKER RE: WORKER$ CO~P. OR~FTEO ANO FILE MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT; RESEARCHED AND DRAFTED R REVIEWED A~O REVISED DRAFT BRIEF; FILED TELEPHONE CONFERENCE EPHONE CONFERENCE PREPARATIGN FOR H MILHJLLEN; REVIEWED TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ARMSTRONG WITH WITH t A BUSINESS CAS'1:5 WITH CAROL CONFERENCE WITH JERRY MALONE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH OR. MAYO (2 CALLSI LETTER FRO~ ELIZ BOYTNER RECEIVED t PEVIEWED ADE MONITCRINC REPORT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JOHN wALKER PREPARATION FOR Buo:;er FILING; HEARPlG RESEARCHED WORKERS COMP. ISSUE PREPARATION OF NOTICE OF FILING; CALL TO Ee MATTHIS; CONFERENCE WITH CLIENTS RE: SUBMISSION OF REQUIRED DOCUMENTS; REVIEWED ANO REVISED DOCS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CAROL ARMSTRONG (21; RECEIVED t REVIEWED Pt.GE TAX IDENTIFICATION M71 -0253837 I~Vt 3l-ltl3C CATE 8/l5/C LI23C .CCC090-C J .50 1.00 .so .75 .:s 2.~s 1.00 5.7'5 G) _ ( CONTINUED ON PAGE : .. !i ..,;;:;;;.;a:!!llll~l;l;ailca;a;a,aa,_ _________. ,,.._ _~ -----------------~!!111.-. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PAlffllER:SNP OF INDMDUAI.S NJ \"'\"ESSIONAL ASSOCIA l10NS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMSICIAL IIUIUllNG 400 WEST CAPITOL UTTLE IIOCl(, ~ l'Dl1 (501) Sl'\u0026-2011 COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSIO~ 7/21/94 CJH LETTER FROM ATTORNEY BOYTER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COU~T REPORTER BUDGET HEARINGS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH D~. WILLIAM~ RE: TEACHER SETTLEMENT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH MR. MILHDLLEN TELE0 HONE CONFERENCE WITH ~S. MATTHIS CONFERENCE WITH LRSD AOMINIST~ATCRS RE: NEGOTI A Tt O'.l!S; BUDGE Ti PREP ARl.1YH!N NOTICE OF FILING RECEIVED t REVIEW~D REVISED BUSIN=S: CASE 7/21/94 JL~ REVIE~EO LETTER FROM MS. ~OYTER RE: SCHOOL CONSTRUCTICN 7/22/94 CJH RECEIVEO  REVIEWED ORDER OF HEARI~G TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH MARr. MILHOLLEN TELEPHONE CO~FERENCE WITH BOB MORGAN TELEPHONE CQNFERE~CE WITH POLLY RAMER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE W[TH ROBERT CLOW=R 7/22/94 JLM REVfEWED ORDER RE: BUDGET HEARI~G5 7/22/94 WAP RECEIVED AND R~VIEWEO ORDER Fk0~ JISTRICT COURT 7/:4/94 CJH RECEIVE~ \u0026 PEVIEWED TRANSCRIPT OF STEPHENS/GARLANJ HEARIN:, REVIEwEO JENNINGS ANALYSIS OF ATTE~OANCE ZONES; PREPARED NOTICE OF FILING PREPARATION FOR OUCGET HEARING 7/25/94 COGC P.EVIEWEO POLICY MANUAL RESEARCHED CONSTITUTIONALITY OF POLICY MANUAL 7/25/94 CJH RESEARCHED COURTS AUTHORITY RE~ BUDGET TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ~ARK MILHOLLEN 7 /25/9\" JCF TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE ( 2 J 0P-(FER ENCE CONFERENCE CONFERENCE CONFERENCE WITH WITH ~ ITH WITH SAM J TI~ HUMPHRES ELIZ BOYTNER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE \"ITH DON STEW~RT TELEPHONE CCNFERENCE NITH MARK ~ r-N CONFERENCE WITH JERRY MALONE RE: PUOGcT PREPARATION OF SUOGET HEARING REVIEWED OPINIONS OF 8TH CIR. ANO ORDERS OF DISTRICT COURT; MEMO TO CJH RE: POWER OF DISTRICT COURT TO MONITOR LRSO llUOGET[NG PAG( INV~ OHE LI l 30 .2 '\u003e .25 2.25 -~~ .2 'j -,r '- :::\u003e .25 .50 .z5 .25 .25 -~? c-:. .5G .75 l.75 .50 t. oc 1.25 .25 .25 .75 TAX IDENTIFICATION 171-0253\u002637 5 31-LllB.'.'l'- 8/25/94 .ooooqo-cJH ,, A/RCOPY (CONTINUED ON PAGE FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PAl!ffiERSlP Of' INDMDUAI.S N'1J PAOFESSIONAL ASSOCIA Tl0NS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 F1RST COMMERCIAL BUii.DiNG 400 WEST CAPITOL UTIUIIOCK.AMAMIAl1'Z2t1 (S01) 37\u0026-2011 ~/25/94 JLM PREPARATION RE: auOGET HEARINGS REVtEWEO au~INESS CASE RE: INCE~TIV~ SCHOOLS TAX 10ENT1FICAT1()fj 71-02531137 DAGE ~ tNV~ 31-111204 DATE 8/25/~4 Ll230 .000090-CJ~ 1.00 .5C 7/26/94 CDGC RESE,RCHED CONSTITUTIONALITY OF POLICY MANUAL 3.SC 7/~6/94 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERE~CE ~ITH C. ~RMST~DNG RE: BUDGET .~5 RECEIVED t REV!EW~O PROPJ:;E~ FINAL BUDGET ,  l  2? ~~ CONFERENCE WIT~ KAPK ~ILHOLLEN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ftITH SA~ JON$ RESEARCHED ISSUES RE: STATES rESPON~E WO~K~RS COMP. TELEPHONE C8NFERENCE WITH DGN STEWAF.r T ARM.:;TRONG ATfENDEO BOARO BUDGET WORKSESSIONt CONFERENCE MITH ~ORGAN TELEPHO~E CONFERENCE WITH PSLLV RA~tR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH B~R MCRGA~ ME~O FRO~ OR. CLOwERS RE: PPD MEMO FRO~ OR. CLO~ERS RE: ~GMT. TOCL RECEIVED REVIE~EO LISTING OF TASK CHANGES ON JUNE ~G~T. TQOL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH [STELLE MATTHIS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN LETTER FROM ELIZ BOYTER RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ADE RESPONSE RE: WORKERS COMP. 7/2\u0026/14 Jl~ REVIEWED lTTE~ ANO RESP  NS[ ro LRSO/JCSHUA MOTION ro ENFORCE REVIE~EO LETTER RE: OESEG. LITI;ATICN OVERSIGHT PREPARATION FOR BUDGET HEARING; P.EVIEWEC BUDGET DOCUMENTS, riUSINf:SS CASES, PROJECTIONS, ETC. REVIEWED ADDITIONAL BUOGET OO(UMENT~; COMP[LEO ISSUES LIST; OTHER MATTERS TRAVELED TO LRSO; REVIEWED BUDGET DOCUMENTS; ATTENDED LRSD BOARC MEETING; HC. 7/27/9~ COGC CONFERENCE WITH JERRY MALONE RE: STUDENT POLICY MANUAL CJH RECEIVED t REVIEWED FAX STEWART RES LOS$ FUNDING CALL RECEIVED t REVIEWED R. WEISS DEPOSITION PREPARATION ANO MET WITH WITNESS FOR .Z5 .so .25 :.so z.oo ,--.._ (CONTINUED ON P E FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0MllUALS ANO PA0FESSIONAL ASSOCIA T10NS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL IIUlDING GI WEST CAPITOL unu IIOCK. AIIIWIIAI TD01 (S01 I 37\u0026-2011 PAGE TAX IDENTIFICATION 01-0253137 INVt' 31-11 l 8 , DATE 8/'l.\"'\u003e/ ' - ~~H~E~A-R:-I:N:-G~ =P--R-~E~PA~=R-A~T=I-O:-N:- --=::.-:-::-:--:-~=:..-:-;:-;;-_.:~~~~~~-~~~-f ~ .oooogo-c. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DEANA KEI~HLY RE: 4 YR OLD TELEPHO~E CONFERENCE ~ITH NORMA ROGERS ~ECE1VED t ~EVIEWEO FAX REZ BCA~O ME~5ER .25 PREPARATION OF MOTION TO EX:USE .l5 PREPAR~TION OF NOTICE OF FILI~G .25 PR~PARATIGN FOR ~UOGET HEARING J.7~ RESEARCHED AND PREPARAilON OF RrPLY ~L: CO~P. TELEPHONE CONFER ,,..~ WITH S:.H JON:. TEL PH NE CONFERENCE WITH ANN BRD~N -~~ TELEPHONE CONfERENCE WITH BOB MORGA~ 50 ~En w!LH II DPEOSITICN t COMP. =-8 7/27/94 JLM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MS. ARMSTRO~~ RE: PROJECT MGMT TOOL .~5 REVIEWED DOCUMENTS RE: FOUR-Y[AR OLC AND KI!iOERGAHEt.i VACAtHES; RESEARCliEO RECUIREMENTS/RESTR{CTIONS; PREPARED FOR HEARING~ 1.75 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH OR. CLO~ER~ ~f: PLA~NING AND BUDGETING OOCUHENTS/PROC ESS  25 7/~8/94 CJH PREPARATION FOR HfARING; CONFERENCE WITH WITNESSES; APPEARED FOR LRSO/PCSSD BUDGET HEARINGS ... RECEIVED t REVIEW~O AMENDED ACE RESPONSE - C OIIIP. 7/28/9~ JLM V wEO LETTER FRO~ MS. BOYTER A~ AMENDED RESf\u003eONSE TRAVELED TO LRSO; ATTENDED MEETING WITH OR. CLOWERS RE: PROJECT MG~T TOOLS, PROvRAM PLANNING PRCESS ANO OT~E~ MATTERS; REVIEWED A~D RfVISED COURT FILINGS; CONFERRED WITH MS. ARH~TRONG, MRS. MATHIS, OR. WILL!tH~ aTHER RE: VARIOUS MATTERS REVIE~EO ~OTt~N, ONE AN RAFT REPLY RE: WORKERS' ca~P. FUNDING; .25 7/29/9~\"'j'J~LMM-~P~R~E;P~A;R~A~T~I~O~N~F~O~R~H~E~A~R~I~~G~~ T ~A~TT'TT8r-~N~DO~Eno---..\\.....,!~~~ UUOGET HEARING; CONFERRED WITH MRS. AIR COPY MATT~IS, ETC. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE W[TH BEVERLY GRIFFIN RE: STATE-WICE COMPUTER NETWORK REVIEWED ORDER REI HEARl~G TRANSCRIPTS VARIOUS MATTERS .zs .zs .50 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A P~ OF NllVllUALS NtD PR)fSSl()NAL ASSOOATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 F1RST COMMERCW. BUU.DING I() WEST CAPITOL UTIU IIOCIC. AIIIWIIAI 722e1 (501) S7\u0026-2011 TELEPHONE C3NFERENCE WITH D~. WILL!hMS RE: STATE-WIDE COMPUTER ~ETWQRK TELEPHONE CONFERE~C( WITH~~. AQMST~  NG RE: PROJECT ~GMT TOOL CORRECTIONS TELEPHONE CJNFERENCE WITH M5. ~ATT~I: RE: LRSu COMPUTER TELEPHON~ CONFERENC( ~ITH ~S. ARM~TRONG RE: I-IGP(T TOOL TELEPHONE CONFERE~CE WITH MS. GRIFF!~ RE: JOSHUA$ BUDGET OSJEC!IdN t  REVIEWED FILE A~D CORRESPONOE~CE Rf: STATEWiaE CO~PUTER SY:TEH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH~~. SAM JONE~ ANO ~R. OuN STEWART RE: STATEWIDE C011P~JTER SYSTP~ t~t HUA'S OPPOSITIO~ TO LPS~s BUDGET reVIE~EO FAX FRO~ MS. ARMSTRONG RE: CORRECTED ~G~T TOOL FILING 7/31/94 JCF PR O ADE'S RESP   l ~E: WORKERS COMP. CGST PAG[ TAX IDENTIFICATION 71-0253837 INV# 31-lll90 DATE 8/25/C - L 12 30  OOOOQO-C J 1 .25  .? 5 TOTAL SERVICE~ 166.00 tl654J.7~ CHARLES D~VID GCRISCH CHRISTOPHER JOH~ HELLE~ JOH~ CLAYBURN FENDLEY J~RRY LEE MALONE LANCE Ee ~EWKIRK WALTER A. PAULSON 9 INOING EXPENSE DISBURSEMENT RE: ~EPOSITIO~ EXPENSE COPY CHAPGES LEXIS COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH MESSENGER EXPENSE POSTA-.E FAX 6.25 - 101.25 lb. 50 3g.zs z.50 .2~ T~H Al E.XPE\"-.SE::; TOTAL TM[S INVOICE X ). Y. )( 1-. .,. 40.00 = lO\"-.'JO = 85.0C = 1os.oc = 45.0C ,:; 105.00 = . 25G.OC; l0o3t.:c; 140:.SQ 4121.:s , -- 112.52 Zb.25 3.50 60\u003c;.00 246.QC 372.9C 302 .b~ 13'5. 0(' 39. t 2 211. SC FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOMOUAI.S AND PROFESSIONAL ASS()CIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCW. BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL UTTU IIOCIC. AIIICANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 rAGE U,X IDENTIFICATION 171 -0253637 INVti -11::zc or,H 5/31./c LIZ)O .oaocqc-cJ FUNCING LillGAlIC~ F~C~ ~S. BGYTEA .25 e/o~/q4 CJH RECEIVEJ t REVIE~EC cc~ ~~sSE~VATlONS\" RE: 8UCGET .50 e/C4/G4 JLP. 8/0'5/G', CJH 8/05/qt, JCF 8/CS/G'i JL\" :: 0 A~,H !S\" CF P.E PL 'Y TC ~:JE !sE 1 :  W~RKER') CCMPE~S~TIC~ ISSUf. ... tiR. t-U CONFERENCE ~Ilt- ct,v FENCLEY RECEIVED t REVIE~EC f-) F~O~ O~ ~AYO TELEPHONE CONFE~ENCE W11~ MAR~ 1'1ILl-40LLEN LEllE~ lC ~~~ SPC~~ PREPA~AlIC~ er NCiICE Cf ~!LING: CONFERENCE WIT~ FE~CLE'Y REVIEWE~ CROER RE: ~ce HEARY~G PREPARATIO~ FC~ flll~G eucGEl; CCNFERENCf ftlih FE~CLE'i ciLl TO MtlHOLL~~  2 c; .sa 1.00 TELEPHONE ca~FERENC= Wl1H CLAYTr:N BLACKSTCCK .~5 TELEPHC~E CO~FE~E~CE ~JTt- ~AR~ ~ILH LLEN .2~ TELEPHCNE ca~FERE~CE ~1,~ JERRY MALONE .25 PREPAR~TION CF I~SL~'NCE nEPORT - SlAlES .sn TELEPHONE COhFERfNCE ~ll~ RUSS ~AYO .z~ RECEIV~D t REVlEMEC RE~ISEO PUOGEl .15 RECEIV0  RE~1EMC eusI~ESS ci~E5 .15 TELEPHCNE CONFERENCE ~llr CARCL A~~STRGNG .25 CONFERENCE WlTt- CJ~ PE: FILING =.UCGET TELEPHONE cc~FEQE~CE wllt- ~s. AR~STRONG: ~A~ICUS ~A1TERS RF: 8UOGE1  2 '5 ANO OTHER FILING$ PREPARATION CF ~~OGEl FOR FILTN~ e/~6/q4, JCF TELEPHONE ca~FERENCE ~ll~ ~s. e1oe/q'- J~\" AR~STRCN~; ~~PICUS ~A11E~S 6/10/q4 JL~ TELEPHONE CC~FERENCE ~11~ M~. S\u0026M JONfS RE: uUCGEl HEARI~G lELEPHONE CC~PeREHCE Wll~ MS. ~ATTHIS ,oq. CLOW~RS RE: e~OGEl ~EARING ANC PAO RE'JI!:\\.l TELEPHCNE CCN~ER2NCE Wll~ MS. OORCT~Y GRE:N (P~El RE: PBC RE'JlEW TELEPHCNE CONFERENCE wti~ M~. WALKE~ RE: MOTION FG~ CON1E~P1 ETC. 1ELPHCNE CONcE~SNCE Wll~ OR WILLIA~S  ....  ,J , ( 0 i: : r c \", e .. Pr ., or 1 a N .25 e/12/94 JU' 8/12/q4 WA:\u003e S/14/qt, CJH S/lS/g4 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOMOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOC2A TIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL UTTLE IIOCIC. ARICAHSAS 7%2111 (501) 376-201 1 ARATIC~ FCR ~E,RlNG TELEPHCNE CON~E~ENCE ~Il~ ~rc~ElLE THO~PSO~ QF CEPT. ec.; ~EVI~~ED BUOGET DOCUMENT TELEPHCH CQNFE~E~Ct \\1111- K~  . ;:.oo~gs P.E: r. uCGET Hi;tiRHG t  TELEPHO\"E COhFEqENCE ~~T~ M~. Gq!~FI~ RE: .,Hi ING T~AV~LEC TC LRSCi ~lTEN:EO ~EfTI~G ~ITH ~S. MATTHIS, ~R. INGRA\", Qt. ~ILLIAMS, ~R. ~ILHCLLE~ ~~O OR. ~AYO RE: EUCGET HEAA!NC; CCNFfR~EC ~IT~~~. IhGR~~ ~NO Cl~ERS; CCNFER~EC NITH DH CLGWERS RE: P8C ISSUES; PREPtREO FOR HEARING: REVIE~EC C~JECTION DY JOSHUA TRjVELE~ TC LAM FIR~; REVIEWED O~AFT CF PROGRA~ 8~CGE1 CCCU~E~T er-OURTH CUARTEf:) TELE?HONE ca~~ERENCE ~,1~ DA. (LO~~RS i.e: ;:ioc FILI~G REVIE\"f.C THIRC C~ARlER F!l!~G PREPARATIOh FGR HEARING; ATTE~OE  HEARING RE: LRSC B~CGE1; CON~ERR~O WITH OR. WILLT,~S ANC ~S. MATTHIS R(: TECHNIQUES ANC STRATEGIES; GTH~R MATTERS ~~ ANC RE~lE~EC C~CER ~c COURl LETTER FRO~ J ~ WA KER Ar:: AOE OEPOSIT!CN RECE!VE~ t REVIEaEC CRCER RECEIVEC t ~EVI~wec CEFQSITION NOTICE - ORa QIANA JULI'N RECEIVED t RE~IEkEC JOSHUA ~OTION AND SR IEF FOR euc RECEIVEC t REVIE~EC CEFCS!TIO~ ~OTICES; \"IlHOil; SHAVER; \"EJSSi SCCTT; CKER 8/15/g4 JL~ L HONE CONFERE~CE WIT~ M  ARMST~8~G RE: PBO FILING PREPARAllO~ CF Fll]NC RE: PeO/FCURTH CUARTER TELEPHO~E CONFEP.ENCE Wll~ MS. ARMSTRONG RE: P8C TELEP~CNE CONFeReNCE W]l~ QQ. ClO~EP.S RE: GRAY f'C!J.C I l S/16/Q~ CJH RESEARCHED ISSUES RjISEO SY OR. MAYO; raNFF.~ENCE wIT~ JcR~~ ~ALONE; CALL TC TAX IOENTIFICA TION .,, -0253637 ~AG~ 2 1~ve -llQ2~3 ~Ale 5/31/Q~ LT23D .oocoqc-cJH 1.00 .s1 .-, r .) '3.0C .so .2~ 1.an  2'5 .2., . ,. .... @ FRIDAY, ELDREDGE\u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of 1N[)MOUALS AND pR()fESSK)NAL .t.SS()CIATIONS ; n ATTORNEYS AT LAW . , / / 2000 ARST C()Mt.lERCIAL BUii.DiNG  ,/ ~ WEST CAPITOL . ,. -- ~ e,___,_/, IJTTI.E 11(05C01K). 3A7J6U-2(.0U1I1S Al 72201 I , HLEPHCNE (Ct,FE E 1 E W }1h SA~ JONE5 TEL~P~ONE (ONfERENC~ w1,~ siEVE JONES TELEP~ONE ca~FERENCE wll~ JCY SPRINGE~ ~E: OEPOS!11Ct-. MlEAL TE\"TFHH ICSN E CCNFERENCE Wll~ ~AR~ 1  MILHCLLE~~ CffICE B/l6/q4 JL~ RE~I=~EC ORCE~ RE: A:E HE~R!NG TELEPHONE CCNfERcNC: ~llh ~s. A~M~T~O~G RE: K{NCERGARlEN A~t FCUF-VEAR OL~ 6/111 (JH f, JLING No CONFERENCE wit\u003e SAM JONES se, WILHOITE A~D ClHER ACE OEPOSTTtON: CALL TC co~~, REPOR : TRANSC~Iri; ~ RV !SH lRA~SCRJP1 RECEIVED t REVIE~EC FA~ fRC~ RUSS MlYC RTEELl EPlo lG!i'i TCOL f:! I= it- OE~NNA IN r. 8/18/~4 CJh RESEARCHEC A~S PPEFAPA1ICN FCR ADE HEARIN~ - ~ORKER5 CC~P. LETTE~ FPC~ SA~ JC~ES RlEELCE;P1Hv OhE CCcN cERENCE wl1~ RUSS ~AYO TELEPHONE CONFERENCE Wll~ OEJ~NA RE: QCf'I B/1G/G4 CJ~ TELEPHONE CCNfERENCE ~]lr P.G8~R~ COUNSEL W 11~ St.t' JO\"IE S CPRFErI CAER AilO~ FCR ~FPA A~C ~OQKER: cavP. HEARING e/1G/G4 JL E\"EC ~illERS Rf: fCU~TH QUA~TER STATUS REPC~l RE~IE~EO ME~C FRC~ ~s. ~iTH(R 10 oR. MAYO RE? RECRUll~E~i ~EVIE~ REVISEO CRAFT Of P~O ~ECEIVEO REPOflT e12z/q~ CJH TELEPHONE CONfERENC ~1,~ SAM JONES MEMO F~OM OR CLEVERS Rece1ven t ~evlEEt ppe PRO(ESS Or~C,(clJ~MoEcN~l Cf ~IT~ JE~~, ~ALONE RE: TAX IOENTIFICA TION 71-0253837 PAGE !'IIVe D!:.TE L!2::30 \" -U\u003c:i2C3 5/3 i./~5 .OOOO.,Q-CJH .25 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INOMOUALS AND pROfESSl()NAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMEROAI. BUIL.l)ING .00 WEST CAPITOL UTTU IIOCK. AIIKANIAI 7%201 (501) 376-2011 VARlOUS OESEG. ISSUE VARIOUS MAllSRS R: CESEG CASE 8/22/q4 JLM RE~I5wEO ~EMCS RE: pee; PROJECT ~GMT TOOL; GRAV COCK REV1S1C~S flCi PREP~RED FCR HEARING RE: AOE ISSUES A~D OTHE~ MA iT ER S ~ EV I =,H C P tl C G! . ,e \"' P l A N~ 1 NG AN C et J 0C, E 1' I Iii u suo~ISSIC~ fRO~ CR. CLG~ER5 DRAFTED NOTICE nf fllI~G ANC CCRRESPONOENCE RE: PEC VARIOUS MA'THRS OEPOSil ICN CCNf~RENCE ~ll~ ecvTER A~O ~H~VER LETlER FRC~ JOY SPRI~GER RE: AO: OEPCSIT PREPARATIO~ FOR ~EIRING; CALL TC MARK MlLHOLLi:1' TELEPHC~E C~NFERENCE ft)l~ AN~ B~CWN LE?HCNE CQNFtRENCE Wll~ SA~ J  N~S (2) PRE~4RATIO~ FGR SH,~E~ A~O WILHJ!T OEP  SITICN TELEPHC~E ca~FERENCE ~lT~ LQU!S LA~~E~T RE: AOE lELEPHONE CONPERENCE ~llH JSY SPRINGER RE: TRAt,SCRIPl TELEPHONE CQNCERENCE Wll~ DR. ~!LLIAMS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIE~EC CRAFl JOINT MOTION TG ENFCACE SETTLE~E~l INC~ REVIEWED ANC REVISEC ORAFT INTEROISlRlCl SC~OCL PCLJCY TELEPHONE CONFE~ENC Wll~ HAR~ MIL~OLLEN RE~IEWEO TRA~scnlPl ANC PREPARATION OF STATUS REPGRT RE: :E~OLllION ~c STEPHENS SCHCCL TE . HCNE CONFERENCE Wll~ JOY SPR!NG[~ l21 R~: OEPOSITICN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WIT~ $AM J~NES REl EPOSITIONi MEARING LET  L1A~ AEt STEPHENS PREPARATIO~ OF Wll~ESS LIST 8/23/q~ JLM REVIEWEO OESEGAEGAllCN PL4N; COURT OAOERSt ETC.; REVlE~Et CCRRE!.PONOENC~ ANO OOCU~ENTS RE: AECR~IlMENT, REGtSTRATIO~ ANO ENACLL~ENT; O~AFlEO MOTION 10 RELEASE SEATS, 8AIEF IN SUPPORT ANC CCRRSPC~Ce~ce AE~IEWEQ VARIOUS ~Al1ERS RE: ~EARING; rn~~cR~~c; ~e: ?ENul~G ~eSEARCH T ,-x IOENTIFIC,-TION 71 -0253937 P :.GE INV~ OH~ LI~)C' 1.00 .75 .sc .25 l o 2.50 5 -11qz r, 3 5/31/\u003c15 ~COCOQO-CJt-i ..---:::::- isklUAt, t.LU.Kt.Uut.. d.: LLAK.I\\. A PARTNERSHIP OF INOMOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIOHS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 ARST COMMEACW. BUii.DiNG .a0 WEST CAPITOl l.lTTI.E IIOCI(, AIUCANUS l'Z2111 (501) 376-2011 CJ RECEIVED  REVIEMEC FA~ FRO~ JOHN PAG!: !NV:: OU[ L 1230 WAL~E~ RE: OcPCSJTIO~S .zr, . TELEPHCNE CCNr.ERENCE ~JT~ JOY SPR!NGEQ (2J .5~ TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WJT~ TI~ MUMPHRIF.S RE: OEPOSITICN .2~ LETTER FRO~ JG~N WAlkER RE: ADE .2~ TELEPHCNE CONFERENCE WlT~ SA~ JONES .so RECEIVE  t R~VlE\"EC J05HuA ~OTION FOR EXTENSION .2~ PREPARAT!O~ OF~ CONFERENCE WiT~ JE~A PREPARA h FON S~iVEA CEPOSI~!ON AP?~AREO S~AVE~ CEFOSil!CN 8/i~/g~ JL~ ~ V ~C FILING ~EVIEWEC BUCGET CRCER REVIEWEC A,c REVI~EC A~IEF, MCT!O~ AhS CGRRSSPONOENCE RE: VACJ~l SEATS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WIT~ MS. C. ARMSTRONG REVIE~EO A~C REVISE~ CRAFT C~ PLEADYNGS TELEPHONE CONFE~ENCE WIT~ ~R. MILHOLLrN RE: FUNDING CALCUL~ltJN~ 8/25/q~ JCF ~EVIEWEO PCSSr. PCCLING BRIEF TO 8TH er~. ANO ACGENCU~ CCCU~ENTS ?/25/9~ JL~ REVI=WEC ANO FIN~LIZE: PLEADI~G~; VARIOUS ~ATTERS RE: FILING fREL~ASE OF SEATS\u003e TELEPHONE CONFEPENCE WITH JUOGE WRIGHTS OFFICE ~(: A~E HEARING EXHI9IT EXCHANGE VARICUS MAlTERS RE2 Pee PROCESS a/25/~4 WAP RECEIVED ANO REVIEkEC CR:E~ ~E: euoGETS 8/26/q4 JL~ REVIEWED OROER ~E: ACE HEARING SCHEOUlE TELEPHG~E C  hFERE~CE Wll~ H~. WALf.ER RE: AOE O~PC5ITICN5 TRAVELED TC MR. ~AlKtR'S OFFICE: AlTE~OEC ~EPOSITIC~ CF RJCH~RO WEISS ANO MR. BOB SHAVEP E/29/q4 JL~ R~VltWEO QAOER A~C CRAFTED LETTf~ TO MR. ~ ILHOLL EN REVIEWED ccqRESPC~CENCE RE: DISCOVERY REVIEWED OROER ~E: P(SSC ~UOGET; ORAFTEG LETTER TC CR. MIL~IA~S TELEPHONE CONFE~ENCE WIT~ ~S. ARMSTRC~G RE: PROJECl ~G~T. TC~t 8/30/q4 CJ~ NCE ~Jl~ STEVE JONES TELEPHONE CQNPERfNCE WJTH SA~ JONES AfRCOPY PREPAATION ANC SE11lE~E~T CONFERENCE .75 .sc  2 c;  2., .2'; .2\", .. 25 71-0253537 t -uc;zc:: 5/31/q~  ooco\u003crn-c J1- 0) tCONTINUEO ON PAGE 71 I I I ~ I an 11q1i CJH 8/3 l/q', JI.~ G/C2/94 ATT q/oZJq'- CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOMOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIA TlONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BU1L.DING 0:l WEST CAPITOL UTTU IIOCIC, ARK.UISAI 7'22Cl1 (501) 376-2011 TH ACE A~O PiR1!ES RECEIVED  REVIEEC JC~H~A ~GTION TC SUPPLEH1-4T LETTER FRO~ JC~N WAL~E~ RE: SETTLEMENT LETTER F~O~ SA~ JO~E~ - FOIA TC ACE iELEPHCNE CONFE~P~  ' \"' \"' \"' ONES TELE , c ONFERENCE Wll~ ~S. AR~STRONG RE: FILING t  TRAVELED TC L~SC; CC~FER~E~ WITH M~. ARMSTRONG ~NO CT~ERS; CCNF~RqEC WITH OR. CLOWERS RE: F~CJECl ~~MT TOOL; RETURNED TC GFFICE C~AFTEO NOl!CES CF FILlNG ANO CORRESPONOENCE VARIOUS MATT ER EVItWEO ~CllO~ 10 eNFCRCE SETTLE~ENT ~NO M TC~ SlIP; ERIEF TRAVELEC LRSO; CO~FERR: 1 W VARIOUS A  ~INISTRAlCRSi VARI~U~ ~ATT:RS RE: PRCJECl NG~l TOOL; TRAVELLED TO KING SCHOCL RE: GREAT EXPECTATIONS I~SE~~ICE REVIEWEO OCNNfll BROCKS CO~PLAI~T;RESEA~CH ~: S~~ RECEIVEC C ~EVI=~EC CO~PUTE~ NETWCKK DOCUMENTS LETTER fRO~ SA~ JO~E5 RECEIVE  t ~evtE~EC Prssc BUCGE~ TELEPHCNE caNr-ERENCE WIT~ ~AM JONES LETT:~ FROM JO~N WALKER REt AOE LEllER fRQ~ A110RNE~ 8CVlER RECEIVED t REVIE~EC AOE ~ROJECT ~G~T TOOL LETTER FRO~ Ve ORYA~l ~/02/q~ JCF ~EVIEW~t HA~~ELL CECISJON Re: vaTING q C4/94 CJH PR P TON FOR AOE HEARING qecEIVEC t \"EVIE~EC JO HUA QPPOSITIC~ TO LRS  MOlIC~ T~ PELEASE, SEATS LETTEn FROM S1ERLING I~GAA~ WITH EXT OAY SCHEDULES PREPARATION CF CRAFT SlIPULATraN 9/0~/q4 CJH RESEARCHED NEW ARKAN5A~ ABILITY GROUPING CASE CONFERS~CE W1T~ JL~ RE: ~ITNESS AND EXtiUHT LISl!l q/06/q~ ATT CONFERREO Mil~ OR. ~ILLIA~S ANO OR. MATTHIS, PREPA~EC FOR ~EAP.ING q/Qc/qi, JI.M TEl.EPH  MtLMOlLEl'j R6: AOE 1 ~,1qJNG TAX IOENTIFICATIOIII 71 -0253837 PAGE 7 1'1\\lti -llQ2C3 CATE 5/31/g5 l  7 5 2 .2 5 . .75 .25  50 .25 .2,; .25 .25 .25 .50 .so .25 1.so .aac.oqo-cJ1-  c;/07/qi.. ,-tSHC \u003cl/08/q4 t.TT t kllJA 1, t.L,U1'.~ ...... ~ -   A PARTNERSHIP Of INOMOUALS AND PROfESSK)NAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING ~ WEST CAPfTOL IJTl\\.E IIOCK. ~ 7Z201 (501) 376-2011 REVIEWED FILES ~e: 51A1E!D~ COMPUTER NElWORKA Tia~ FCR ~OE ~EJRING; DRAFTED WITNESS ~NC EX~IeI1 LIS1i TRA~ELLEO T~ LASO; CCNFE~REC ~JT~ ~R. ~!lHOtLEN A~C ClHERS; RE\"lE~EC FILES ~~D EXHIBlTr U TC CFFI _; -~?LE ED RE\"IEWEO JCSHU~ RESPCN~E TC MCTION TO RELEASE Kt~CERG~RTEN SEAlS/~CU~ YEA~ OLG S~ATS VA~!GUS ~~TTERS RE: ~ELctSE OF. Sft.TS ETC. t  ~E\"IEWE: ~E~CS Rf: Pee UPQ~Tt~; ~u~T RTOEOVLIE WUEPDD ATEECSU CA1!CNAL ECUlTY MONITORING REPO~T - FIRST SE~ESlER \"ARIOUS 111AllE?5 e~oor.s ATlENCEO HE~RING; PREPARE~ ~OR NEXT DAV'S HEARI~G RECEIVEC t RE\"IEMEC lRIAL ORGER RECEIVED ( REVIEMEC co~ REPORT RE: PRI~CIPAl SF.CP.ETlON PRCC~S: REC~IVED C RE\"l:MEC CRCE~ R=: PRE-Va SEA'TS COPIED CASE FDR CJhw q CCPIES eROOKS-PR=PAREC FOR ,Ne ATTEN1EC HEARING; PRFPARA1ICN fC~ NEX1 OAVS PAGE E t~Vfl -11qzc! DATE ~/3l/q5 LI230 .aoocqo-cJ~ .25 e  2 'i HEA~ING q/C~/q4 (JH T~LEPHONE CCNi-ERENCE ~l'Tr o~. MAYG -t----i:n:ic\"\"ie:i1r'\\:v.ce:roi-rr.-\"--a\"R-:t:vr=-;:--r-~.,.......-r'T'T\"\"'1rri-:\u003c:r---...:__----..c:::.::::~ RECEIVED t RE\"JE~EC ~oe RESPONSE - LOSS fUfllOING ISSUE G/OS/q4 JL~ ~ t h ~R. JOH ANO REVIEWED flLES RE: CESEGRtGATI  N CASES REV!E~EO OROER RE: FCUR~EAR GLO/KINOEqGAAlE~ SEA1S ~1oqJq4 ATT aqOOKS-PREPAR:C FCR ANC ~TTENDEO HEAP I~G CJH CONFERENCE wtn SAM JCN~S ANO JOHN GILL TELEPHONE CONFER ENC~ \\,jJH MA~I\" ~ILHILLON TELEPHONE CONFERENCE w1nI eoe MORGAN RE: VARIOUS ISSUES ANO PREPARA FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOMOUALS ANO PROFESSIOHAI- ASSOCIATlOHS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUIUllNG 400 WEST CAPITOL UTIU IIOCK. AJIKAHS,\\S 72201  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1698","title":"Court Filings: District Court, supplemental response of Joshua intervenors concerning their fee petition; District Court, affidavit of John W. Walker; District Court, second supplemental affidavit of Joy C. Springer","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":["Walker, John W.","Springer, Joy C."],"dc_date":["1996-08-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, supplemental response of Joshua intervenors concerning their fee petition; District Court, affidavit of John W. Walker; District Court, second supplemental affidavit of Joy C. Springer"],"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/1698"],"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":["112 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Springer, Joy C.","Walker, John W."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  Date: To: From: Re: John W. Wall(er, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 ENCLOSURE MEMORANDUM August 30, 1996 All Attorneys John W. Walker, Esq. LRSD v. PCSSD AUG j O 1996 Office of Desegrega1ion Moni!Ofin~ Enclosure(s): Letter \u0026Attachments to Judge Wright Supplemental Response of the Joshua Intervenors Concerning Their Fee Petition Affidavit of John W. Walker Second Supplemental Affidavit of Joy C. Springer IF ANY OF THE ABOVE LISTED DOCUMENT(S) ARE NOT ENCLOSED, PLEASE CALL THE ABOVE NUMBER. THANK YOU. JOHN W. WAIJ(ER/ RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. JOHN W. WALICER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Roc.k, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FILED U.S. D1srn1c; WURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 2 9 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: -----n'.DE;:-;P:a_--c: =L=ER~K August 29, 1996 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States Federal Court Building AUG j O 1996 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD; No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright: Office of Des . e9regat1cn Mon#.oring - In preparing our reponse to LRSD's detailed analysis, we determined some additional errors in calculation after our detail analysis of the time records. You will find enclosed a revised Attachment One to our Motion of November 22, 1995, summarizing our entire claim based upon our most recent analysis oftime. The following correction should be made in our Memorandum filed on November 22, 1995: at page 12 - the first full paragraph should read as follows: The Joshua Intervenors seek, for the substantive work on the case through October 28, 1995, an award for 2,016 hours of attorney time and 3,444.4 hours of paralegal time, as well as reimbursement of the amount actually paid to six persons who worked on the Joshua monitoring reports. See motion, Attachment One. This includes: [attorneys] John W. Walker, (1761.0 hours), Wiley Branton, Jr. (79.8 hrs), Austin Porter (175.2 hrs.); and paralegals Joy C. Springer (3123.4 hrs.) and Opal Sims (365.3 hrs.) Intervenors submission,. viewed in the light of the record in this case, establishes that a claim is made for time \"reasonablv expended on this litigation.\" Page Two August 29, 1996 at page 19 - in the first paragraph, the lodestar total for the work, other than for pursuing the fee award, should be for $742,590.81 for personnel and $17,636.00 for litigation costs. Thank you for your consideration JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel Of Record .. ATTACHMENT ONE Revised 8/29/96 SUMMARY OF AWARD SOUGHT A. Substantive Work On Case Number Individual Year(s) of Hours Rate Atty. John W. Walker  1990 6.85 $250.00 1991 562.4 same as above 1992 308.5 same as above 1993 329.2 same as above 1994 218.2 same as above 1995 335.85 same as above Sub-Total 1,761.00 $440,250.00 Atty. Wiley A. Branton, Jr 1990 1991 9.3 1395.00 1992 64.0 9600.00 1993 6.5 975.00 1994 1995 1 Sub-Total 79.8 $11,970.00 Atty. Mark Burnette [Time Waived] Atty. Austin Porter Jr. 1991-1995 175.2 $130.00 Sub-Total 175.2 $22,TT6.00 : Joy Charles Springer (Paralegal) 1990 27.5 $50.00 1991 854.7 same as above 1992 714.7 same as above 1993 553.9 same as above 1994 505.8 same as above 1995 466.8 same as above Sub-Total 3,123.4 $156,170.00 Opal Sims (Paralegal) 1991 365.3 $40.00 Sub-Total 365.3 $14,612.00  2 Other Paralegal Costs: (Reimbursement of amounts paid for work on Joshua Monitoring Reports). Amount Individual Year(s) Paid Kirke Herman 1991 $16,675.00 1992 $8,400.00 1993 $12,732.00 1994 $4,587.00 Evelyn Jackson 1991 $2,700.00 Debbie Parker 1992 $26,225.81 LaRhonda Pondexter 1991 $5,218.00 1992 $6,875.00 Clementine Rouse 1991 $2,200.00 1992 $1,000.00 1993 $2,000.00 Delores Sykes 1992 $1,000.00 1993 $3,600.00 1994 $3,600.00 Sub-Total $96,812.81 Sub-1 otal Substantive Nork on case (Personnel) $742,590.81 .. 3 B. Work on this Motion Individual Number of Hours Rate Amount Atty. John W. Walker 37.0 $250.00 $ 9,250.00 Robert Pressman 120.0 $175.00 $21,000.00 Joy C. Springer 90.0 $ 50.00 $ 3,650.00 Austin Porter Jr. 2.5 $130.00 $ 325.00 Sub-Total 249.5 $35,075.00 C. Litigation Expenses Description Amount Reimbursement provided to Joy C. Springer for mileage costs anc $ 4,742.00 other monitoring expenses; see J. Springer Aff., para. 21 Reimbursement to Kirke Herman for monitoring costs; see $ 100.00 J. Springer Aff., para. 21 Cost of copying docket in clerk's office; see J. Springer Aff., $ 60.00 para. 21 Witness fees for LRSD budget Hearing and other costs; see $ 294.00 J.Springer Aff., para. 21 Copying and fax charges; see J. Springer Aff., para. 22 $ 9,250.00 4 Postage charges, see J. Springer Aft., para. 22 $ 3,190.00 Sub-Total 17,636.00 GRAND TOTAL $795,301.81 .. 5 INTHEUNITEDSTATESDIS~CTCO fl J:D E S DISTRICT OF   1\\~cr\"couAr A TERN RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION AUG 2 9 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK Cl F..RL.- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. By: PL\"JUNlli'.rS D!:P. CL!:RK V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,Ft AL.  -LIBFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. E Ef V ~ DINTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. AUG :5 0 1996 INTERVENORS Office of Desegregation M . . SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE OF THE JOSHUA INTE~~RS CONCERNING THEIR FEYPETm6N- -... _, This memorandum responds to the belated analysis of the Joshua intervenors' time entries by the LRSD. It also describes a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on August 19, 1996 compensating lead counsel's time for work on a successful appeal. A LRSD's Belated Time Analysis Should Not Be Considered Near the completion of the hearing on August 19, 1996, the LRSD presented to the court a 99-page analysis of the time entries oflead counsel, Austin Porter, Jr., and Wiley A Branton, Jr. This analysis was based upon the activity schedules provided to LRSD counsel on or about November 22, 1995. Thus, it was presented to the intervenors and the court approximately nine months after the underlying material was made available to LRSD counsel. Moreover, it was advanced approximately five and one-half months after the date on which LRSD's response to the fee petition was due (March 1, 1996).  The court should set aside the belated analysis as untimely. Contrary to LRSD's position, it did not satisfy its rebuttal burden by complaining generally about intervenors' time records without 1 particular examples.1 As the court observed at the recent hearing, the hearing was delayed due to the court's superseding obligations. It is simply unfair for intervenors to be presented with a task of such a great magnitude at the hearing, when so much time, which could have been used productively, elapsed between the presentation of material to LRSD and its response. If the court after studying this memorandum considers that a revised version of lead counsel's activity statement is needed, the court, we respectfully submit, should provide (i) for an interim award and prompt payment to intervenors, reflecting the fact that they will be entitled to a substantial award in any event, 2 and (ii) for a reasonable period for the filing of the revised statement (30 days).3 Materials submitted more recently by the Joshua Interveors are of a different character. Revisions of the chart summarizing our overall claim (see Enclosure One) make relatively minor changes in an item filed in November 1995 (and somewhat reduce the overall claim). Documents regarding the fairness hearing and its aftermath, and the 1990-91 appeal, involved materials long part of the record, as well as events in which LRSD counsel participated. The LRSD analysis should also be set aside because of the extent to which it is argumenative and otherwise flawed. The following examples illustrate this point. First. LRSD eliminates all of lead counsel's time for work on the fee petition. See 10\\23\\95, 10\\30\\95, etc. Second. LRSD views as noncompensable, \"unrelated matters\" all work designed to prevent individual class members from being subjected to discrimination in discipline, placement, and extracurricular activities. See 6\\24\\92, 1 See Joshua Intervenors' reply memorandum filed on April 1, 1996, at 7-9, and in particular the decisions cited in note 5. 2 See intervenor's initial memorandum of November 22, 1995, at 23, regarding interim' awards. 3 A prelminary analysis of legal counsel's time is attached to this supplemental response. 2 9\\18\\92, 11\\17\\92, 5\\18\\93, 12\\15\\93, 10\\24\\95, 10\\26\\95.4 Third. LRSD views efforts to promote racial diversity in the administrative corps and to prevent discriminatory treatment of staff members to be non-compensable. See 8\\22\\95, 9\\14\\95.5 Fourth. LRSD's position is not consistent with the recognition in ARC v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008, 1011, 1012 (8th Cir. 1996) that in the post-judgment phase a party is to be compensated for reasonable efforts to defend its victory, even if not totally successful - a principle of obvious significance where, as here, the court has repeatedly characterized LRSD's implementation performance in negative terms. See 6\\8\\93, 6\\9\\93, 6\\6\\94, 6\\7\\94, 6\\22\\95, 6\\23\\95, 7\\6\\95, 7\\76\\95, 9\\1\\95. B. The Allocation of Time Among the Districts LRSD notes, properly, that some of the time claimed for lead counsel pertains to the other systems. Of course, intervenors did not request that the LRSD pay the entire award. Paragrapgh (8.) of the motion provides: \"The award which is sought should be apportioned among the three school districts as follows: Little Rock School District (75 to 80 percent), North Little Rock School District (5 to 10 percent), and Pulaski County Special School District Number 1 (15 to 20 percent) (with the final percentages totalling 100 percent). See the accompanying memorandum [at 22], and the affidavit of John W. Walker, paragraph [18].\" 4 Compare LRSD Desegregation Plan, 4\\29\\92, at 1 (Para. F), at 3 (last paragraph), 28 (paras. 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14), 33, 39, 40, 45; Inter-District Desegregation Plan, April 1992, Overview, Part XIII (presumption against racial disparity in programs and activities in any school; special attention given to imbalance in various placements, extracurricular activities, and discipline); Affidavit of John W. Walker, Nov. 21, 1995, para. 10; Affidavit ofJoy C. Springer, Nov. 21, 1995, at paras. 12-19; Joshua Intervenors' reply memorandum, filed April 1, 1996, at 10-11 (work on discipline issues); Joshua Intervenors' supplemental memorandum filed August 9, 1996 (summarizing precedent establishing the compensability of work on behalfof individual class members).  5 Compare LRSD Desegregation Plan, 4\\29\\92, at 1 (para. H), 2 (sixth \"bullet\"), 3 (last full paragraph). 3 These suggested allocations were based upon lead counsel's \"assessment of the time spent litigating against the three systems, including reviewing information and filings, and their relative culpability.\" Id.6 It is proper, under controlling precedent, for the court to follow this approach, based upon its familiarity with the post-judgment phase of the case. See citations to Jenkins and Hendrickson decisions at page 22 of our initial memorandum, filed November 22, 1995; see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436-37 (1983) (recognizing that a district court has broad discretion to resolve fee questions by approximation). This submission provides additional information bearing upon an allocation among the districts. See the attached Second Supplemental Affidavit of Joy C. Springer, showing the amouts of time which she, Ms. Sims, and Messrs. Branton and Porter expended with regard to each district. See also the attached statement of John W. Walker. C. Other Contentions Regarding Individuals Are Without Merit LRSD's contentions regarding the time of other persons are without merit. Joy Springer LRSD contends in its after hours submission that none of Ms. Springer's time is compensable. This is error. First. Her Second Supplemental Affidavit filed with this memorandum allocates her time by district. Second. More fundamentally, we have demonstrated that under the controlling principles all of her time is compensable.7 6 With regard to the greater culpability of the LRSD in the post-judgment period, we note the court's many statements which we submitted with our opposition to the LRSD's motion to terminate jurisdiction and the findings of ODM which we summarized in our recent motions regarding the incentive schools and ODM's recommendations.  7 See, for example, Mc Donald v. Annontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1461 (8th Cir. 1988); Keith v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850, 856-57 (9th Cir. 1987); Duran v. Carruthers, 885 F.2d 1492, 1496 (10th Cir. 4 Bob Pressman LRSD asserts in part that \"most of Pressman's time\" was spent reconstructing time records. This is error. Pressman's affidavit filed on November 22, 1955 documented 238.98 hours spent on this large project. The affidavit, confirmed by all versions of intervenors' summary chart, evidenced a claim limited to 120 of these hours. Aff., at para. (13.). This was attributed in part to \"the nature of some of the work .. .. \" Id. A review of Pressman's detailed statement of time shows that if all hours are totalled -- for the days on which any of the work supported efforts by other persons to reconstruct their time -- the total is 94.5 hours8 (a smaller total than the number of hours set aside). Thus, in substance, there is no claim for the time spent supporting efforts to reconstruct records. Austin Porter, Jr. Some of the time expended by Mr. Porter involved representation of students deflected by the systems to the juvenile process. Our position is that this is a facet of disriminatory discipline. Our approach is supported by the gross disparities in discipline rates, cited most recently at the August 19 hearing. Other Joshua Monitors Regarding the other monitors, LRSD is content with arguing that \"Joshua has already been 1989), citing with approval Brewster v. Dukakis, 544 F.Supp. 1069, 1072 (D.Mass. 1982), affirmed as modified, 786 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1986); Joshua Intervenors' reply memorandum, filed April 1, 1996, at 10-11 (work on discipline issues); Joshua Intervenors' supplemental memorandum filed August 9, 1996 ( summarizing precedent establishing the compensability of work on behalf of individual class members).  8 Thisinfonnationis9\\28(4.5), 10\\24(3.0), 10\\30(1.0), 11\\1 (1.0), 11\\8(3.75), 11\\9(8.5), 11\\10 (9.0), 11\\11 (9.5), 11\\12 (10.25), 11\\13 (9.75), 11\\14 (9.5), 11\\15 (10.25), I 1\\16 (10.25), 11\\290 (4.25). Moreover, some other work was done on seven of these days. 5 compensated for monitoring during the life of the decree .... \" Supplemental analysis, 8\\19\\96, at 2-3. However, LRSD has yet to offer an explanation for the fact that the 36-page settlement agreement contains no such provision - despite the fact that it has all the earmarks of a document setting forth the parties' full agreement, and in its specific section on attorneys' fees it begins with a statement that LRSD (but not Joshua) agrees not to seek further fees. The fact that, as here, a witness can later give testimony based upon what is \"clear in my mind,\" \"my understanding,\" and \"what I in good faith thought\" is, why, we submit, modern contract theory emphasizes the text of documents like this one. Moreover, as the hearing revealed, Mr. Chachkin did not participate in the negotiations in question, and the objective evidence from the Court of Appeals' opinion reveals no reliance on his statement, or the somewhat different statement of Mr. Heller. See 921 F.2d at 1392. D. Prevailing Party Status We have noted, given the stage of this proceeding, that LRSD has over-emphasized to a considerable degree to extent to which an award is to be predicated on assessing whether the label \"prevailing\" is to be attached to each piece of intervenors' work. We submit that the recent decision in the ARC case validates our approach. That decision emphasizes that a party can not walk away from a case and that defensive efforts must be made, with the resulting time compen!:able. See 83 F.3d at 1010-11, 1012. To the extent that ARC indicates that some consideration should be given to \"overall success\" (88 F.3d at 1011), the Joshua Intervenors have had considerable success, taking account of the inadequacies in the LRSD which they have faced. Intervenors' input at hearings led to directives or suggestions by the court to LRSD representatives. AS ODM does not have counsel, Joshua Intervenors have been the advocates for ODM recommendations adopted by the court.' ' Joshua's contempt motion led to an agreement for regular meetings with LRSD representatives to 6 enhance intervenors' consultative role. The time statements oflead counsel and Ms. Springer show that our participation in discipline hearings has often been of benefit to students. See also J. Springer Aff., 11/21/95, at paras. 13, 17, 18. E. Recent Precedent Regarding Lead Counsel's Rate On August 19, 1996 the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit entered an order in the case of Harvell v. Blytheville School District, Appeal No. 93-1009EAJ, approving the requested rate of $ 250 per hour for the time oflead counsel for work on a successful appeal. See Enclosure Two. F. Correction of Claim for Day-Hollowell Case LRSD and NLRSD have referred to the total time claimed for lead counsel on August 11, 1995 - one of the 175 days in 1995 alone, for which time has been claimed for him in this case. As explained in open court on August 19, 1996, the Walker firm's Reply filed in the Day-Hollowell case, LR-C-94-849, on July 10, 1996, corrected errors accounting for the example cited by the parties here [an entry in Day-Hollowell should have been .5 rather than 5.5, and some of the time for the Davis case, No. 88-4082 (W.D. Ark.) should have been claimed for August 12, 1996]. Respectfully submitted,  11-i l, I// !f 0!4,,, Jo~' Walker# 64046 John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Bob Pressman MA # 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 7 .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Supplemental Response, as well as Enclosure One and Enclosure Two, were sent via United States mail to all counsel of record on this 29th of August, I 996. l t tJ /ild;L ~ V .. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAN~ LED WESTERN DMSION U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS LITI1..E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. AUG 2 9 1996 PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ETA-;L; -_------;:D;~EP:;.- -c,D.J#ij!:::n:r.,,,..,....-NDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. STATE OF ARKANSAS ) )ss. COUNTY OF PULASKI ) AFFIDAVIT INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS 4UG JO 1996 Office of Desegregation Monitoring I, JOHN W. WALKER, affiant herein, states under oath the following:~- - -- ____ . _ _ - ... ~~-' _.,. I hereby state that I have made a preliminary appraisal of my fee petition and determined the approximate time whicn I have expended on work for each of the districts and for joint work involving all the districts. It is attached hereto. I have not had time to make a thorough analysis using concepts such as monitoring, or unrelated work. I have read the foregoing statement and certify that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief \\) - /~ / ,./ 41_ ,/'' ~ .__-f'/\u003c ~W. Walker SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 29th day of August 996. My Commission Expires: C, j 17 ) -:z.C03 ,  . . ..:  io \\ : I \\ ~ ~ ~. ... ...~.... ,_~,,,,,. . . ATTACHMENT ONE ANALYSIS OF JOO W. WALKER'S TIME 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 TOTAL , LRSD 6.25 253.9 132.2 163.8 118.4 221.65 896.2 50.9% PCCSD .6 70.3 35.4 68.8 48.6 33.0 256.7 .. 14.6% NLRSD 13.8 24.5 18.7 5.3 9.9 72.2 4.1% JOINT 224.4 116.4 77.9 45.9 71.3 535.9 30.4% TOTAL 6.85 562.4 308.5 329.2 218.2 335.85 1761  UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 93-1009EAJ Shirley M. Harvell, et al., Appellants, vs.       Blytheville School District, etc.,  et al.,   Appellees.  Appeal from the United States District Cou.rt fox the  Eastern District of Arkansas Appellants' motion fox attorneys' fees and costs and appellees' response to the motion have been considered by the court. It is hereby ordered that appellants shall recover from appellees $53,280.81 fox attorneys' fees and costs on appeal. The clerk of the United States District Court is directed to place these - costs and fees in the previously issued mandate. August 19, 1996 o~J:;rt~irection of the Court: Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.  I I - XII TD UllITBD STATBS COURT OJ' APPBALS l'OR TD BIGBTB CIRCUIT HO. 93-1009 SHIRLEY M. HARVELL; BKKAHUEL LOFTON, Reverend; HATTIE JUDDLEBROOX; ALICE JOHBS; and JACQUELINE HlDl'TOH APPELLANTS v. DR. PRAHX LADD, Individually and in hi  official capacity as Superintendent of the Blytheville School District Ho. 5; BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 5, a PUblio Body Corporate; THE BOARD 07 DIRECTORS OF THE BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT Ho.5; and Individual Board Members: WILLIAM \"BILL\" TOKLIHSOH; NORVELL KOORE WILLIAM \"BILL\" SULLIVAN; HAROLD StJDBtJRY; HBLBH HtJNN7 KAREN FRAZIER; STEVE LITTRELL; AND WILLIAM \"BILL STOVELL, JR.; Individually and in Their Official Capacities as School Board Members of the Blytheville School District Ho. 5. APPELLBBS MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REQUEST TO REMAND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES TO DISTRICT COURT Come the Plaintiffs/ Appellants by and through their undersigned counsel and move for an award of attorneys' fees and cost pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1973l(e) in the above styled appeal and in the predecessor appeals in this case, Harvell v. Ladd, CA Nos. 91-1914 EAJ, and 91-2037EAJ and request remand of this Motion to the district court. In support of their motion, appellants submit 1. That this Court's en bane opinion of December 5, 1995 establishes for the first .. time in these appeals that plaintiffs/ appellants are \"prevailing parties\" for purposes of a fee award. 2 A Brief in Support of Motion for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs to I I - .. the Plaintiffs/ Appellants as the prevailing parties in this action. 3. The attached Affidavits of Mark Burnette and John W. Walker, attorneys for the plaintiffs/ appellants describing their general qualifications and the time each reasonably expended; 4. A summary of the work performed in this case by John W. Walker and Mark Burnette, and the expenses necessarily incurred. 5. Plaintiffs/ Appellants are entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs in the amount detailed in the accompanying submissions. The hours detailed in this application represent the minimum hours for which an award must be granted. 6. Plaintiffs have not petitioned the district cout for fees yet, as additional work on remand of this case is inevitable. In order to conserve judicial resources, and, in light of the district court's familiarity with the overall work in the case, plaintiffs' request that this motion be remanded for consideration with plaintiffs' petition for fees in that court Plaintiffs/ Appellants also seek reimbursement of all costs incurred which were reasonably necessary for the appellant's success in the court of appeals as is described herein below. Accordingly, Plaintiffs/ Appellants move for an award of attorneys' fees and costs in the Court of Appeals in the following amounts: ATTORNEY HOURS John W. Walker 16.8 Mark Burnette 341.5 RATE $250.00 $135.00 Sub Total (Fees) TOTAL $ 4,200.00 $46,102.50 .. $50,275.50 Court Fee Transcript Travel and accomodations Photocopying Postage By: COSTS Sub Total (Costs) GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 Mark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE $ 210.00 900.00 942.70 727.16 198.35 $2,978.21 $53,280.71 .. I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has mailed, postage prepaid to Mr. Robert Llgh~ Friday Eldridge and Oark, 400 West Capitol, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 thisg'Ldayo!December, 1995. ~~ \u0026 ;\u0026- . ~aU Mark umette Re:Harvell, et al. v. Ladd, et al. SUMMARY OF COSTS Description Amount Court Fee [04/17/91] [12/23/93] $ 210.00 Postage charges $ 198.35 Transcript $ 900.00 Copies $ 727.16 Hotel $ 356.70 Transportation $ 586.00 Total $2,978.21  . .. . ... IR TD mlITED STATBS COUJlT 0~ APPllLS :r0R TD EIGB'l'II CIRCUIT HO. 93-1009 SHIRLEY x. HARVBLL; BKJIMltJBL LOFTON, Reverend; HATTIE MIDDLBBROOlt; ALICE JOHBS; and JACQOBLIHB HBHTOH APPELLANTS v. DR. PRAHX LADD, Individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Blytheville School District Ho. 5; BLxTHBYILLB SCHOOL DISTRICT No. s, a PUblic Body Corporate; TD BOARD OP DIRBCTORS OP TD BL'xTHBYILLB SCHOOL DISTRICT No.5; and Individual Board Kamber: WILLIAM \"BILL\" TOKLIHSON; NORVELL KOORB WILLIAM \"BILL\" SULLIVAN; HAROLD SUDBURY; HBLBN HmDI; KAREN PRAZIER; STEVE LITTRELL; AND WILLIAM \"BILL STOVELL, JR.; Individually and in Their Official capacities as School Board Members of the Blytheville School District No. s. APPELLBBS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEE I. BACKGROUND OF CASE Plaintiffs filed this action in federal district court on November 14, 1989, under the Voting Rights Act, 42 u.s.c. 1973, to secure equal voting rights pursuant to the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. After trial, the district court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove a violation of the statute. Harvell Y, Ladd, 759 F.Supp. 525 (E.D.Ark. 1991). Plaintiffs appealed that decision to this court. .. Defendants cross appealed as to the district court's denial of a motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs and their attorneys. On appeal, this Court held that the district court had ~fred in its decision on the merits, affirmed the denial of sanctions, and remanded the case for further findings pursuant to the guidance of the court of Appea1s decision. Harvell y.Ladd, 958 F.2d 226 (8th cir. 1992). Since that decision remanded the case for further findings, it did not establish plaintiffs as \"prevailing parties;\" hence no petition for fees was submitted even though that was a successful appeal for plaintiffs. on remand, the district court again held that plaintiffs had failed to establish a violation of the Voting Rights Act. (unpublished Opinion). Plaintiffs again appealed. A panel of this Court reversed the district court on August 24, 1994, holding that the plaintiff had proved a violation of the Voting Rights Act, and instructed the district court to implement a remedy. Harvell v, Blytheville School District No, 5, 33 F.3d 910, (8th Cir. 1994). Defendants moved for rehearing en bane. Their motion was granted and the panel opinion was vacated. Finally, on December 5, 1995, the full Court reversed the district court and remanded the case for a remedy order. Harvell v, Blytheville school District, __ F.3d __ (8th cir. 1995) (en bane). II. 11:NTITLEHENT TO F1!3!:S 'C7N'IlE:R U. S. C. 19 7 31. ( e J In order for individuals to pursue their rights to equal protection under the voting rights act, Congress provided for the recovery of a prevailing party's costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, with the following provision: In any action or proceeding to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment, the court, in it., di.,cretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a ' ' . .. reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. - 42 u.s.c. 1973l(e). In this case, all -of the proceedings before this court in the two appeals of the case are \"proceedings to enforce the voting guarantees of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment,\" and therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to . an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs were not \"prevailing parties\" under the statute until the conclusion of the final appeal. Therefore; application for fees for the first appeal is appropriately made now. see Hester y. McGee, 815 F.2d 1193, 1198 (8th Cir. 1987)(Holding that plaintiff's attorney in an earlier appeal, which merely reversed the granting of summary judgment to the defendants in a section 1983 action, was entitled to submit application for fees in light of the ultimate success of plaintiff on second appeal after trial . .Id.). III. ESXABLISHING A REASomlB.Lr FD The standards for awarding attorney's fees under 42 u.s.c. 19731(e) are the same standards applied under 42 U.s.c. 1988. ~ .e....a,..., Riddell Y, National Democratic Party, 624 F.2d 539, 543 (5th Cir. 1980); campaign for Progressive Bronx v, Black, 632 F.Supp. 647 (S.D.N.Y 1986); and Connor v, winter, 519 F.supp. 1337, 1339 (S.D. Miss. 1981). The appropriate standard for \"prevailing party\" status is whether \"plaintiff has succeeded on 'any significant issue in litigation which achieve[d] some of the benefit the. parties sought in bringing the suit.'\" Texas State Teachers Association Y, Garland Independent school District, 489 u.s. 782, - 792, 103 L.Ed.2d 866, 877 109 S.ct. 1486 (1989) (citation omitted). .. ' . . , As with other federal civil rights tee statutes, e.g. 42 u.s.c. 1988, and 42 u.s.c. 2000, the Supreme Court directs that: \"The most useful starting point tor determining a reasonable fee is the number of hours . reasonably expended on the litigation I multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.\" Hensley y. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.ct. 1933 (1983). In this case, plaintiffs are 100% successful on the appeal and on the underlying claim. Thus, no reduction is necessary for work on unsuccessful claims. Each of the plaintiffs/appellants' lawyers' time and rate, and a description of their expertise are itemized in the accompanying affidavits, actvity statements, and motion. These submissions represent the time reasonably expended by each attorney for particular activity necessary to the successful resolution in favor of plaintiffs/appellants before this court. The hours submitted were screened to remove redundant or excessive time. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasorr, plaintiffs/appellants' urge the Court to grant their motion for attorney's fees and costs as set forth in the accompanying motion. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway  Arkansas 72206 ( ~ .. Mark Burnette, No.880'18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has mailed, postage prepaid to Mr. Robe~ Jdght Friday Eldridge and Clar~ 400 West Capitol, Llttle Roe~ Arkansas 72201 this.2,J_ day of December, 1995. 220/lh \u0026t~~- Mark Burnette  l'.)I THB tJIIITBD STATES COmlT 01' APPDLS l'OR THB BIGJl'l'B CIRCUIT )IQ. 93-1009 SHIRLEY x. HARVELL; BKKAliTIJEL LOFTOH, Reverend; BATTIB KIDDLBBROOlt; ALICB JOHBS; and JACQOBLIHB BEHTOH APPBLLAN'l'S v. DR. FRANX LADD, Individually and in hia official capacity as superintendent of the Blytheville School District Ho. 5; BLY'l'BBVILLB SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 5 1 a Public Body Corporate; '1'HB BOARD OJ' DIRBC'l'ORS OF TBB BLXTBEYILLB SCHOOL DISTRICT Ho.s; and Individual Board Members: WILLIAM 11BILL11 TOMLINSON; NORVELL KOORB WILLIAM 11BILL11 SULLIVAN; HAROLD SUDBURY; BELEN NtJNH; KAR.EN FRAZIER; STBVB LITTRELL; AND WILLIAM \"BILL STOVELL, JR.; Individually and in Their Official Capacities as School Board Members of the Blytheville School District No. s. AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W, WALKER STATE OF ARKANSAS) )SS. COUNTY OF PULASKI) APPELLBES Comes now the affiant, JOlDI w. WALDR, who submits the following affidavit under oath: 1. I graduated from Arkansas AM\u0026N College in Pine Bluff, Arkansas in 1958 with a major in Sociology. In 1960, I was awarded a John Hay Whitney Opportunity Fellowship which I used to obtain a Master's Degree from New York University in Education (Human Relations) in 1961. In 1961, I enrolled in the Yale University Law School from which I received my law degree in 1964. At Yale Law school in 1964, I was a finalist in the Thurman Arnold Appellate Moot court Competition. I have studied further at Fisk University (the Race Relations Institute) and at many legal training seminars which focused upon the subject of civil rights law in particular. 2. In 1964, I was admitted to practice before the Bar of Arkansas. Subsequently, I was admitted to, and still practice before, the United States Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth, Fifth, Eleventh, and Tenth Circuits, the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, and the United States District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. 3. I completed a legal training internship in New York City with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) in September, 1965. I "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1692","title":"Court Filings: District Court, second supplemental affidavit of Joy C. Springer with attachments","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)","Springer, Joy C."],"dc_date":["1996-08-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Lawyers","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, second supplemental affidavit of Joy C. Springer with attachments"],"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/1692"],"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":["31 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Springer, Joy C."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. AUG 2 9 1996 P~~~CORMACK,CLERK By: -----....,De--=E=P.. . ..,C~L=ER-K DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENO SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER t\\llG j O 1996 STATE OF ARKANSAS) SS) Office of Desegregation Momtorin9 COUNTY OF ___ ) Comes now the affiant, Joy c. Springer, who after first being duly sworn, states as follows: 1. This affidavit supplements my affidavit dated November 21, 1995, in which I described work performed in this case totaling over 3100 hours. 2. This supplemental affidavit responds further to questions raised by counsel for the Little Rock School District and the North Little Rock School District at the hearing on August 19, 1996 by providing a more detail analysis of my time among the Pulaski county districts. This analysis is attached hereto as Attachment One through the use contemporaneous time records and notes. Also attached hereto as Attachment Two is an updated copy of my schedule of hours by district. As these 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I attachments show, when my joint time is allocated equally among the three districts, the total allocations are LRSD, 63.6 percent of my time, PCSSD, 23.8 percent and NLRSD, 12.6 percent. 3. I have also reviewed the time records of Opal Sims. Ms. Sims also maintained contemporaneous time records. Attached hereto as Attachment Three is an allocation of her time among the Pulaski county districts. A new schedule of her hours is attached hereto as Attachment Four. As these attachments show, when 2.4 percent of Ms. Sims' joint time is allocated to LRSD and PCSSD and 2.3 percent to NLRSD, the total allocations are LRSD, 72.2 percent, PCSSD, 16.9 percent, and NLRSD, 5.9 percent. 4. Based upon my knowledge of the facts of this case, I have been able to allocate the time claimed for Attorney Wiley A. Branton, Jr. to the three districts. As Attachment Five and Six to this affidavit show, when his joint time is allocated equally among the districts, the allocations are LRSD 60.8 hours (65.6 percent) and PCSSD 25.5 hours, (31.9 percent). 5. Based upon my knowledge of the facts of this case, I have also been able to allocate the time claimed for Attorney Austin Porter Jr. to the three districts. As Attachment Seven and Eight to this affidavit show, when his joint time is allocated equally among the districts, the allocations are LRSD 73.95 hours (43.8 percent), and PCSSD 96.75 hours, (56.2 percent). I have read the foregoing affidavit and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information. 2 I I 1- 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Joy C. Springer SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1996. Notary Public MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 9P~ ? 3 ;:J'l day of August, --. I ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LRSD PCSSD NLRSD JOINT TOTAL ATTACHMENT ONE ANALYSIS OF JOY CHARLES SPRINGER'S TIME 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 19.0 425.1 356.9 385.3 360.5 304.4 4.0 190.2 156.1 79.5 86.8 91.6 2.5 106.4 80.0 32.5 22.1 16.1 2.0 133.0 121. 7 56.6 36.4 54.7 27.5 854.7 714.7 553.9 505.8 466.8 TOTAL 1851.2 59.3% 608.2 19.5% 259.6 8.3% 404.4 12.9% 3123.4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - /+ffa(2/1 ft1h 11 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL PLAINTIFF DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ACTIVITY STATEMENT OF JOY CHARLES SPRINGER DATE ACTIVITY TIME AMOUNT 6/28/90 Conference with JWW regarding Pulaski .5 Joint County School case 6/28/90 Reading and review of Pulaski County 1.5 Joint school settlement agreement 6/29/90 Conference with JWW regarding Incentive 3.5 LRSD school hearing; Preparation for hearing; review of Incentive school plan 6/30/90 Prehearing conference with JWW; Hearing 8.0 LRSD before Judge Wright re: Incentive school hearing; abstract of witness testimony 8/5/90 Review of LRSD desegregation plan 3.5 LRSD 8/21/90 Review of LRSD desegregation plan 4.0 LRSD 9/8/90 Review of PCSSD desegregation plan 4.0 PCSSD 10/15/90 Review of NLRSD desegregation plan 2.5 NLRSD c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 1 - I I I I I I I I I I .,I I I I I I I I 1/5/91 Conference with JW\\/v re: implemetationn JOINT of desegregation plan and discussion re: assistance Joshua can provide to parties re: implementation and identification of problem areas 1/6/91 Conference with JW\\/v re: plan JOINT implementation, assistance to District, and identification of problem areas 1/8/91 Pre-meeting conference with JW\\/v; JOINT meeting school district officials and lawyers regarding modifications to desegregation plan; took notes; post meeting conference 1/9/91 Meeting with school district officials and JOINT lawyers regarding plan modifications; post meeting conference with JW\\/v 1/10/91 Meeting with school districts officials and JOINT lawyers regarding plan modifications 1/11/91 Conference with PCSSD attorney, SJ, to PCSSD discuss plan modifications; travel to his office; parking $4.25 1/11/91 Preparation of memorandum to JW\\/v re: JOINT meetings with respect to plan modifications 1/14/91 Discussion of monitoring instrument with JOINT JW\\/v; preparation of same 1/15/91 Preparation of monitoring instrument JOINT 1/24/91 Preparation for hearing re: Aersospace LRSD proposal; telephone confemce with CJ re: implementation procedure; telephone with PCSSD,NLRD, LRSD re: implmentation procedure; preparation of exhibits; conference with JW\\/v re: trial strategy 1/25/91 Hearing before Judge Wright re: LRSD Aerospace grant proposal c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 2 3.0 1.0 1.9 6.0 5.5 3.0 2.0 2.5 4.0 4.5 1.0 I I I I I -1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1/30/91 Continued review of Aerospace proposal 2.0 LRSD 2/4/91 Continued review of Aerospace proposal 2.0 LRSD and LRSD desegregation plan 2/18/91 Deafted proposal for monitoring activities 6.5 JOINT and instrument for Joshua monitoring team 2/25/91 Conference with Joshua team members to 3.0 LRSD discuss monitoring activities and instrument; updated monitoring instrument; discussed LRSD schools to be monitored; conference with JW'N 2/26/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Mitchell 1.5 JOINT Incentive school to monitor Incentive school program with Joshua team members; conference with principal and visted classrooms 2/26/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to lsh 1.5 LRSD Incentive school to monitor Incentive school program with Joshua team members; conference with principal and visted classrooms 2/27/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Garland 2.0 LRSD Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; conference with principal and visited classrooms 2/27/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to 1.5 LRSD Stephens lncentve school to mointor incentive school program; conference with principal and visted classrooms 2/27/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to 1.5 LRSD Rightsell Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; confemce with principal and visited classrooms c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2/28/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LASO Rockefeller Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; conference with principal and visited clasrooms 2/28/91 Conference with team members to discuss LRSO results of monitoring visits and discussion of monitoring instrument for Incentive schools 3/1/91 Conference with team members to further LRSO discuss findings from incentive school visits and formulate draft report on findings 3/4/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to lsh and LRSO Mitchell Incentive schools to observe extended programs 3/4/91 Preparation of draft report re: first week's LRSO observations and findings at Incentive schools 3/5/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LASO LRSO elementary schools -Geyer Springs and Cloverdale for discussion and inspection of construction at these school with administration. Court approval? 3/5/91 Preparation of report regarding visits to LRSO elementary schools undergoing new construction 3/6/91 Conference with team members re: LASO findings with respect to Incentive school extended day programs 3/6/91 Preparation of report with respect to team LRSO findings at incentive school extended day programs 3/7/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LASO elementary schools-Baseline and Chicot for monitoring visit c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 4 2.0 2.5 1.5 2.3 2.5 1.5 1.3 2.0 1.0 1.8 I I I I I I I .1 I I I I .I I I I I I I 3/7/91 Conference with team members to discuss Letter to team members re: meeting to formulate plans for further monitoring activities monitoring instrument; updated same 3/7/91 Conference with Billy Bowles re: placement PCSSD of TAG program at Fuller Jr. High and concerns about school within school 3/8/91 Conference with parent in LRSD, A.Milner LRSD re: concerns at Booker Arts Magnet; educational placement for daughter, J. Milner 3/8/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD LRSD elementary schools-Gibbs and Pulaski Heights for monitoring visit 3/14/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD LRSD elementary schools for observation and informal visits to Wakefield, Chicot Mabelvale and Watson 3/15/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD LRSD elementary schools for observations - Meadowcliff and Wakefield *note: Wakefield's principal was off on 3/14/91 3/15/91 Conference with JWW to discuss findings LRSD with respect to previous weeks visits to schools 3/15/91 Telephone conference with parent, C. LRSD Sanders regarding student suspension, A. Burgess, a student at Pulaski Heights Jr. High; letter to LRSD atty, CH re: same 3/18/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Wakefield elementary school for observation c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 5 2.7 .5 2.5 2.4 4.0 1.0 1.0 .7 1.3 I I I I I I I I I I I  , I I I I I I I 3/18/91 Telephone conference with M. Mooney a PCSSD.3 parent of a student in PCSSD; voiced LRSD 2.2 concerns about segregation of certain programs; Preparation for LRSD hearing 3/19/91 Preparation for LR hearing; review of LRSD monitoring report re: on site visits to construction sites; conference with K. Herman and JWW 3/20/91 Prehearing conference with JWW; Court LRSD appearance with respect to plaintiff's and Joshua's concerns re: new construction in LR; post hearing conference with JWW 3/20/91 Conference with team members; preparation of monitoring instrument 3/21/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to PCSSD-PCSSD visited Sylvan Hill Jr. High school: observations of classrooms and conference with principal 3/21/91 Conference with team members regarding JOINT monitoring instrument; update instrument 3/22/91 Updated monitoring instrument JOINT 3/22/91 Telephone confernce with and review of PCSSD information provided by PCSSD parent, D . Blockmon-Mason re: suspension of son, W. Blackmon; failure of PCSSD to provide educational opportunities to son; memo to JWW regarding same 3/25/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD, JOINT PCSSD and NLRSD student assignment offices to pick up student enrollment numbers; analyze numbers and reviewed for compliance with desegregation commitments 3/25/91 Conference with team member, Rouse to JOINT assist in dissemination of tasks and strategies to be used by team members on Mure visits c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 6 3.5 4.0 2.5 2.0 2.3 1.0 1.5 .6 3.2 1.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3/27/91 Telephone confemce with LRSD parent, S. LRSD Pansy re: concerns at Central with respect to her daughter, K. Pansy and services received from school counselor; review of materials/documentation; Trip to Central; observations of school and conference with counselor and other staff members 3/28/91 Review of report prepared by LRSD Supt. LASO Steele re: 2.0 GPA as requirement for high school graduation 3/28/91 Telephone conference with NLRSD Deseg. NLRSD Supt. M. Bynum re: information in Monitor's report completed on district per Democrat article of 3/24/91 3/28/91 Review of information submitted to office PCSSD from PCSSD personal regarding \"phanthom figures\" being submitted and complaints about PCSSD 3/29/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to NLRSD NLRSD administrative offices to pick up 1st semester's monitoring report by biracial committees; review of report 4/2/91 Meeting/conference with team members to JOINT discuss monitoring instrument; Updated monitoring instrument 4/4/91 Review of letter from J. Huff regarding LRSD Incentive schools 4/4/91 Conference with team members re: JOINT monitoring instrument; reviewed instrument as updated; updated monitoring instrument 4/8/91 Orientation of new team member, 0. Sims JOINT 4/9/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to lsh LRSD Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; classroom visits and conference with principal, Dean c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 7 2.2 .3 .2 .3 1.5 9.0 .3 4.8 2.5 4.3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4/10/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Mitchell LRSD Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; classroom visits and conference with principal, Hudspeth 4/12/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Rockefeller Incentive school to monitor incentive program; classroom visits and confemce with principal, Mangum 4/12/91 Telephone conference and letter to LRSD LRSD hearing officer, R. Howard to request discipline statistics 4/13/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Garland LRSD Incentive school to monitor incentive school program; classroom visits and conference with principal, Dr. Simmons 4/15/91 Conference with JWW re: lack of parental LRSD involvement at Garland Incentive school; drafted letter to parents re: same; contacted LRSD for parent list for Garland; used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD administration office to pick up parent's list 4/16/91 Finalized letter to Garland parents and LRSD prepared mail out 4/17/91 Used personal vehicle for monitoring visit LRSD to Brady Elementary; conference with principal and visit to classrooms 4/17/91 Review and preparation of revised JOINT lnterdistrict plan 4/18/91 Conference with PCSSD officials regarding PCSSD revised desegregation plan; review of revised plan with JWW 4/22/91 Conference with LRSD officials, PACT \u0026 LRSD CTA regarding revised plan; review of revised LRSD plan c:\\wpdoe\\jce.stmt 8 3.5 2.5 .5 2.5 1.2 2.5 3.0 2.0 9.0 9.0 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 4/23/91 Review of LRSD plan LRSD 4/24/91 Used personal vehicle for visit to Baseline LRSD and Meadowcliff Elementary schools; confernce with principals and visits to classrooms 4/25/91 Used personal vehicle for visit to Jefferson. LRSD Fullbright and Williams Magnet elementaries; conference with principals and visits to classrooms 4/26/91 Review of LRSD plan LRSD 4/30/91 Review of data and conference with LRSD Garland Incentive school staff members and parents re: concerns about the school; Meeting with Garland parents re: same 5/1/91 Meeting with LRSD officials \u0026 JWW re: LRSD plan modifications 5/2/91 Reviewed LRSD plan modifications LRSD 5/7/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Cloverdale and Watson elementaries to pick up survey data 5/8/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Woodruff Elementary school; conference with principal and visit to classrooms 5/9/91 Used personal vehicle for trip to LRSD Metropolitan Vo-Tech and Southwest Jr. High School; conference with principals and classroom observations 5/10/91 Conference with team members to discuss LRSD observations during previous school visits c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 9 2.0 3.2 4.5 2.0 4.3 8.0 4.0 .7 1.5 5.0 2.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5/13/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Mabelvale Jr. High school; conference with principal and classroom observations 5/14/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD 6.7 McClellan High school; conference with PCSSD.7 principal and classroom observations; Conference with B. Bowles to advise of monitoring activities for PCSSD; attented meeting with Garland Incentive school parents 5/15/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to PCSSD PCSSD school- College Station elementary; conference with principal and classroom observations 5/15/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to North NLRSD Little Rock High School-West Campus; conference with principal and classroom observations 5/16/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to PCSSD PCSSD 6.0 schools-Fuller Elementary, Fuller Jr. High LRSD N/C and Mills High School; conference with principals and classroom observations; picked up survey from Metro. Cloverdale and Pulaski Heights 5/20/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Oak PCSSD 6.4 Grove Elementary and High schools; LRSD.6 conference with principal and classroom observations; Conference with parent, J. Tucker re: selection process for cheerleaders at Parkview; parent believes there were violations in process 5/21/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to PCSSD PCSSD schools-Robinson Elemntary, Jr. High and High schools; conference with principals and classroom observations c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 10 2.5 7.4 3.0 3.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5/22/91 Used personal vehicle for visit to PCSSD PCSSD schools-Sylvan Hills Elementary, Jr. High, and High schools; conference with principals and classroom observations 5/23/91 Used personal vehicle for visit to North NLRSD Little Rock Schools-Pine Elementary and Lakewood Middle; conference with principals and class observations 5/24/91 Conference with parent regarding drill NLRSD team selections at NLR East campus; telephone contact and letter to principal to secure handbook, selection criteria, etc. 5/28/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD LRSD Metro Vo-Tech; confemce with principal and obesevation in classrooms 5/29/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD LRSD schools- Mabelvale Jr. , Chicot, Bates, Gibbs to pick up survey data 5/30/91 Conference with NLR parent regarding NLRSD.7 questionable practices of selecting LRSD .6 cheerleading and drill team members; conference with parent, D. Walker regarding disparate treatment in NLR schools; used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Alternative school and travel to Central High school, conferences with principals and classroom observations 5/31/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to NLR - NLRSD Pine Elementary and LRSD-McCLellan High to pick up survey data; conference with Marty Moore regarding unfair treatment of her son by school officials 6/1/91 Preparation of conference material for JOINT ODM meeting c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 11 7.0 6.0 2.0 1.8 2.0 6.7 2.5 1.5 I I, . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6/2/91 Conference with Arma Hart of ODM's office JOINT re: monitoring plans 6/3/91 Conference with team members after JOINT meeting with ODM to strategize about monitoring activities 6/4/91 Conference with Ann Brown of ODM's JOINT office re: their plans for monitoring in the future 6/4/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive for interviews with potential teachers filling new Incentive school vacancies 6/4/91 Preparation of monitoring report for LRSD LRSD note: (evening work at home) 6/5/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive school for interviews with potential teachers; preparation of monitoring report (note: evening work at home) 6/10/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive school for interviews of potential staff; preparation of monitoring report including evening at home 6/11/91 Preparation of monitoring report including LRSD work at home until midnight 6/11/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive school for interviews with potential staff 6/12/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive school for interviews with potential staf; preparation of monitoring report including evening work at home to midnight c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 12 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 6.0 9.0 7.0 3.0 9.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6/13/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Booker LRSD Arts Magnet; conference with food service mgr re: disparate treatment; preparation of monitoring report including evening work at home 6/14/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Franklin LRSD Incentive school for staff interviews; Interview with parent, Clayton regarding disparate treatment of students at Fair Park; preparation of monioring report including evening work at home to midnight 6/15/91 Preparation of monitoring work includes LRSD evening work at home 6/16/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD evening work at home 6/17/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 7.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/18/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 7.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/19/91 Conference with Asst. Supt. Matthis LRSD regarding monitoring results; preparation of monitoring report 6/20/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 7.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/21/91 Review of Court's order; Preparation of LRSD 8.0 monitoring report includes evening work at PCSSD 2.0 home NLRSD 1.0 c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 13 8.0 8.5 2.0 2.0 10.0 10.0 5.5 10.0 11.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6/24/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 8.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/25/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 8.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/26/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 7.0 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/27/91 Preparation of monitoring report includes LRSD 8.5 evening work at home PCSSD 2.0 NLRSD 1.0 6/28/91 Conference with teachers from Cloverdale LRSD 8.0 Jr. High school re: complaints about PCSSD 2.0 principal Bradford; preparation of NLRSD 1.0 monitoring report includes evening work at home 6/29/91 Preparation of monitoring report LRSD 6/30/91 Preparation of monitoring report LRSD 7/1/91 Preparation of monitoring reports for PCSSD 6.0 PCSSD and NLRSD including evening NLRSD 4.0 work; conference with LRSD principal LRSD 1.0 regarding monitoring report; review of parties motion for reconsideration of Court's order of 6/21/91; Discussed wtih JWW 7/2/91 Conference with JWW and team members PCSSD 6.0 regarding monitoring report; preparation of NLRSD 5.0 monitoring report including evening work c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 14 11.0 11.0 10.0 11.5 11.0 3.0 4.0 11.0 11 .0 I ,I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7/3/91 Conference with parent, S. Jones on 6.6 PCSSD 3.6 behalf of son, T. Jones re: complaint vs NLRSD 3.0 PCSSD involving discipline; Conference with Supt. Lester re: Jones complaint; preparation of monitoring report for PCSSD and NLRSD 7/8/91 Preparation of monitoring report for LRSD, 11.0 LRSD 1.0 PCSSD and NLRSD including evening PCSSD 5.0 work NLRSD 5.0 7/9/91 Conference with S. Jones regarding 2.8 PCSSD PCSSD complaint; Used personal vehicle for travel to PCSSD Board meeting and made presentation on behalf of parent, S. Jones to Board of Education 7/9/91 Preparation of recommendations for LRSD 9.3 LRSD monitoring report; Discussed with JW'N 7/10/91 Preparation of recommendations LASO 10.5 LASO monitoring report; review of monitoring report 7/11/91 Review and preparation of monitoring 9.5 NLRSD 5.0 report for NLRSD \u0026 PCSSD PCSSD 4.5 7/12/91 Preparation of monitoring report NLRSD 7.0 NLRSD 4.0 and PCSSD PCSSD 3.0 7/15/91 Preparation and review of monitoring 6.0 PCSSD 3.0 report PCSSD and NLRSD NLRSD 3.0 7/16/91 Conference with LRSD, PCSSD and 8.8 JOINT 6.0 NLRSD attorneys re: court's order of LRSD 2.8 7/15/91 denying motion for reconsideration re: plan modifications; Used personal vehicle for travel to Parkview to monitor summer school; conference with principal and classroom observations; preparation and review of monitoring report including evening work c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 15 I I I I I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I 7/17/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to J.A. Fair 9.8 LRSD High school to monitor summer school, conference with principal and classroom observations; preparation and review of monitoring report and recommendations including evening work 7/18/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to Forest 8.8 LRSD Heights Jr. High school to monitor summer school, conference with principal and classroom observations; preparation and review of monitoring report and recommendations including evening work 7/19/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to 7.0 LRSD Rockefeller Incentive school to monitor summer school, conference with principal and classroom observations; preparation and review of monitoring report recommendations 7/20/91 Review of monitoring report draft 2.0 JOINT 7/22/91 Review of monitoring report draft 4.0 JOINT 7/22/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to 1.5 LRSD Washington elementary to monitor summer school program; conference with principal and classroom observations 7/23/91 Telephone conference with PCSSD Asst 1.2 PCSSD Supt B. Bowles regarding new interdistrict school, Crystal Hill and draft monitoring report; used personl vehicle for travel to administrative offices to delivert monitoring report to Bowles 7/23/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to 5.2 LRSD 4.6 Wakefield elementary to monitor summer NLRSD.6 school program; Review of monitoring report; Letter to NLR Supt Smith and Asst Supt Bynum re: results of desegregation monitoring c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 16 I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I 7/24/91 Conference with PCSSD officials including PCSSD Asst. Supt. regarding monitoring report results; review of monitoring report; Discussed with JWN and S. Jones 7/25/91 Letter to court, ODM and attorneys re: JOINT .4 Joshua monitoring report; conference wtih LRSD 1.6 LRSD officials re: administrative changes; PCSSD 2.0 review of PCSSD monitoring report 7/26/91 Review and finalized monitoring report JOINT draft 7/29/91 Conference with AR State Press reporter, JOINT A Smith re: Joshua's monitoring and report 7/31/91 Conference with parent, J. Morris re: son's JOINT course assignment; additional conferences with principal Anderson, and Supt E. Matthis 8/5/91 Revise and review monitoring instrument JOINT 8/6/91 Revision of monitoring instrument JOINT 8/7/91 Court appearance regarding motion for JOINT 2.5 stay on revised settlement; Telephone LRSD 1.0 conference with B.Brown and Supt Steele re: concerns at Garland; Letter to Supt Steele re: Garland c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 17 5.3 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 2.0 4.0 3.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8/12/91 Telephone and personal conferences with LRSD teacher with concerns about Chicot elementary which include: PAL program deficiencies, referral of students to spec ed, parental consent and involvement, disparate treatment between back and white staff and unprofessional actions of teachers towards students; review of LRSD schools improvement plans (evening work) 8/13/91 Review of LRSD schools improvement LRSD plans(evening work at home) 8/14/91 Telephone conference with parent of LRSD 5.6 student who attends Carver Magnet PCSSD.6 regarding the G/T program placements; telephone conference with spec ed teacher @ Sylvan Hills re: appropriate placement of spec ed student; review of LRSD school improvement plans(evening work at home); Telephone conference with parent of K. Wilson re: disparate treatment in PCSSD school 8/15/91 Letter to principal Guinn at Carver Magnet LRSD regarding G/T placements; review of LRSD improvement plans 8/16/91 Telephone conference with PCSSD Asst. PCSSD Supt B. Bowles re: PCSSD monitoring report and complaint parent of K. Wilson 8/26/91 Conference with staff members re: NLRSD disparate treatment of students@ NLRSD West campus 8/27/91 Orientation with new team member, JOINT 3.0 LaRhonda Pondexter and discussion of NLRSD.7 monitoring process and plans; Conference with parent S. Smith re: staff assignments at NLR West c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 18 6.2 2.0 6.2 8.0 .5 .3 3.7 I I I I I I I .1 I I I I .I I I I I I I 8/28/91 Meeting with team members regarding 2.5 JOINT new procedures for monitoring activities 8/28/91 Orientation with new team member, 4.0 JOINT 3.0 Pondexter; disscussion of plans and NLRSD 1.0 monitoring process; used personal vehicle for travel to NLR West campus 8/29/91 Orientation with new team member 3.0 JOINT Pondexter, discussion of plans and monitoring process 8/30/91 Orientation with new team member 2.0 JOINT Pondexter, discussions of plans and monitoring process 9/3/91 Orientation withe new team member 2.0 JOINT Pondexter, discussions of plans and monitoring process 9/4/91 Court appearance before 8th Circuit Court 2.5 JOINT 2.2 judges re: the proposed plan LRSD .3 modifications, abstract testimony and arguments; conference with principal at Garland Incentive school re: concerns 9/5/91 Meeting with incentive school parent 1.5 LRSD coordinator, C. Gill 9/9/91 Telephone conference with parent, L. 2.9 LRSD .4 Frierson re: transportation concerns of her PCSSD 1.0 children who attended Washington JOINT 1.0 elementary; telephone call to Dist. transporation to remedy and reinstate service; telephone conference with PCSSD parent, Wood re: District's failure to implement IEP for her two sons; conference with ODM regarding plans for future monitoring, tour of office and meeting with staff c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 19 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 9/10/91 Meeting with PCSSD Supt. B. Bowles re: PCSSD 2.0 Joshua plans for future monitoring of LRSD.5 District; telephone confernce with H. Fogg custodian at Chicot elementary re: disparate treatment by principal 9/12/91 Conference with LRSD Supt. J. Jennings LRSD re: Joshua plans for future monitoring and Incentive schools 9/13/91 Conference with NLRSD Supt. M. Bynum NLRSD 1.5 re: Joshua plans for future monitoring and LRSD.5 dates of visits; confemce with principal Guinn at Carver LRSD Conference with parent, L.\u0026 W. Ward re: disparate treatment of daughter L. Hunt, student @ J.A. Fair 9/18/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to J.A. Fair LRSD and McClellan to discuss LRSD's motion for class renovations with principals Carter and Niven; used personal vehicle for travel to Incentive schools: Stephens, Franklin Mitchell and Garland for informal monitoring visits 9/19/91 Used personal vehicle for travel to LRSD Incentive schools: lsh, Rockefeller, and Rlghtsell for informal visits 9/20/91 Conference with JWW re: findings at LRSD Incentive schools, J.A. Fair and McClelllan; File organization 9/23/91 Review of Incentive school monitoring LRSD report information; letter to J. Jennings re: monitoring visits to Incentive schools c: \\wpdos\\jcs. stmt 20 2.5 2.5 2.0 .3 6.0 3.0 4.0 2.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9/24/91 Monitoring visits to PCSSD school- PCSSD Jacksonville High; conference with principal and clasroom visits 9/25/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD schools-North PCSSD Pulaski High school and Arnold Drive elementary; conference with principal and classroom visits 9/26/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD school- PCSSD 2.5 Pinewood Elementary; conference with LRSD .5 principal and classroom observations; conference with parent, P. Simmons re: excessive corporal punishment by music teacher at Mabelvale elementary 9/30/91 Monitoring visit to Sylvan Hills elementary; PCSSD 2.5 conference with principal and clasroom LRSD .7 observations; telephone conference and personal conference with principal at LRSD Alternative school; Principal wants JWW to request adequate compenstion and benefits on her behalf 10/1/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD school- Dupree PCSSD 3.0 Elementary; conference with principal and LRSD .5 classroom observations; telephone confemce with parent, Bell re: expulsion recommendation 10/2/91 Telephone confemce with parent, T. Calvin LRSD re: suspension of son, M. Murphy from school at Horace Mann; conference with principal; telephone conferenc with parent, L. Bell re: expulsion recommendation; Hearing before Howard; charge modified c:\\wpdos\\jcs.stmt 21 5.0 6.0 2.8 3.2 3.5 1.6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10/3/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD school- Sylvan PCSSD Hills Jr. High; conference with principal and classroom observations 10/8/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD schools - Oak PCSSD Grove Elementary, Jr. High and High schools; conference with principal and classroom observations; discipline hearing before PCSSD Board 10/9/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD - Jacksonville PCSSD 3.5 South Jr. High; conference with principal LRSD.2 and classroom observations; telephone conference with parent, A. Wayne re: explusion recommendation of son from Mabelvale Jr. High school 10/10/91 Monitoring visit to PCSSD schools- Scott PCSSD elementary and Scott Alternative school; conference with principal and classroom observations 10/11/91 Hearin "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1358","title":"Proceedings: ''Motion to Consider Teachers' Strike''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1996-08-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School employees","Teachers","Employee rights","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Motion to Consider Teachers' Strike''"],"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/1358"],"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":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["281 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":450,"next_page":451,"prev_page":449,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":5388,"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}}]}}